Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'confirmed'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The HarpGamer Forums: General Quarters
    • Forum Guidelines
    • Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
    • Military History
    • Current Events
    • Shore Leave
  • Harpoon Classic/Commander's Edition
    • General
    • Scenario Design & Discussion
    • Database Design & Discussion
    • Wish Lists
    • Defect Tracking
    • HC Beta Testing
  • Harpoon (Paper Rules)
    • General
    • Scenario Design & Discussion
    • PBEM / MBX Wargaming
  • Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations
    • General
    • Scenario Design & Discussion
  • Stratsims
    • CIC (Combat Information Center)
    • CIC MP01 (Warfare Plotter)
  • Other Wargames
    • General
  • Harpoon 3/ANW
    • General
    • Scenario Design & Discussion
    • Database Design & Discussion
    • HUD4

Categories

  • Harpoon Classic/HC/HCE/HUCE
    • Databases
    • Scenarios
    • BattleSets
    • Tools/Mods/Docs
  • Harpoon 2/3/ANW
    • Databases
    • Scenarios
    • BattleSets
    • Tools/Docs
  • Command
    • Scenarios
  • SimPlot
    • Scenarios
    • Maps
    • Application/Tools/Mods/Docs

Categories

  • Ships
  • Submarines
  • Aircraft
  • Land Vehicles
  • Installations
  • Mounts
  • Magazines
  • Sensors
  • Weapons

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests


What is the common name of the AGM-84?

Found 18 results

  1. When attacking a ship with guns the number of rounds the GE selects to destroy a target is much larger than what is really required to sink target. Attached is a test scenario based on my fictional db. Issue verified by TonyE TonyE Note: AttackDoctrineWithRisk uses the AllocateRounds logic which is meant for missiles (which can be shot down), not for guns. Guns Test.scq
  2. Hey TonyE I was trying to make a map for the possible new Battleset. I have had on and off luck with it but lately all I get when trying to produce it is this error and then have to close the creator with Task Manager. Attached is the screen shot I get. TonyD
  3. Issue Information Issue ID #000003 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status 10 - Confirmed Version 0000.000 Fixed in Error downloading scenarios?Posted by broncepulido on 06 December 2012 - 03:44 PM Trying to downloading some old scenarios, as the Battle of El Arish, I see it's not feasible, or I'm very dumb today: http://harpgamer.com...le-of-el-arish/ Issue-3-Error-downloading-scenarios_.pdf
  4. Issue Information Issue ID #000008 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status 10 - Confirmed Version 2009.072 Fixed in Stopping Submarines problemPosted by broncepulido on 29 January 2013 - 04:22 PM I was thinking was bad scenario planification in "The Halibut scenario" and playing red the blue submarines are undetected but never find the "cable", but not, now also the blue submarines stopped after 20 minutes game time Issue-8-Stopping-Submarines-problem.pdf
  5. Issue Information Issue ID #000017 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status 10 - Confirmed Version 2009.076 Fixed in GE allows launching AAMs on target without exact fixPosted by Grumble on 09 May 2013 - 11:00 AM When a target is in range of an AAM the GE allows launch on target without exact fix. This is regardless of guidance type, so IR, SARH and Active Homing, etc., all affected. The attacking a/c (well, the attacking side) should have exact fix before allowed to launch, currently the "Should we attempt to locate ..." SA message is only triggered if the target is out of range of the AAM. Expected behavior: GE should always prompt attacker first to locate target if there is no exact fix on it. [ Hopefully the "Should we attempt to locate" case is coded for the AI side otherwise fixing this issue would make the AI less potent in defending itself. However currently the AI probably enjoys unfair advantage too, it was reported on the forum that Mig31s are launching long range AAMs on F-22s when those are too far away to have exact fix on the stealth a/c (unconfirmed). ] Sequence to reproduce: Load original GIUK user scenario nofix.sc1 Turn off Kinloss base radar and launch Tornado F3 patrol to Cape Wrath. (savegame nofixF3.hp1) Turn on Tornado radar when onsta to locate Tu-95 loitering North of Cape Wrath. The Tornado will loose fix on the Bear as it turns South while loitering (savegame nofixF3nofix.hp1) Order the Tornado to attack the Bear, GE allows launch of Skyflash and Sidewinders without exact fix. Restart or order the Tornado home and launch F-14s to patrol over the Norwegian sea, halfway to Faroe Islands. There is an uncertain Recon Bear contact over the Islands. (savegame nofixF14.hp1) Order the Tomcat to attack the Recon Bear when still more than 110nm away from the Islands. GE correctly prompts player to "Locate..." Send the Tomcat further North (savegame nofixF14inrange.hp1) Attack the Bear again, GE allows launch without exact fix if the Bear is in range of the Phoenixes. Attached the scenario and the savegames. Issue-17-GE-allows-launching-AAMs-on-target-without-exact-fix.pdf nofix.zip
  6. Issue Information Issue ID #000016 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status 10 - Confirmed Version 2009.076 Fixed in Debug Assertion Failed Wespac Scenario CrashPosted by eeustice on 06 May 2013 - 07:21 PM Edited Westpac scenario The Backyard crashed with a Debug Assertion Failed message just as a group of F-14 ran out of gas and crashed into the sea just before getting to their carrier. I have included in the zipped files the last 2 saved games the launcher saved. I also had a CV group AEC just vanish from the screen a while before that. If you wanted to land planes on the carrier you could see it in the Select Group for landing window however it NM went up to 5518 but the remaining fuel on the plane groups did not change and groups could still land on the CV's. However you could see the ships in the group if you placed the unit window over it location. I don't know if the 2 are related. I also included the saved game before and after AEC disappeared. It is the same db as in yesterdays issue but I have included it into the zip file too as well as a screen shot of the fault. If you need any additional info please let me know. Issue-16-Debug-Assertion-Failed-Wespac-Scenario-Crash.pdf wp4-2.0029.zip
  7. Issue Information Issue ID #000029 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status 10 - Confirmed Version 2009.084 Fixed in HDS3 range circles off by 10%Posted by Grumble on 16 July 2013 - 12:53 AM Range circles in HDS3 are displayed 10% shorter than the nominal value. This does not seem to effect the game mechanics, for example AAM attacks are made from the true possible distance, but the display shows that AAMs are fired when the target is still outside of the AAM range circle. First I spotted only the AAM discrepancy but click-measuring easily shows that all circles are off. E.g. clicking the opposite edges of Phoenix AAM range circle: 199-200nm (expected 2x110nm) F-14D AS radar: 326-330nm (expected 2x180nm) Kirov's SA-N-6: 89-90nm (expected 2x50nm) This can be tested in any HDS3 scenario but attached a simple user scen. and savefile with loitering F-14 and F-15. Should not forget, crosschecked with HDS1, there range circles are displayed true to size. Issue-29-HDS3-range-circles-off-by-10%.pdf HDS3circ.zip
  8. Issue Information Issue ID #000034 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status 10 - Confirmed Version 2009.085 Fixed in SE Crashes if incorrect aircraft type is selectedPosted by eeustice on 27 July 2013 - 05:58 PM SE crashed while trying to add helo's on TF ships in Battle Set HDS9. Problem occurred when an SH-60 Seahawk was attempted to be added to the USS Yorktown which is not on the list of Helo's that can be used on that type of ship. Suggest that when an incorrect aircraft type is accidently selected that the Add button is disabled. Same should happen if a Ship has no air craft capability. Several ship classes have a 0 aircraft capacity, but a list of aircraft appear. Example's: US AO Cimarron Class US LSD Whidbey Island Class US LSD Class Anchorage Class US LPD Raleigh Class US DDG Arleigh Burke Class US CG Leahy Class US LCC Blue Ridge Class US CGN Long Beach Class If you have any questions please let me know. Eric 34-SE-Crashes-if-incorrect-aircraft-type-is-selected.pdf HDS91039.zip
  9. Issue Information Issue ID #000032 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status 10 - Confirmed Version 2009.083 Fixed in Loiter at cruise speedPosted by Grumble on 26 July 2013 - 10:41 AM Aircrafts loitering at med or high altitude change indicated speed to cruise speed after saving then loading the game or cancelling an attack order. E.g. when the a/c prompts to launch weapons but the player cancels it. (there are probably other situations when this happens, these two are the most apparent) The a/c holds position and Throttle remains at "Loiter" but the Kts number changes to the a/c's med altitude cruise speed. Test scenario, load savegame 1 Group ACA loiters high, speed 405kts, order it to loiter at med (or high), ACA indicated speed changes to 300kts, save and then load the game, ACA speed is 405kts again order it to loiter at low, save and then load the game, ACA speed stays at 300kts load savegame 2 ACA is intercepting ZYA on high altitude and will prompt to launch AAMs in a few seconds, cancel the launch, cancel the "Return home" prompt, ACA starts to loiter but speed is 405kts Change ACA altitude to low before launch, after cancelling ACA loiters at 300kts speed Issue-32-Loiter-at-cruise-speed.pdf LOITER.zip
  10. Issue Information Issue ID #000057 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status 10 - Confirmed Version 2009.097 Fixed in GE - Fix formation station-keepingPosted by TonyE on 02 October 2013 - 11:13 AM The inability of group members to properly keep their stations in formation is a long-standing and well-known issue. Time to take another look at it and see what can be done. To investigate: * Station keeping in groups that have paths defined in the SE and remain untouched in the GE. * Station keeping in groups with no path and speed set. * Station keeping in groups that are moving at Flank speed. * Station keeping in groups at 5kts/creep. * Station keeping in groups that are composed of units split from other groups. * Station keeping in groups that are the result of joining multiple groups together. Issue-57-GE-Fix-formation-station-keeping.pdf
  11. Issue Information Issue ID #000082 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Asssigned Status 10 - Confirmed Version 2014.013 Fixed in Window DetailPosted by eeustice on 20 August 2014 - 08:09 PM Window Detail box not aligned with data in the new SE, Attached is a screen shot of the box. If you have any questions please let me know. Thanks, E Issue-82-Window-Detail.pdf Window Detail.zip
  12. Issue Information Issue ID #000077 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status 10 - Confirmed Version 2014.010 Fixed in Mk2 Eagle Eye - 40nm visual detection of GBU/SDB/PGMPosted by Grumble on 15 July 2014 - 01:43 AM Linked to the Mk1 there is one other complication PGMs as Brad pointed out are supposed to be immune to AAM/SAM, they got very low RCS like the 6 for GBU-53 SDB II, to ensure this, but they are still being intercepted by AAM and SAM. Most GBUs have "High" max altitude and so these fly to target on High, I guess they are detected visually, as per 5.4.2. Radar log shows that radar detection is indeed impossible, in the first detection cycle missile is "not detected", but in the second cycle they are already "not detected" by radar, but also "Target was previously tracked". In the attached save game, 2x2 F-35B is ready to drop GBUs on SAM sites, but all 32 of them is going to be shot down. Switching to red side (044 red.hpm), Staff Assistant reports the visual detection indeed. Probably gliders should be exempted from under 5.4.2, or a workaround could be to update GBUs max altitude to medium in the DB. Issue-Mk2-Eagle-Eye-40nm-visual-detection-of-GBU_SDB_PGM.pdf 044 bombsaway.zip
  13. Issue Information Issue ID #000063 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status 10 - Confirmed Version 2009.102 Fixed in VTOL Tu-22MPosted by Grumble on 26 October 2013 - 12:55 PM Planes are ignoring runway size (in HDS8?). The very least AI formation patrols and scenario embedded strike missions do. Tu-22m bombers are based only at ZTa Bangalore, In HDS8 9.0, but the bombers were still harassing me after I reduced Bangalore runway size to VTOL-only with an antirunway mission. (showall) The two savefiles attached show the Backfires caught in the act. On the ground in the first, 5 minutes later airborne. ZTa also still has Su-27 and Mig-31 formation patrols. Using showall I was also able to manually launch bombers. Landing is restricted ok, ZTa is not available for them. Runway size should ideally restrict any airops, patrols and also homecoming planes, bingo, winchester, etc. Hint: should it be too complicated to redirect AI planes, catch this case on landing and crash them "due to pilot error" . Issue-63-VTOL-Tu-22M.pdf 068.0082.zip
  14. Issue Information Issue ID #000101 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status 10 - Confirmed Version 2014.020 Fixed in ASW mortars and depth charges ASW attacks not workingPosted by broncepulido on 22 November 2014 - 04:23 AM If you play the attached test scenario (HCDB standard 1980-2015, EC 2003 Battleset GIUK Gap, Blue Side), sailing with the Swedish Tupper-class PG group with active sonar active and radiating on the marked course, detecting the three midget submarine targets, trying to shoot them with the ELMA ASW RL bow antisubmarine mortars to the submarine targets, and after surpassed the submarine targets trying to shoot them with the DC 4 rack stern depth charge rail, the results are no shoots,and you get a blank "Weapons Allocation" dialog window as showed on the attached Word file. Issue-101-ASW-mortars-and-depth-charges-ASW-attacks-not-working.pdf SUBTESTASW.zip Harpoon Test Short Range ASW.doc
  15. Issue Information Issue ID #000106 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status 10 - Confirmed Version 2014.019 Fixed in Ships traveling on landPosted by SteveF on 22 March 2015 - 01:23 AM Good morning! I've been playing Harpoon since about 1998 and have run into this issue for years. The Opfor see's my battle group and heads directly for my group even if it means traveling across dry land. Is there a fix that may be coming at some time? Thanks, Issue-106-Ships-traveling-on-land.pdf
  16. Issue Information Issue ID #000136 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status 10 - Confirmed Version 2015.027 Fixed in Weird sonar range graphics on display on Scenario EditorPosted by broncepulido on 18 December 2015 - 12:23 AM When clicking on "display" units to see the sonar range in the Scenario Editor (and only in the Scenario Editor), in each sonar type present in the unit you get the same weird range values, as showed in the attached file, and with the same absurd (left of the scale) range, and always with one fixed Convergence Zone. Issue-136-Weird-sonar-range-graphics-on-display-on-Scenario-Editor.pdf TEST WEIRD SONAR GRAPHICS IN SE 12-2015.doc
  17. Issue Information Issue ID #000152 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status 10 - 0 Confirmed Version 2015.025 Fixed in Add New Magazine to dbPosted by eeustice on 24 May 2016 - 07:39 PM Anytime a new magazine is added to the db, the db Exports without a problem. When trying import same db a Runtime 3022 error occurs. The zip file includes the following: Copy of zipped good commandb.res file HCEEFDB-160524 Good pfData2005 file Good commandb.res file. Screen shots od Runtime error message Debug files from Access Current PE Version is 2015.025 Current SE Version is 2016.002 Current GE Version is 2016.003 The files provided are good files. All that is needed is to add a magazine in the PE. The problem starts from there. Adding a Mount does not create a fault in the db Import. If you have any questions please let me know. Thanks, Eric Issue-152-Add-New-Magazine-to-db.pdf Add New Magazine.zip
  18. Issue Information Issue ID #000168 Issue Type Issue Severity 0 - None Assigned Status 10 - Confirmed Version 2016.010 Fixed in Returning to base aircrafts no landing Posted by broncepulido on 21 November 2016 - 01:30 PM Testing a few days ago the "Kuznetsov at Bay" scenario, I discovered at least two times an aircraft group with order to return to base a few minutes of gameplay ago, are not landing in Akrotiri, they're circling in the proximity of Akrotiry a few nm NE (one group is of Typhoons and the other or Tornadoes). Without more testing, at least I did save both situations as attached files. Perhaps some "out of the screen" circling could explain the mysterious loss of aircraft detected by Brad a few days ago. issue-168-Returning-to-base-aircrafts-no-landing-HarpGamer.pdf TEST LANDING 2.zip
×
×
  • Create New...