TonyE Posted November 11, 2007 Report Posted November 11, 2007 HCE - 2007.025 ============== - Chg:0000 GE Game could crash when splitting tanker from group if there is no group selected. Fixed so that landing for split is based off of tanker group, failing that, base it off group tanker was part of. - Chg:0000 GE Game could crash when using Full button display on report window. Fixed it up to use Unit instead of Group where needed. - Chg:0000 GE Added ECM ability to mounts. Now a ship may carry ALQ-99 for area and point defense jamming. Flares and Chaff will also now work for units other than planes. To Test: I expect the non-plane ECM will not work if placed in a multimount, please test. Suggest a command line of winharp32.exe -l ecm -f c:\ecmtest.txt What you are looking for in that file are entries that start "ECM Point". Testing still needs to be done on 2007.024.
divefreak Posted November 12, 2007 Report Posted November 12, 2007 HCE - 2007.025============== - Chg:0000 GE Added ECM ability to mounts. Now a ship may carry ALQ-99 for area and point defense jamming. Flares and Chaff will also now work for units other than planes. To Test: I expect the non-plane ECM will not work if placed in a multimount, please test. Suggest a command line of winharp32.exe -l ecm -f c:\ecmtest.txt What you are looking for in that file are entries that start "ECM Point". Got some "strange" results in the log file expaned the log to missile and Radar. It looks as if Chaff/Flare is jamming the enemy radar.... Will post the log File later. That´s what i´m going to use as Values for the tests reduction ECM(Jammer) Chaff Flare 1gen 10 10 10 2.gen 15 15 15 3. Gen 20 20 20 4. Gen 25 25 25 Regards rené
divefreak Posted November 13, 2007 Report Posted November 13, 2007 HCE - 2007.025============== - Chg:0000 GE Added ECM ability to mounts. Now a ship may carry ALQ-99 for area and point defense jamming. Flares and Chaff will also now work for units other than planes. Ok I've tested so far two mounts armed with chaff and Chaff/Flares and a multimount with chaff and flare. Result: Chaff and Chaff/Flares work on singlemounts. When you put more than 1 weapon(ecm) on a mount it doesn´t work. Single: 101124 effect4.c:4680 - ECM Point Defense ECM=15 Defender=Seeadler101124 effect4.c:4680 - ECM Point Defense ECM=15 Defender=Seeadler 101125 effect4.c:4680 - ECM Point Defense ECM=15 Defender=Seeadler Mulitmount: 101124 effect4.c:4680 - ECM Point Defense ECM=0 Defender=Seeadler101124 effect4.c:4680 - ECM Point Defense ECM=0 Defender=Seeadler 101125 effect4.c:4680 - ECM Point Defense ECM=0 Defender=Seeadler What i need to test are active Jammers against all targets. (BTW are some systems capable of Area jamming like the system carried on a Prowler?) or only defense jamming? And Flares against IR/Laserguided Weapons. Regards René ecmtest.txt
CV32 Posted November 13, 2007 Report Posted November 13, 2007 What i need to test are active Jammers against all targets. (BTW are some systems capable of Area jamming like the system carried on a Prowler?) or only defense jamming? IIRC, the Soviet Football ECM system (as on the Kirov class) was capable of barrage type jamming. Most systems (at least until fairly recently) focused on receivers, analysis and classification of signals rather than jamming them.
divefreak Posted November 13, 2007 Report Posted November 13, 2007 What i need to test are active Jammers against all targets. And Flares against IR/Laserguided Weapons. Ok Active Jamming works, barrage too. Flares work. Now i did the first test with "cross" jamming. Chaff against IR guided weapons. Result ECM=0 so it works as intentet. Next Step Flare against Radar guided weapons and 2 mounts on a ships with active system and chaff/flare (will both effetcs combine?) Regards René
TonyE Posted November 13, 2007 Author Report Posted November 13, 2007 The effects will not combine (except as they do where there are two standoff jammers, one protecting the other). It uses the ECM with the largest modifier to reduce missile PH. Now the dreaded question, do you database designers need these things to work in multimounts?
divefreak Posted November 14, 2007 Report Posted November 14, 2007 The effects will not combine (except as they do where there are two standoff jammers, one protecting the other). It uses the ECM with the largest modifier to reduce missile PH. Hmm, that´s a bit pitty. In the paperrules and in RL the effect of 2 systems would combine to a larger effect. Now the dreaded question, do you database designers need these things to work in multimounts? This could save slots in the mount annex and in the mount/weapon list on each ship, when we can build complete Systems (Jammer, Chaff, Flare in one Mount) instead of 2 or 3 Subsytems with X mounts. The big portion whipped cream on Top of Ice cream would be if Chaffs and Flares would be "fired" of the mount like a weapon, limiting the numbers of C/F that can be used. Regards René BTW for testing the jamming, i remember that in some build the message box or the log showed the hit calculation for weapons. Tony, can you reactivate this feature in the next build? So we can compare what happens with and with out jamming?
CV32 Posted November 17, 2007 Report Posted November 17, 2007 Saving room in the Mounts Annex is of course a high priority. I think I will probably be taking a Generational approach to implementing EW systems into ships in the HCDB, however, rather than attempting to model each and every type of system in detail. EW systems would be classified by the H4.1/HT approach of Gen 1, 2, 3, etc. This reduces the need for EW in the multi-mounts, but if it can be made to work there, I say go for it.
wombat1417 Posted January 5, 2008 Report Posted January 5, 2008 HCE - 2007.025 ============== - Chg:0000 GE Game could crash when splitting tanker from group if there is no group selected. Fixed so that landing for split is based off of tanker group, failing that, base it off group tanker was part of. Yes, I think this works. - Chg:0000 GE Game could crash when using Full button display on report window.Fixed it up to use Unit instead of Group where needed. Yes, it seems to work.
Recommended Posts