IMO, the whole issue of "unfair advantage" for the AI has waxed and waned over the years, and - like Big Foot - it has been debunked and yet still holds a cadre of believers. For example, a friend of mine steadfastly insists that he once read somewhere that a vocal group of users insisted that the game was "too easy" and so the developers (whoever they were at that time) supposedly made some tweeks to the game in order to overcome some things that made it "too easy" for the player to win.

 

I don't know who the 'cadre of believers' are, other than you and your still mysterious friend, but they are welcome to speak up. Maybe if we can't get anywhere with your particular problem, we might be able to help them with theirs? As for the 'developers', two of them are right here in this thread. The game has seen plenty of 'tweaks' over the years, and is still being 'tweaked'. None of them ever created an invincible AI, however, or some method of the AI having a set of loaded dice.

 

OK, fine... but this is all ground that's been churned before:

 

Cadre of believers: Have you ever actually read any of the posts around here?? If so, then your question seems to be moot.

 

"Mysterious" friend: As I've mentioned several times in the past, it is highly unlikely that he will ever post here again - as he is still fuming five years or more after the ass-chewing that he received from certain "involved parties". (And frankly, I can't say that I blame him). I think it's a bit late to help with that problem!

 

Developers: Because I've never actually seen the described story, I can only relay the impression that I get about it referring to the early days of the game. I mean, he's been playing since the Three-Sixty version at least, and has been mentioning the story for ten or fifteen years now.

 

 

I'm not looking for the AI to roll over and play dead, because figuring out legitimate ways to overcome legitimate advantages would be part of the fun and the challenge. It's just that from where I sit, these "advantages" don't seem to be legitimate, and that makes it difficult to assess the value of the chosen tactics.

 

Some folks think the AI is too easy as it is, right now.

 

Yeah - that was the gist of the story, wasn't it??? (Shoot - see your own quote above!)

 

 

Bottom line is that although I have found ways to be (quite) successful in the game, I end up feeling like the tactics I've developed are largely "cheats" ...

 

Well, since neither multi-axis attack or wave attack seems to work for you, except via brute force, I am curious about what does work. Can you be more specific? What methodologies do you employ?

 

Again, the answer to that is already detailed in the referenced post... (What am I missing here?)

 

 

Oh, and I'll ask again, what was the issue with 'permission' to post in this thread? (It seems to be okay now, I assume?)

 

I apologize for not replying "promptly enough", but be aware that I did not receive the usual eMail notification of replies until just now - possibly because of the merged thread?

 

The situation you ask about was this:

- I read and started a reply to the posted reply in question. Nothing seemed to be unusual until I had completed my reply and tried to preview it.

- At that point, instead of a preview, it presented a pink box that said something to the effect that an "error had occurred... You do not have permission to post replies to this thread". (Not an exact quote, I'm sure, but my best recollection of it). It also presented a set of login boxes.

- Thinking there was just some hiccup, I used the Back button and then tried again... same result.

- Now really puzzled, I checked that I was, in fact, still logged in... It showed that I was.

- So, I tried posting the reply (rather than previewing it)... same result as before.

- Next, I tried to create a new topic; This gave a similar error, although the wording said something to the effect that I did not have permission to post topics in this forum.

- Figuring I'd been blacklisted, I logged out (and got the usual logout result).

- Wondering whether I was even allowed into the forum anymore, I tried to log back in. That worked (but only after three tries).

- So, I tried posting a topic. As originally, it allowed me to start editing, so I pasted my reply, and posted the topic... that worked.

- I then decided to try replying to the original topic. That also worked normally at that time.

 

 

Reminder: You're going to have to provide savegames again for us to get anywhere, ultimately, with figuring out your issues.

In light of the information posted in my transplanted reply, I was awaiting suggestions on what tack was going to be worthwhile under the circumstances. It's obviously not going to be worth my time or yours to create more game-saves if they really don't behave the same anywhere else... correct?

Cadre of believers: Have you ever actually read any of the posts around here?? If so, then your question seems to be moot.

 

Joe, I have yet to see any evidence of your particular 'issue' being the same as anything reported by anyone else. This may be related to the fact that your issue cannot be nailed down.

 

Other folks reporting a 'challenging' AI could be related to an unbalanced scenario, a different database/battleset, or maybe they're just new to the game and are unsure how to play.

 

Time and again, both Tony and I have advised that generalities will not help.

 

Again, I have asked quite plainly that if anyone has problems like yours, they should step up so we can identify this problem. Cue crickets.

 

"Mysterious" friend: As I've mentioned several times in the past, it is highly unlikely that he will ever post here again - as he is still fuming five years or more after the a** chewing that he received from certain "involved parties". (And frankly, I can't say that I blame him). I think it's a bit late to help with that problem!

 

This forum has now been up and running for six years. If the alleged "a** chewing" occurred here, the exchange will be still posted here.

 

Again, the answer to that is already detailed in the referenced post... (What am I missing here?)

 

So, are we to understand that only brute force works for you? Pummel them until they run out of weapons? Is that it?

 

I apologize for not replying "promptly enough" ... Figuring I'd been blacklisted ...

 

Yeah, its the rather strong implication that you were intentionally being prevented from posting that I won't tolerate.

 

So, if you had some quirky error with the forums, that's fine. It does happen.

 

In light of the information posted in my transplanted reply, I was awaiting suggestions on what tack was going to be worthwhile under the circumstances. It's obviously not going to be worth my time or yours to create more game-saves if they really don't behave the same anywhere else... correct?

 

I am simply going to say this: If you are genuinely interested in determining and resolving your particular issues, then you will have to follow Tony's instructions to the letter.

 

If you're not prepared to do that, then please quit the ranting. This place will not turn into the kind of thing that has plagued other forums. We don't volunteer our valuable time and pay the bills here for that nonsense.

4. None of your issue reports here at HG deal with the AI always hitting so please make an issue report using one or more of those indicative saves just before missiles hit (or even just before they are launched).

 

This is what it comes down to for me, provide the goods. Take your situations one-by-one and produce the issue reports. You did it with other issues (aircraft being shot down/invincible during landing), make it happen for these situations. The rest is an almost pure waste of my time and leaves me in agreement with Brad that there are a lot of generalities in your posts that aren't doing anything productive.

 

AI bias 15 year ago, sure the game's early developers weren't perfect, we're not perfect, and they lived under much more serious computing resources constraints. The AI then did have unfair access to information. I doubt it was in an attempt to let the AI cheat, from what I've seen code-wise it was a neccessity in order to let the game run on the systems of the day. Speaking for myself I've removed those unfair reductions in 'fog of war' whenever I've run across them. They haven't been frequent but it has happened (one instance being EMCON AI, i.e. eff115 if you search the release notes text file in your game directory). Part of the old eff115 had an unfair look at the detection state and it helped push me to write a better section of code with more advanced abilities (the same for both AI and player sides).

 

Brad wants a smarter AI, he's not suggesting that the AI be made better by letting it cheat, he's saying he wants to feel like he's facing a human oppoonent OR probably even more accurately, facing tactics that represent say the USA in 1980 or China in 2020.

I don't know why I'm not receiving eMail notifications for replies to this topic anymore...

 

Joe, I have yet to see any evidence of your particular 'issue' being the same as anything reported by anyone else. This may be related to the fact that your issue cannot be nailed down.

Check the lead post in this topic, for starters. From where I sit, that surely sounded like some of the same stuff. That's why I piped up again - because it seemed like someone else finally was seeing many of the same effects.

 

Time and again, both Tony and I have advised that generalities will not help.

Just as I have time and again spent a lot of time and effort trying to provide as detailed reports as I have been able.

 

Again, I have asked quite plainly that if anyone has problems like yours, they should step up so we can identify this problem. Cue crickets.

Seriously, now: Just how many folks are likely to chime in after seeing the response I've received over all this? I know my "mysterious friend" once mentioned that sort of thing as a reason why he wouldn't post.

 

This forum has now been up and running for six years. If the alleged "a** chewing" occurred here, the exchange will be still posted here.

To the best of my third-party knowledge of the situation, he has never posted here - which he said he refused to do because of the described circumstances. FWIW, my impression was that he had been in eMail correspondence with some of the principals when they essentially blew him off. All that is outside the scope of the matter here, anyway.

 

So, are we to understand that only brute force works for you? Pummel them until they run out of weapons? Is that it?

Yes. The only other tactic that I've had some very limited success with is to attack from the axis where there is a picket that's well away from the main group, then swamp only that unit with a barrage. That occasionally results in a hit. But the theory of working my way further into the formation that way (by reducing the available counter-fire) usually does not pan out for anything that's closer to the formation center.

 

 

Yeah, its the rather strong implication that you were intentionally being prevented from posting that I won't tolerate.

So, if you had some quirky error with the forums, that's fine. It does happen.

I apologize if I mis-interpreted the situation, but perhaps you can understand why I thought that, given the circumstances.

 

I am simply going to say this: If you are genuinely interested in determining and resolving your particular issues, then you will have to follow Tony's instructions to the letter.

 

If you're not prepared to do that, then please quit the ranting. This place will not turn into the kind of thing that has plagued other forums. We don't volunteer our valuable time and pay the bills here for that nonsense.

 

Ranting?? I regret that I may have overreacted to the permissions situation, but my hope was to keep this whole business productive.

 

Please keep in mind that, although it may not be obvious, I have already put quite a bit of time and effort into getting to the bottom of this. My concern is that if we cannot even establish some common baseline to work from, then it's just going to be more of the same deal where I put a lot of effort into providing requested info, only to have it rejected out of hand. That won't fly, either.

4. None of your issue reports here at HG deal with the AI always hitting so please make an issue report using one or more of those indicative saves just before missiles hit (or even just before they are launched).

 

This is what it comes down to for me, provide the goods. Take your situations one-by-one and produce the issue reports. You did it with other issues (aircraft being shot down/invincible during landing), make it happen for these situations. The rest is an almost pure waste of my time and leaves me in agreement with Brad that there are a lot of generalities in your posts that aren't doing anything productive.

I understand where you're coming from - really, I do. (Been there, done that...)

 

The point I'm trying to make is that if we can't get game-saves to behave essentially the same way here and there, then what's the value in them? I'll just waste my time generating them... and you guys will just continue to say that I'm blowing smoke. My hope is that we can find something that will behave the same way in both places - so that we know we have a baseline to work from. That's why I asked whether those existing game-saves exhibit anything close to the described behavior on your end. (If they don't, then we're still shooting in the dark - and so we need some other tack, IMO).

 

AI bias 15 year ago, sure the game's early developers weren't perfect, we're not perfect, and they lived under much more serious computing resources constraints. The AI then did have unfair access to information. I doubt it was in an attempt to let the AI cheat, from what I've seen code-wise it was a neccessity in order to let the game run on the systems of the day. Speaking for myself I've removed those unfair reductions in 'fog of war' whenever I've run across them. They haven't been frequent but it has happened (one instance being EMCON AI, i.e. eff115 if you search the release notes text file in your game directory). Part of the old eff115 had an unfair look at the detection state and it helped push me to write a better section of code with more advanced abilities (the same for both AI and player sides).

Please don't take that story to heart. I was simply recounting a report that was told to me by someone who I have no reason to doubt, because it exemplified the point in question. I admit that I have no idea of the source of the report, nor the credentials involved. Nevertheless, it left an impression about the game "mechanics" on at least two people... so take it for what it's worth. I didn't proffer it with the intent to bash you or anyone else. It's simply an example of why some of us have the impression that the AI may enjoy certain "advantages".

 

Brad wants a smarter AI, he's not suggesting that the AI be made better by letting it cheat, he's saying he wants to feel like he's facing a human oppoonent OR probably even more accurately, facing tactics that represent say the USA in 1980 or China in 2020.

Well, then he and I may have more in common that it might appear. The whole basic issue for me is simply the desire to have things portray realism - so we can then fashion scenarios that "adjust" the difficulty levels and challenges, and can be used to realistically test new tactics, etc.

 

The problem is, in my instance at least, the various anomalies are seriously interfering with all that a fair amount of the time.

 

Anyway, I await your thoughts on what makes any sense to do now -if anything- given the current circumstances.

Ranting?? I regret that I may have overreacted to the permissions situation, but my hope was to keep this whole business productive.

 

If you hope to make this 'productive' in any fashion, you need to do exactly as Tony asks you. That's all I am going to say.

I'm at work at the moment so I can't say for sure, but it is a set with a scenario in it called "Mine is mine" or very similar, and in the first few scenarios involves the Foch (which dies). The Russians take Keflavik and you have got a whole slew of subs wandering around blowing stuff up.

 

Okay, this is Scenario 5.0 in HDS9, called "What's Mine is Mine". Keflavik, in this scenario, is held by the Soviets and protected by a vanguard of Patriot and Hawk SAMs (presumably being operated by some very well cross trained Soviet operators), both at Keflavik itself and at Reykjavik. There are also some 48 fighters, including Flankers, Fulcrums, Foxbats and Floggers, and ample AEW&C being provided by Mainstay aircraft.

 

For example. 3 Flankers vs 6 Tornados. I'm protecting an E-3 and in no mood for playing so I let the Flankers have it: 9 SkyFlashes, or three per flanker on average. The flankers, being the argumentative buggers that they are, answer with four radar missiles themselves. Now to my mind, 3 missiles per aircraft is pretty good odds. Yet somehow the flankers get 100% hit rate and all bar one of my missiles miss, the flankers go off and retreat with a mission well done, drinking Vodka all the way back (no statistics available on landing accidents). Meanwhile the remaining 2(!) Tornados remain on station arguing about budget cuts to missile guidance systems while the E3 decides to call it a day.

 

The Tornado F.3 in this battleset has a terrible ATA/DATA. Also, the Sky Flash missiles have a miserable PK of 35%. The Flankers and other Soviet fighters, however, have pretty good ATA/DATA numbers and are shooting various flavours of AA-10 Alamo varying in PK from 30 to 45%. You're not the only one who has had Tornados go up against Flankers and fare terribly, believe me.

 

Another example: Keflavik is annoying me. I decide enough is enough and launch 8 F4-G's with a raven and a fighter escort for good measure. At 70nm's, I let Keflavik have it with a broadside of HARM's. My tactic is to blind then and them lob a tomahawk or two downrange. 32 missiles is an awful lot of missiles. Yet Keflavik survives with not a single hit.

 

If your 8x F-4G fly directly from Kinloss toward Keflavik, and attack it with HARMs from maximum range, the anti-radar missiles will have to fly through both air defense envelopes (Keflavik and Reykjavik) before reaching the target. Moreover, at game start, there is a Soviet surface action group just offshore from Keflavik that includes, among other ships, a Slava cruiser armed with SA-N-6 Grumbles. Depending on the angle of your approach, you might even have to toss your missiles through its defensive envelope as well. Given the high PK of the Patriot SAMs (probably 70% or better in this battleset) and their insane ROF, not to mention the Hawks and other defensive weapons, it is easy to soak up 32x HARMs. Especially when you shoot from maximum range and give the enemy a full 70 nm of flight time in which to engage them.

 

I tested this myself and did not get a single HARM through to the target. Just like you. I've attached a savegame from just before HARM launch.

 

A third example. My ships are tootling along, sensors off, no ESM gear. All of a sudden, 10 missiles appear out of nowhere and blow them to kingdom come. No idea where it came from, what happened, anything. Yet when I try the same tactic (sneaking up etc), even the captain's dog detects my submarine.

 

I assume this is from a different scenario from "What's Mine is Mine", as there are no BLUE ships in this scenario.

crazedlogtest.zip

Anyway, I await your thoughts on what makes any sense to do now -if anything- given the current circumstances.

 

Whether it makes sense or not I can't really say but what I'd like to see is:

A1. If you can re-test saves for 100% hit and find one, make an issue report. Much as I'd like I don't have the time to do this filtering. Or play a new game and see about making it happen.

 

A2. I strongly urge the use of the Launcher http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=445 and enabling Iterative Saving and setting a nice short Autosave interval to help you capture save games as you play and making it easier for you to go back to a point in time to replicate any strangeness you see. It is off topic but you'll also see logging options there for some of your other concerns (radar blindness for instance)

 

AND

 

B1. You buy the game. Previously I offered to make that happen in any way possible including buying the game for you, shipping it to you, and having you send me a check in return. Matrix recently switched to Plimus as their back-end store from Digital River so maybe you'll even be able to buy direct from Matrix. Let's make it happen...

 

B2. When you have the game you and I can work together to help satisfy your need for information. Perhaps we tackle air to air engagements and add some logging to hopefully bring issues to the forefront.

 

How does that sound?

Whether it makes sense or not I can't really say but what I'd like to see is:

A1. If you can re-test saves for 100% hit and find one, make an issue report. Much as I'd like I don't have the time to do this filtering. Or play a new game and see about making it happen.

 

To the best of my recollection, there never was a save specifically for that issue... however, instances of that stuff do occur in the game-saves that I submitted previously, relating to the impervious air group. I could try to document that particular activity in that game-save - if that's what you're after?

 

 

A2. I strongly urge the use of the Launcher http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=445 and enabling Iterative Saving and setting a nice short Autosave interval to help you capture save games as you play and making it easier for you to go back to a point in time to replicate any strangeness you see. It is off topic but you'll also see logging options there for some of your other concerns (radar blindness for instance)

 

I grabbed v2010.060... Is that going to work with the 050 demo that I have? Also curious how the Autosave in that differs from the one normally used in the game. Does the normal one interact, and does it have to be disabled?

 

AND

 

B1. You buy the game. Previously I offered to make that happen in any way possible including buying the game for you, shipping it to you, and having you send me a check in return. ... Let's make it happen...

 

I responded to that offer, but never heard anything further (?). I'll see what I can do about buying online now... although long-term unemployment doesn't leave a lot of room for discretionary spending... and surprisingly perhaps, not alot of time even for playing Harpoon.

 

Which release should I be looking for? Only thing is, I thought the 050 demo was supposed to be the preferred debugging platform (?) ... and I already have that up and running.

 

 

B2. When you have the game you and I can work together to help satisfy your need for information. Perhaps we tackle air to air engagements and add some logging to hopefully bring issues to the forefront.

 

How does that sound?

Whatever works to do the job most efficiently. I, unfortunately, do not have tremendous amounts of time to spend on this right now - which is why I was so concerned about continuing to horse around with stuff that ends up behaving differently between here and there.

Whether it makes sense or not I can't really say but what I'd like to see is:

A1. If you can re-test saves for 100% hit and find one, make an issue report. Much as I'd like I don't have the time to do this filtering. Or play a new game and see about making it happen.

 

To the best of my recollection, there never was a save specifically for that issue... however, instances of that stuff do occur in the game-saves that I submitted previously, relating to the impervious air group. I could try to document that particular activity in that game-save - if that's what you're after?

Please do, provide a save either just before the missiles are launched or/and just before they hit (use the issue tracker as usual). Provide the group names in question (which you've been doing in this forum I see) and any other instructions needed.

 

 

A2. I strongly urge the use of the Launcher http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?a...mp;showfile=445 and enabling Iterative Saving and setting a nice short Autosave interval to help you capture save games as you play and making it easier for you to go back to a point in time to replicate any strangeness you see. It is off topic but you'll also see logging options there for some of your other concerns (radar blindness for instance)

 

I grabbed v2010.060... Is that going to work with the 050 demo that I have? Also curious how the Autosave in that differs from the one normally used in the game. Does the normal one interact, and does it have to be disabled?

I expect the launcher will work, try it and find out. When you set the iterative saving I believe the normal one will be disabled, again try it and find out. This one differs in that you can do saves more frequently than every minute and it will number the saves uniquely (to an extent). I forget but I think it puts the saves in c:\temp (so you'll get something like save0000.hpq, save0001.hpq,...).

 

 

AND

 

B1. You buy the game. Previously I offered to make that happen in any way possible including buying the game for you, shipping it to you, and having you send me a check in return. ... Let's make it happen...

 

I responded to that offer, but never heard anything further (?). I'll see what I can do about buying online now... although long-term unemployment doesn't leave a lot of room for discretionary spending... and surprisingly perhaps, not alot of time even for playing Harpoon.

 

Which release should I be looking for? Only thing is, I thought the 050 demo was supposed to be the preferred debugging platform (?) ... and I already have that up and running.

What I heard from you back then was a series of whines about ordering from Matrix and no acceptance or arrangement for me to buy the game for you, being your secretary and acquisitions department. Move forward, what's done is done. You'll have to buy the Ultimate Edition, that's the only current Harpoon product at Matrix.

 

There is no preferred debugging platform right now and the demo is never the preferred platform. I'm in the early stages of very large changes to the code, spending any time on 2009.050 is going backwards for me and going to the demo eats even more of my time than the non-demo versions. 2009.050 demo is the best platform we've had to debug with with you. We're trying to work with you here.

 

B2. When you have the game you and I can work together to help satisfy your need for information. Perhaps we tackle air to air engagements and add some logging to hopefully bring issues to the forefront.

 

How does that sound?

 

Whatever works to do the job most efficiently. I, unfortunately, do not have tremendous amounts of time to spend on this right now - which is why I was so concerned about continuing to horse around with stuff that ends up behaving differently between here and there.

 

Really then you shouldn't have posted at all since you are using not only your time but my extremely limited time and Brad's as well. So please please please act this time around. I wouldn't have posted that getting the game is the way to go if I didn't truly believe that it is.

Please do, provide a save either just before the missiles are launched or/and just before they hit (use the issue tracker as usual). Provide the group names in question (which you've been doing in this forum I see) and any other instructions needed.

 

Done.

 

 

I expect the launcher will work, try it and find out. When you set the iterative saving I believe the normal one will be disabled, again try it and find out. This one differs in that you can do saves more frequently than every minute and it will number the saves uniquely (to an extent). I forget but I think it puts the saves in c:\temp (so you'll get something like save0000.hpq, save0001.hpq,...).

 

Still futzing with this...

 

 

What I heard from you back then was a series of whines about ordering from Matrix and no acceptance or arrangement for me to buy the game for you, being your secretary and acquisitions department. Move forward, what's done is done. You'll have to buy the Ultimate Edition, that's the only current Harpoon product at Matrix.

I'm sorry that seemed like whining... but, then, you know how I get when it seems that I'm being barred from something... and it sure seemed like they were pulling the plug on me. At least, that was the effective result.

 

I did respond to your offer. I'm not sure what the rest of that is all about.

 

Question: My "imaginary friend" has Ultimate Edition. Is there any way I could use his copy to accomplish your needs?

Obviously, beyond the logistic issues, there is the question of it being installed on a different platform than mine - which I suppose is only an issue if the stuff relates to something that's specific only to my system/installation.

 

Anyway, if that would work, and he is willing to put up with it, it would avoid all the issues of my shortage of funds and any remaining problems with being unable to purchase via Matrix. So, I'm just wondering...

 

Whatever works to do the job most efficiently. I, unfortunately, do not have tremendous amounts of time to spend on this right now - which is why I was so concerned about continuing to horse around with stuff that ends up behaving differently between here and there.

 

Really then you shouldn't have posted at all since you are using not only your time but my extremely limited time and Brad's as well. So please please please act this time around. I wouldn't have posted that getting the game is the way to go if I didn't truly believe that it is.

I realize that everyone's time is limited, yet I don't follow your logic leading to my not posting. Anyway, I'm merely trying to point out that we need a way to avoid the ineffective methods and finger-pointing that happened the last time we tried to deal with this stuff. It sounded like we would be heading down that same road again... and that seemed like it would be a rather useless exercise in futility.

Question: My "imaginary friend" has Ultimate Edition. Is there any way I could use his copy to accomplish your needs?

Obviously, beyond the logistic issues, there is the question of it being installed on a different platform than mine - which I suppose is only an issue if the stuff relates to something that's specific only to my system/installation.

 

Anyway, if that would work, and he is willing to put up with it, it would avoid all the issues of my shortage of funds and any remaining problems with being unable to purchase via Matrix. So, I'm just wondering...

If you go sit at your "imaginary friend"'s computer and play the game that would be legal. It isn't legal for him to loan you the DVD so that you can install the game with his serial number and have it on both of your machines. It is legal if he sells his copy of the entire package to you and removes it from his machine.

 

Or send me the money and I'll buy the game for you and ship you the info (or pay in installments). Or have your imaginary friend do the same.

 

 

I realize that everyone's time is limited, yet I don't follow your logic leading to my not posting. Anyway, I'm merely trying to point out that we need a way to avoid the ineffective methods and finger-pointing that happened the last time we tried to deal with this stuff. It sounded like we would be heading down that same road again... and that seemed like it would be a rather useless exercise in futility.

 

We have a well-established method you can match with: less volume of text, less speculating, more saves with instructions. In the past you've buried us with long tracts of text that read like diatribes, insisted these issues happen every time, then haven't produced any supporting material. That won't work, we'll deal with the issues that have been well reported. You've had a reprieve the past week or so in an attempt to see a mutually beneficial result and maybe we'll get there, one basic issue fixed for 7ish hours of forum time and 1 hour of fixing is a bad exchange but if you keep making good reports without the extra stuff that ratio could improve and make it worthwhile to me.

Question: My "imaginary friend" has Ultimate Edition. Is there any way I could use his copy to accomplish your needs?

Obviously, beyond the logistic issues, there is the question of it being installed on a different platform than mine - which I suppose is only an issue if the stuff relates to something that's specific only to my system/installation.

 

Anyway, if that would work, and he is willing to put up with it, it would avoid all the issues of my shortage of funds and any remaining problems with being unable to purchase via Matrix. So, I'm just wondering...

If you go sit at your "imaginary friend"'s computer and play the game that would be legal. It isn't legal for him to loan you the DVD so that you can install the game with his serial number and have it on both of your machines. It is legal if he sells his copy of the entire package to you and removes it from his machine.

I'm pretty much aware of the legal aspects (and had/have no intention of violating those), but I was wondering whether using his installation as a surrogate would provide the needed/useful technical results - considering that it's on a different machine.

 

Or send me the money and I'll buy the game for you and ship you the info (or pay in installments). Or have your imaginary friend do the same.

The latter would be the most likely possibility... but with zero income, my credit rating is not too favorable.

 

 

... In the past you've buried us with long tracts of text that read like diatribes, insisted these issues happen every time, then haven't produced any supporting material.

I apologize for being too verbose, BUT it seemed that when I tried the "short answer" approach, people were misunderstanding things, or missing the point altogether. When that happens, I try to set things straight with more detailed explanations.

 

I do rather resent these continued accusations that I don't provide any supporting material. From my standpoint, I've provided extensive material that clearly demonstrates and describes the situations that I've observed. Yet, you say - at almost the same time - that I don't provide any supporting information, and that I provide too much supporting information. I've tried to provide what I thought that you wanted, and when that repeatedly proved to be "insufficent", I did my best to try to explain the things that I had provided. I regret that my efforts appear to be a waste.

 

... if you keep making good reports without the extra stuff that ratio could improve and make it worthwhile to me.

Good reports? Bad reports? Which is it? I'm confused! I guess you're just going to have to spell out for me which ones (if any) were "good" reports... and why... because I'm just not "getting" the difference.

Good report...

 

What happens every so often is that after a tanker a/c completes its refuelling and after the Split-off dialog has been approved, it displays the dialog for selecting the base for the tanker to return to - but the mileage to the first base (or bases, in some cases) is grossly incorrect. Yet in other instances, it seems to be correct.

 

I'm attaching a game-save here, captured at the point that refueling was just started on Blue air group AWA. As this progresses, and the tanker eventually splits off, the distances to the two optional tanker bases AAa and ACa are shown in the Select Base dialog as 4495 nm and 48xx nm, respectively - while the actual distances are about 1200 and 1600 nm - which is shown if I then select the split-off tanker group BAA and do a Land Air command.

 

and the file you attached.

Good report...

 

What happens every so often is that after a tanker a/c completes its refuelling and after the Split-off dialog has been approved, it displays the dialog for selecting the base for the tanker to return to - but the mileage to the first base (or bases, in some cases) is grossly incorrect. Yet in other instances, it seems to be correct.

 

I'm attaching a game-save here, captured at the point that refueling was just started on Blue air group AWA. As this progresses, and the tanker eventually splits off, the distances to the two optional tanker bases AAa and ACa are shown in the Select Base dialog as 4495 nm and 48xx nm, respectively - while the actual distances are about 1200 and 1600 nm - which is shown if I then select the split-off tanker group BAA and do a Land Air command.

 

and the file you attached.

OK... but I'm still feeling confused because I thought that I did all of my reports pretty much the same way... but, apparently, some (or all) of the rest were "bad" reports for some reason? If so, I guess I'm still missing the distinction. (??)