Search the Community

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000019 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 12 – Working as Intended ⦁ Version 2009.076 ⦁ Fixed in 2009.076 Standoff jamming does not modify missile PhPosted by Grumble on 21 May 2013 - 04:12 PM I was thinking whether to post this as a question for the General or open an Issue. Common sense says that escort and standoff jamming both should influence radar guided missile hit probability, I finally decided "Issue" after I found this post of Tony http://harpgamer.com...e-notes/?p=6008 Test scenario is in HDS1. Two flight of bombers are loitering just NE of Kinloss. ZXA 4 x Tu-16 Bmbr + 1 x Tu-16 J EW ZYA 4 x Tu-16 Bmbr The two groups are on top of each other, ZXA at High, ZYA at Medium 4 F-14s are ready to assist with the test just 3nm S of them. (savegame: EW) Firing 4 x AIM120 at ZXA000 (the escorted Badgers) yields PH 45 101455 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 45, Roll: 38 101455 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 45, Roll: 98 101455 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 45, Roll: 89 101455 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 45, Roll: 29 101455 effect4.c:5176 - CheckAirMissileHits 4 x AIM-120 AMRAAM against RED 4 x Tu-16 Badger G, 2 hits As far as I can tell that is 40 DPh for AMRAAM + 30 - 20 for escort Tu-16 ECM - 5 for Tu-16 Bmbr DATA Firing 4 x AIM120 at ZYA000 (the "standoffed" Badgers) yields PH 65 101462 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 65, Roll: 27 101462 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 65, Roll: 3 101462 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 65, Roll: 57 101462 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 65, Roll: 58 101462 effect4.c:5176 - CheckAirMissileHits 4 x AIM-120 AMRAAM against RED 4 x Tu-16 Badger G, 4 hits E.g. no standoff jamming bonus of -20 PH for the Badgers Just to crosscheck kill of the EW bird, with AIM9 of course, confirms nicely that IR AAM is unaffected by EW and attack again remainder of ZXA, now without EW escort gives same PH 65 101529 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 65, Roll: 0 101529 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 65, Roll: 35 101529 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 65, Roll: 39 101529 combat3.c:1477 - AirToAirResolution Ph: 65, Roll: 20 101529 effect4.c:5176 - CheckAirMissileHits 4 x AIM-120 AMRAAM against RED 4 x Tu-16 Badger G, 4 hits I expected and posts suggest too that ZYA should have also received the PH bonus against AAMs. Issue-019-Standoff-jamming-does-not-modify-missile-Ph.pdf EW.zip

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000030 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 12 – Working as Intended ⦁ Version 2009.083 ⦁ Fixed in Radar LOS calculation errorPosted by Grumble on 21 July 2013 - 01:33 PM Radar LOS is not calculated correctly, radars detect targets over the horizon and LOS. Most recently I observed this in HDS3 9.0, I hoped to be able to "sneak out" my Tel Aviv Hawkeye from under the Damascus SAM umbrella by pairing it with a ground attack a/c. (Otherwise the Hawkeye is spawned at high altitude immediately at take off, which I guess is a compromise for AEW, but a painful one.) The trick works, the Hawkeye-Skyhawk twosome starts at low but Damascus is still detecting them and launches SAMs. The test scenario demonstrates this by launching the pair from Nevatim, load the scenarios as RED, Damascus immediately detects the E-2C at 149nm, well beyond true LOS. The -l radar log confirms the wrong LOS. 100001 search.c:881 - Radar Emitter=Damascus Target=E-2C Hawkeye, TargetRange=149, Radar LOS = (BaseLOS x weather_mod + 128)/256 100001 search.c:882 - Radar LOS of 246nm = (246nm x 256 + 128)/256 --> Radar LOS=60644/256 100001 search.c:888 - A RCS=164 TName=E-2C Hawkeye AName=Damascus Range=149 Die=37 aPD=70 100001 search.c:961 - B RCS=164 ARng=300 Arng=300 SRng=60 Srng=60 100001 search.c:1020 - Detected E-2C Hawkeye with Air Radar of range 300 with PD 70, Roll=37 100001 search.c:1040 - Type and Height of target known Tested with 2009.050,076 and 083, I have not yet installed 086 but I guess the radar model was not changed. Issue-030-Radar-LOS-calculation-error.pdf LOS.zip LOS 1.zip

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000076 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 12 – Working as Intended ⦁ Version 2014.020 ⦁ Fixed in 2014.020 Mk1 Eagle Eye - 50nm visual detection?Posted by Grumble on 13 July 2014 - 05:28 AM Background: Playing EC2003 Bear Baiting user scenario, red AI is consuming my Rafales fast. The F2 and F3 versions have only the 27nm Mica AAM vs. +40nm Alamos and Adders, but theoretically this should be manageable with the help of the Rafale's low RCS, the Su-27S 65nm radar detects it at max 12nm and even the Su-27SM's 135nm radar has max 25nm range on it (don't mess with the Su-35 though ). But in practice the Sukhois either pre-launch me or immediately return fire even if I use IR Mica from the rear, e.g. they have already fix on me when I approach. How? I turncoated my iterated save files to witness the detection event myself and it was that red Fighters on low altitude detect blue, high Rafales as they come closer than 50nm, even if the Rafale approaches outside of the front 60o arc. This is both for military and cruise throttle (I avoided AB). Is this working as intended? 50nm visual detection on a Rafale feels extreme. Attached save file, it is turncoated to Blue AI, Red Human. DQA is attacking ZJA on medium. Set DQA to high and ZJA will visually detect DQA come the next cycle. Issue-076-Mk1-Eagle-Eye-50nm-visual-detection.pdf bda.zip

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000097 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 12 – Working as Intended ⦁ Version 2014.020 ⦁ Fixed in 2014.020 SE32 Enter Time Delta for EventPosted by broncepulido on 06 November 2014 - 10:39 AM I think is the first time I essay to configure an air patrol to launch in the new SE32 (the rest did go fine in my first complete scenario designed 100% with SE32)and surprise, the "enter time variation" in % option is in grey in the dialog and not operative, as showed in the attached file image. Issue-097-SE32-Enter-Time-Delta-for-Event.pdf HARPOON ERROR ENTER TIME DELTA FOR EVENT.doc Harpoon LR repeat patrol dialog 2.doc

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000134 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 12 – Working as Intended ⦁ Version 2015.025 ⦁ Fixed in Problem naming individual shipsPosted by broncepulido on 23 November 2015 - 10:11 AM After installing 2015.25 and 2015.26 the individual ship names are changed without clear pattern, both in SE and GE. As example: - I did modify scenario Prelude to Desert Storm 1990 (the attached scenario is the same version in the downloads section at 23 November 2015), to "recovery" the actual historical shipnames. - I didn't modify scenario Clash of DDGs: Spratly Islands 2015, to verify the differences between a modified and an unmodified scenario after 2015.25-2015.26 (the attached scenario is the same version in the downloads section at 23 November 2015). In the previously to the modification employing 2015.25 and 2015.26, in the Prelude to Desert Storm 1990 scenario both in GE and SEwere present these shipnames alterations: - FF Knox-class Downes was called erroneously Meyerkord (and is not a near name in the scroll). - FFG Halyburton-class Rentz was called erroneously Klakring (and is not a near name in the scroll). - FFG Underwood-class Vandergrift was erroneously called Kauffman (and is not a near name in the scroll). - CG Leahy-class England was erroneously called Leahy (and is not a near name in the scroll).​ - The neutral ship names are also all altered, I think (I choosed for them "Arabic" names from the scroll list, and now are not present, i.e. they should be showed if we load the scenario with 2015.24, or perhaps not?). In the unmodified DDG clash 2015 Spratly Islands WestPac scenario (I think was designed with 2015.24 SE) both in GE and SE are present these shipnames alterations - The starring DDG Arleigh Burke IIA-class named Lassen is now called Donald Cook (and is not a near name in the scroll) - The Red/Chinese ship names are also all translocated: - DDG Kunming Type 052D-class "Kunming 172" is now called "119" (and is not a near name in the scroll). - DDG Luyang Type 052C-class "Lanzhou 170" is now called "Xian 153" (and is not a near name in the scroll). - FF Jianghu II Type 053/1-class "Taizhou 533" is now called correctly "Taizhou 533" (but I changed this name 31 October, some days after the scenario release in 27 October). Only this last Chinese ship name is not changed, and perhaps because it was modified after. Issue-134-Problem-naming-individual-ships.pdf DDG CLASH 10 2015.zip DESERT SHIELD 1990.zip

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000143 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 12 – Working as Intended ⦁ Version 2015.027 ⦁ Fixed in 2015.027 Platform EditorPosted by cdnice on 18 January 2016 - 06:12 PM Hello, Long time player of Harpoon and just getting back into it. I have a Windows 7 Pro system with a fresh install of Harpoon Ultimate patched to the latest version and I have installed the game on a secondary hard drive (d:). My issue is that I can not get the Platform Editor to access the DB at all. When it loads up I see the menu form fine but the data file line and db name is blank. If I try to import a new database it does nothing. I typed the location of the data file in manually and when I click enter or browse I get the message in the attached capture. Looking for some assistance as I would love to see what has been added in the latest db. Thank you, Dale Issue-143-Platform-Editor.pdf

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000144 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 2 – Fair ⦁ Status 12 – Working as Intended ⦁ Version 2015.025 ⦁ Fixed in 2015.025 Platform Annex, Mount AnnexPosted by gkm on 22 January 2016 - 06:57 PM DB editor balks on adding data. I can not attach files, your site says that I am not allowed to attach certain types of files MSWord (with screenshots), MS Access. Issue-144-Platform-Annex-Mount-Annex.pdf Official HC db Screen Shots.zip pfData2005.zip This is a description of what I have been running into on the Platform Editor.zip

Issue Information ⦁ Issue ID #000159 ⦁ Issue Type Issue ⦁ Severity 0 – None Assigned ⦁ Status 12 – Working as Intended ⦁ Version 2016.017 ⦁ Fixed in 2016.017 Fox-3, but activating radar!Posted by broncepulido on 23 August 2016 - 11:14 AM Testing the F-35A Learning Curve scenario I see when a F-35A flight (or Portuguese Air Force F-16) is ordered to intercept Russian warplanes, even within or beyond AIM-120 AMRAAM missile range, the F-35A (or F-16) radar is activated, delating our presence to the opossite side. One of the main ideas of active radar homing missiles is to not reveal the launcher plane position, but with those actiones their position is revealed. I comment this basically because I'm almost sure in previous builts (for years?) when a fighter launch Fox-2 (passive IR guidance) or Fox-3 (active radar homing missile) the launcher radar is not activated, only in the cases of Fox-1 (semi-active radar homing missile) lauch. I'm not sure if my description is real, or simply my memory fail. Can it be changed/corrected? Thanks. https://en.wikipedia...Fox_(code_word) Issue-159-Fox-3-but-activating-radar.pdf