Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: RHS 5.556 and 6.556 and EOS uploading

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: RHS 5.556 and 6.556 and EOS uploading Page: <<   < prev  23 24 [25] 26 27   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RHS 5.556 and 6.556 and EOS uploading - 1/14/2007 9:04:16 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		Updated 5554 with 5556 still says 5554 in scen list. LST problem replicated.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 721
RE: RHS 5.556 and 6.556 and EOS uploading - 1/14/2007 9:37:06 PM   
CobraAus


Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline
quote:

Updated 5554 with 5556 still says 5554 in scen list. LST problem replicated.


I just checked the relevant files Dili and all scenarios are set to vx.556 - double check your download if you are still showing vx.554 in scenario list

cobra aus

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 722
RE: RHS 5.556 and 6.556 and EOS uploading - 1/14/2007 11:55:55 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		RHS v5.556 micro all except EOS.zip  this was the file, i dumped all them in SCEN overwriting existing files and in scenario selection still shows 5554. I also noticed that the others that came with that .zip file dont show up.  Since this is a microupdate i think that is because i didnt installed other scenarios than 050 (CVO).  

(in reply to CobraAus)
Post #: 723
RE: RHS 5.556 and 6.556 and EOS uploading - 1/15/2007 12:03:14 AM   
Ol_Dog


Posts: 317
Joined: 2/23/2003
From: Southern Illinois
Status: offline 		The update has wpa, wpc, wpg, wpl and wps for 50-54 dated 1/12 and 1/13/07. On scen selection screen it shows 5.554 for 50-54 and also in scenario detail header

_____________________________

Common Sense is an uncommon virtue.
If you think you have everything under control, you don't fully understand the situation.

(in reply to CobraAus)
Post #: 724
RE: RHS 5.556 and 6.556 and EOS uploading - 1/15/2007 12:16:14 AM   
Bliztk


Posts: 779
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Electronic City
Status: offline 		We are going to have a x.557 comprehensive soon. Next step should be x.60 hopefully.

_____________________________


(in reply to Ol_Dog)
Post #: 725
RE: RHS 5.557 and 6.557 comprehensive uploading - 1/15/2007 12:55:52 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I had a request for a comprehensive update to insure data washing was in sync. So I have decided to share with all a version that corrects a number of eratta plus

a) Identifies Soviet Armored trains properly
b) Defines 80th Independent Infantry Brigade specifically (based on US Army data)
c) Adds 50th and 51st IMA Cavalry "regiments" (bn)
d) Adds 6th and 7th IMA Brigades (based on US Army data)
e) Modifies Soviet air unit names somewhat
f) Adds Soviet 201st Parachute Brigade

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/15/2007 1:30:21 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 726
RE: RHS 5.557 and 6.557 comprehensive uploading - 1/15/2007 9:48:14 PM   
keeferon01


Posts: 334
Joined: 6/18/2005
From: North Carolina
Status: offline 		Im getting a problem with 6.557 So64 Bangkok and Saigon look like there out of bounds getting the red fuel thing.

_____________________________


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 727
RE: RHS 5.558 and 6.558 comprehensive uploading - 1/16/2007 1:48:21 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		We ARE getting data washing in CVO right now - re ships - and some of the eratta are being reported to me - so I am fixing it in everything else. We WILL get the other scenarios washed as well - it will be a matter of days. We are (really) completing this stage of RHS - and will more or less abandon Level 5 and Level 6 - unless problems need addressing - in favor of Level 7 work.

In addition to eratta re ships reported to me I have found some on my own - mainly working on EOS - mainly related to land units. Both types of eratta are folded in to x.558

I have added some Allied air units and modified some Allied plane types to be multiple in nature. Thus we are issuing a flight of Boeing 314 Clippers to the USAAF - early - when it matters - and turning the Empire Flying Boat slot into a dual slot. I have converted the Lockheed 212 into a more generic slot representing many smaller than C-47 dual engine transports - retaining the 212 data - and put no less than 6 names in the type designation! :

C-32 / C-33 / C-35 / C-36 / C-37 and C-40. [If I had room I would also include C-39]
EDIT: This is now C-32/36/39 and 30 plus symbol BT-32. I removed planes not serving in numbers.

I moved up the appearence of some US C-47 units to be this smaller type - they now upgrade to C-47s. These were in fact a motly collection of impressed civil and siezed/intercepted military aircraft - the fact the art is wrong is to some extent right! [We retain the Dutch art] I also converted a slot of the ROC 14th Squadron (a transport flight) into a baby squadron of 6 of these at Hong Kong (5 were destroyed and the 6th impressed by Japan IRL - but what if they flew OUT of Hong Kong?) There are now 11 aircraft of 3 types in Hong Kong!

I also added the 7th British Armored Brigade, the Soviet 13th Guards Naval Infantry Brigade - and renamed the Soviet 201st Airborne as 202nd - moving it up to appear at game start.

I have done some technical stuff "below the hood" that will be invisible to most - even with editors. And I have some inquiries out to learn why some fields have peculiar values. [Soviet army HQ are all rated as "amphibious" for example. Is this an error - made by copying - or deliberate? And either way - is it correct - or wrong - in terms of code effects? Stuff like that.]

Re EOS I am working on "programming" the AI to run the first stage of the war properly. I have changed the command areas in a way that permits fewer places to be "too far" from HQ - and it is working very well. In a AI vs AI test - a year in - EVERY carrier and battleship lost is Allied! [Fear not - the humans won't find it hard to beat. The AI is not bright - makes you run obsolete planes when you could upgrade - stuff like that. A modder who takes the FIRST possible upgrade then gets NO later upgrades for a unit - you get to pick one and only one per unit. But a PLAYER can upgrade every unit several times - if it is possible to do at all. This is the main thing in EOS - better management of the same number of aircraft and air units - and now associated HQ and support base units.]

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/16/2007 3:01:58 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 728
RE: RHS 5.558 and 6.558 comprehensive uploading - 1/16/2007 4:52:54 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline 		CVO 6.557

Problem with CA Pensacola.

In her TF screen (the one near Canton Island) you can read "none" instead of CA [etc.]. The endurance is = 0

And if you click on it ["none"] = CTD

< Message edited by TulliusDetritus -- 1/16/2007 5:05:02 PM >

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 729
RE: RHS 5.558 and 6.558 comprehensive uploading - 1/16/2007 7:15:57 PM   
Bliztk


Posts: 779
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Electronic City
Status: offline 		It has an invalid class due to editor corruption, if you open the editor and put class = 190 into ship nº 3210, it will work.

Salt Lake City Ship 3211 has the same problem


_____________________________


(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 730
RE: RHS 5.558 and 6.558 comprehensive uploading - 1/16/2007 8:01:00 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Got it. See x.559

Also I found the USAF Boeing 314 Flight was armed - it should not be.

I created a USN/Pan Am Boeing 314 Flight as well.

I found I needed to add planes to the Empire/Boeing 314 pool - and more so to the former Lockheed 212
now C- everything pool - so units operate properly.

I determined few CW-21s remained operational in ROCAF - so I took the one separate fighter flight and issued it to that unit - and added 3 more planes to the pool. They are either Chinese made spares - if any survive - or the 3 planes that tried to transfer from DEI.

Looking for other erratta reports - then will issue x.559.

(in reply to Bliztk)
Post #: 731
RE: RHS x.558, x.559 status & x.60 plan - 1/16/2007 8:27:48 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Cobra seems to not have picked up x.558 comprehensive - and I have eratta to issue a micro x.559

so perhaps he can combine them and create a x.559 comprehensive on the site?

People getting files direct from me need to overlay x.559 on x.558. But if 558 does not appear on the site -
it is because 559 is comprehensive.

This is mainly eratta - Pensacola class CAs lost their ID - the new Allied transports needed bigger pools (the former Empire Flying Boat and Lockheed 212 now made into composite slots) - and I added a USN/PanAm Boeing 314 Flight
at San Francisco. Also a single flight of CW-21s in ROCAF replaces a different fighter.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 732
RE: RHS x.558, x.559 status & x.60 plan - 1/16/2007 8:35:33 PM   
CobraAus


Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline 		cobra is having serious download speed problems due to extreme heat (it was bloody 32c at midnight- unheard of this is going to go on for next 5 days) and power outages caused by major bush fires
ok vx.559 now coming in will combine v558 and v559 into 1 pakage

cobra

< Message edited by CobraAus -- 1/16/2007 8:58:52 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 733
RE: RHS x.60 series - in review - 1/17/2007 11:59:42 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		The first files (ship class and ships) are returned. While these were for CVO level 6, most errors apply to all scenarios - and I generally apply all fixes at the same time. Leaders will be returned tomorrow. I will review and post x.60 tomorrow - probably with all three updates. The summary report says the big error is turret facing on Allied battleships. This may be an editor issue - to insure everything was "right" on major ships - I used the "update" button in the new Matrix editor - and it worked - except it failed to set - and invalidated where right - the turret field - 100% of the time apparently! So look for this to be corrected in x.60. Also for 386th Bomber Squadron to convert from A-36s to B-32s. EDIT: And now we have a corrected leader file for all scenarios - or All at Level 6 anyway) - needing review. But I must go to work.

I will also address any erratta I find or are reported on the forum.

There will be a x.61 and so one - as other files are reviewed - until none are left.

Some time during this process I will start releasing EOS - at the same level - as it is staying updated - as is Level 7.
I just need to make certain things WORK!

This process will take less than a week. My best bet is we will complete all RHS Level 5 and 6 scenario updates on or before Tuesday. Most likely before. One reason I am opening discussions about things like Allied planes is it won't be so easy to do later. And these are proving fruitful - we have added a number of capabilities already - and found some errors. [RHS is running with 2 or 3 times as many planes as slots - due to peculiar ways we can run them with different loadouts.]

I am thinking about - and occasionally doing things in - Level 7. I think we may get it this month. The real issue is the pwhex file. And I would accept volunteers! We have 20 or 30 thousand fields to change!

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/18/2007 8:10:47 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 734
RE: RHS x.60 series - in review - 1/17/2007 3:45:28 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		5.559 CVO; Turn 1  LST trouble replicated.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 735
RE: RHS x.60 series - in review - 1/18/2007 1:21:31 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I was able to see the reports in a test.

Try Level 6 - do you see it there in CVO? [I have to go to work - and this is one you cannot capture - you have to watch the screen to see it]

What is the status of these units AFTER the turn?

The LSTs are not even in the game - so how can they be in the reports? [They show up as reinforcements later]

This is a tough one. We need to put a box around it. Is it just in one scenario? Is it just in one level? Once we know that sort of thing I may be able to fix using a different file.

Nothing wrong in the editor stuff we can see - as you said.

Sid

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 736
RE: RHS x.60 series - in review - 1/18/2007 1:36:44 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		Okay, i will check that.  

Edit: Units seem to be okay with all planes damaged like it should.

V6.559 replicates the error too.

< Message edited by Dili -- 1/18/2007 2:17:09 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 737
RE: RHS x.60 series - in review - 1/18/2007 6:58:38 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Explain the errors you see in detail.

Also test RAO to see if it has them? RAO is identical except for one file - easy to fix CVO if it works.


(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 738
RE: RHS x.60 series - in review - 1/18/2007 11:35:00 AM   
Jo van der Pluym


Posts: 834
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Valkenburg Lb, Netherlands
Status: offline 		I have find a small error.

The Soviet 13 Naval Brigade has Indian Nationality

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
CrazyDutch

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 739
RE: RHS x.60 series - in review - 1/18/2007 12:25:59 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I have been able to verify there were 4 ship sunk date errors (all scenarios)
and 11 ship class errors (should be a later class) in 2 scenarios (only 9 in the other scenarios).
Most reported ship errors were already fixed.

I have a CVO leader file and I will get a BBO leader file tomorrow. the next release should be pretty good for leaders in all scenarios - I can rename because only one file is used.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 740
RE: RHS x.60 series - in review - 1/18/2007 12:27:00 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

I have find a small error.

The Soviet 13 Naval Brigade has Indian Nationality


Because it is copied from an Indian airborne brigade. The airborne code does not appear in the editor - so only by this means - or using a different tool - can one make an air borne unit. Thanks.

(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)
Post #: 741
RE: RHS x.60 series - in review - 1/18/2007 3:48:52 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Explain the errors you see in detail.


Kashima Shotai converting to E13A1 Jake aboard LST-910
Hosho Atk Chutai converting to B5M/B5N Kate aboard LST-736
Nagato Shotai converting to F1M2 Pete-FF aboard LST-779
Mutsu Shotai converting to F1M2 Pete-FF aboard LST-780
Fuso Shotai converting to F1M2 Pete-FF aboard LST-798
Yamashiro Shotai converting to F1M2 Pete-FF aboard LST-799
Maya-1 Shotai converting to F1M2 Pete-FF aboard LST-806
Chokai-1 Shotai converting to F1M2 Pete-FF aboard LST-807
Ashigara-1 Shotai converting to F1M2 Pete-FF aboard LST-880

-------------------------------
Wasnt supposed to be impossible to convert plane without being in a port? Probably it is broken there. Some this ships change plane while at sea.

----------------------------------

quote:

Also test RAO to see if it has them? RAO is identical except for one file - easy to fix CVO if it works.


RAO 5.559 has also the error.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 742
RE: RHS x.60 series - in review - 1/18/2007 3:58:14 PM   
keeferon01


Posts: 334
Joined: 6/18/2005
From: North Carolina
Status: offline 		I have 2 Kwajalein Base forces if its of any interest , one located where it should be and another in Palau and both are prepping for Maloelap which is funny because there static SO54 5.559

_____________________________


(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 743
RE: RHS x.60 series - in review - 1/18/2007 4:15:17 PM   
tanjman


Posts: 717
Joined: 1/26/2002
From: Griffin, GA
Status: offline 		cid,

To make a LCU airborne, type in 13 in the symbol field. To make a LCU cavalry, type in 12 in the symbol field.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

I have find a small error.

The Soviet 13 Naval Brigade has Indian Nationality


Because it is copied from an Indian airborne brigade. The airborne code does not appear in the editor - so only by this means - or using a different tool - can one make an air borne unit. Thanks.



_____________________________

Gunner's Mate: A Boatswain's Mate with a hunting license.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 744
RE: RHS x.60 series - in review - 1/18/2007 5:27:18 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		All well and good - except you cannot see this field in the editor! I get at it via WITP Excel. And that is very dangerous - we believe WITP Excel messes up the location file EVERY time you use it! So we prefer to copy a record - and then modify it to the new form.


(in reply to tanjman)
Post #: 745
RE: RHS x.60 series - in review - 1/18/2007 5:35:11 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron James

I have 2 Kwajalein Base forces if its of any interest , one located where it should be and another in Palau and both are prepping for Maloelap which is funny because there static SO54 5.559


I cannot figure this out - except both Kwajalein and Palau Base Forts were planning for Maleolap. Anyway - this is corrected. Possibly scenario 54 didn't get the updated record - new data provided by Mifune caused some island base forces to gain 6 inch guns. And static CD units do plan for their location. But we make records by copying - and the planning field is not on the default page = often not noticed.

(in reply to keeferon01)
Post #: 746
RE: RHS x.60 series - in review - 1/18/2007 6:27:30 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		This maybe just an oddity but IJA First Curved Gun REGIMENT has a TO&E like IJA First Curved Gun BATTALION  . Note that the Rgt has right now 150mm Mortars instead the TO&E 81mm.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 747
RE: RHS x.60 series - in review - 1/18/2007 6:59:35 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

This maybe just an oddity but IJA First Curved Gun REGIMENT has a TO&E like IJA First Curved Gun BATTALION  . Note that the Rgt has right now 150mm Mortars instead the TO&E 81mm.



OK - ONLY a 81mm mortar BATTALION should point at formation 925. A 15cm mortar REGIMENT should point at formation 953. Very Heavy Mortar REGIMENTS should point at 0 (themselves).

In IJA a mortar BATTALION has 36 x 81mm mortars. But a 15 cm mortar REGIMENT has only 16 x 150 mm mortars! And the Very Heavy battalions get only 4 tubes - or a VH regiment 8! We had some pointers that should have been zero - used to be 925 when the regiments had 81s - but I converted the regiments to heavier guns when I identified which - and the pointer is not on the default page.

Now - remember - "if it isn't confusing - it isn't Japanese culturally speaking" - the TONE 15 cm GUN Regiment is DIFFERENT from a "curved gun regiment" or battalion. It is ALSO different from a normal 15 cm artillery regiment - in that it has long guns - not 15 cm howitzers. This unit WILL eventually convert to 15 cm howitzers - and its 15 cm guns won't replace as they become casualties!!! [For a while it may have more than the usual number of tubes - depending on supplies and casualties to guns] But it is sort of the "Long Tom" of the IJA - a unit with a good medium field piece of some range - and more than one battalion.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/18/2007 7:55:04 PM >

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 748
RE: RHS x.60 series - in review - 1/18/2007 8:00:55 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

Explain the errors you see in detail.


Kashima Shotai converting to E13A1 Jake aboard LST-910
Hosho Atk Chutai converting to B5M/B5N Kate aboard LST-736
Nagato Shotai converting to F1M2 Pete-FF aboard LST-779
Mutsu Shotai converting to F1M2 Pete-FF aboard LST-780
Fuso Shotai converting to F1M2 Pete-FF aboard LST-798
Yamashiro Shotai converting to F1M2 Pete-FF aboard LST-799
Maya-1 Shotai converting to F1M2 Pete-FF aboard LST-806
Chokai-1 Shotai converting to F1M2 Pete-FF aboard LST-807
Ashigara-1 Shotai converting to F1M2 Pete-FF aboard LST-880

-------------------------------
Wasnt supposed to be impossible to convert plane without being in a port? Probably it is broken there. Some this ships change plane while at sea.

----------------------------------

quote:

Also test RAO to see if it has them? RAO is identical except for one file - easy to fix CVO if it works.


RAO 5.559 has also the error.



RHSEOS does not have the error. This is good news. We will be able to identify the offending file and records - and fix them. It is not universal at this level of development.

EDIT: RHSRAO does not have the error. Yet RHSRAO is IDENTICAL to RHSCVO except for the cam file. So by renaming the cam file (setting Russians to passive) we should have this one fixed. IF there were any other cause than the cam file RAO would also fail.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/18/2007 8:35:25 PM >

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 749
RE: RHS x.60 series - in review - 1/18/2007 9:02:29 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

EDIT: RHSRAO does not have the error. Yet RHSRAO is IDENTICAL to RHSCVO except for the cam file. So by renaming the cam file (setting Russians to passive) we should have this one fixed. IF there were any other cause than the cam file RAO would also fail.


That's strange i have the error in RAO 5.559


But the game should not forbid changing planes at sea? If this going on i can see an A5M4 going to A6M2 at start of the battle if player have update on. Also it is a sign of not checking supply to make the update which scares me of what is going on.

< Message edited by Dili -- 1/18/2007 9:16:46 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 750
Page:   <<   < prev  23 24 [25] 26 27   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: RHS 5.556 and 6.556 and EOS uploading Page: <<   < prev  23 24 [25] 26 27   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.844