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 integrated 6.642 integrated comprehensive update uploading in process

 
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 integrated 6.642 integrated comprehensive update uploading in process Page: <<   < prev  30 31 [32] 33 34   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RHS integrated 6.642 integrated comprehensive updat... - 2/28/2007 1:33:15 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Eratta listings are mercifly short - so 6.51 will issue tomorrow.

More problematic is the matter of Soviet Armor - and other related OB matters. But we will use whatever data is available as it becomes available - and more will fold in every time we correct eratta. I am not going to impose another delay to get it - but I will use every bit of information we get each time we issue any update. I believe that one reason the Soviet Front should remain inactive for much of the war (in RHS Russian active scenarios - 4 of the 6) is that it is too costly for IJA to attack (unless the Soviet player is really really bad). The historical IJA plan - using 14 line divisions and 4 armored "groups" (baby divisions) - is by no means clearly superior to Soviet forces in the Far East. Defending significant river, mountain, swamp and lake barriers, it is by no means clear IJA would have won had it attacked. Also - much of the staff thinking in Kwangtung Army was very unrealistic - and any voice of reason tended to get sacked. [For good material on this see Nomanhan - which covers August Storm and a third conflict between IJA and Red Army as well as the 1938 conflict - and the thinking in between the campaigns] The US Army also has several very fine Leavenworth Papers on these matters - and I believe many US officers study these quite diligently. The US Army has very fine historical materials in English on many Soviet matters.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 2/28/2007 1:52:57 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 931
RE: RHS integrated 6.642 integrated comprehensive updat... - 2/28/2007 5:16:51 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I believe that one reason the Soviet Front should remain inactive for much of the war (in RHS Russian active scenarios - 4 of the 6) is that it is too costly for IJA to attack (unless the Soviet player is really really bad). The historical IJA plan - using 14 line divisions and 4 armored "groups" (baby divisions) - is by no means clearly superior to Soviet forces in the Far East. Defending significant river, mountain, swamp and lake barriers, it is by no means clear IJA would have won had it attacked. Also - much of the staff thinking in Kwangtung Army was very unrealistic - and any voice of reason tended to get sacked. [For good material on this see Nomanhan - which covers August Storm and a third conflict between IJA and Red Army as well as the 1938 conflict - and the thinking in between the campaigns] The US Army also has several very fine Leavenworth Papers on these matters - and I believe many US officers study these quite diligently. The US Army has very fine historical materials in English on many Soviet matters.



I'm happy to see you read the chapter in Coox dealing with Kwantung army planning for the attack which never materialised.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 932
T IV and EOS - 2/28/2007 6:27:59 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
When created, RHSEOS for the Allies was identical with RHSCVO (actually RHSRAO - the Russian active version of CVO)

But various considerations have caused us to depart slightly from that standard. Nemo and I became concerned with the possibility the Allies might not be strong enough when planning Tag Team operations, and the Allied Tag Team itself came up with some ideas how to enhanse the historical force, including converting a few more CLs into CVLs (actually a historical option, FDR wanted to convert ALL new CLs to CVLs!), building the Midways as Essex class, (getting 2 in time for the slightly extended war contemplated by RHS), building Alaska class as Baltimore type CAs, and similar things. Nemo himself proposed we double the number of atom bombs, and 2 dropped in August suggests it is not an unreasonable standard, so we did that as well.

I woke up realizing the T IV issue offers an opportunity to do something similar in a small way: we can offer the plane as it was historically used in the "strictly historical" scenarios - and with al alternative loadout in EOS. When we issue the x.651 update later today - EOS will feature the torpedo loadout for this aircraft.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 933
RE: T IV and EOS - 2/28/2007 9:33:49 PM   
BlackSunshine


Posts: 366
Joined: 11/22/2002
Status: offline 		El Cid?  When is the final "freeze" version expected to be posted?  I am anxious to restart a PBEM game which had some issues.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 934
RE: T IV and EOS - 3/1/2007 3:00:29 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		In a sense, never. Because - as we test and identify issues - or as Level 7 development causes things to change useful for Level 6 or Level 5 - we will issue updates.

However,

I am working in rather small lists or eratta and will issue an update including them today.

Experience indicates someone will find something else - so I may repeat the process again tomorrow -
but the lists of eratta are so small that I think it will be safe to start games - say starting tomorrow - and I plan to begin the Tag Team Japanese turn the day after that.

(in reply to BlackSunshine)
Post #: 935
RE: RHS 5 & 6.651 micro update (eratta) - 3/1/2007 4:46:56 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Eratta punched updates uploading.

There will be one more round as Martin wants to do a manual error search - and I want to fix some PT boat lables.
We might get some Russian tank data corrections by then.

I am going to freeze for play at 6.652 and 6.652 tomorrow - regardless of where we are.


There seem to be remarkably short error lists - often only one line - usually less than ten - and the long lines are all correctable by utility (e.g. fix the class and update). All done.


< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/1/2007 5:02:21 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 936
RE: RHS 5 & 6.651 micro update (eratta) - 3/2/2007 2:56:49 AM   
drw61


Posts: 894
Joined: 6/30/2004
From: South Carolina
Status: offline
EOS 6.651
The following ship slots may need to be looked at, the ship weapons and the ship classes have differing layouts.
703 to 705 (Weapon 13.2AAMG has 10 should be 40, and 25MM has 6 should be 24)
709 to 722
771 to 818
872 to 874
9865 to 9873
9877
and 9880 to 9882

The Blenheim IV (Slot 173) upgrades to the Blenheim IF-NF should it be the Wellington IC (slot 214)?
The B24D (Slot 112) starts with a pool of 13
The B29/32 (Slot 119) starts with a pool of 14
I can’t find any air groups that upgrade to the P-80A

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 937
RE: RHS 5 & 6.652 micro update (eratta) - 3/2/2007 4:40:26 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I have updated a x.652 data file set (4 files changed) as a courtesy. Real life impinged and unresolved matters re UK 18 Division have prevented freezing.

Only Scenario 60 and 61 are suitable for gaming - all the rest have about 750 too many US PT boats. EOS has some formation pointer issues yet to fix. I must kill those extra PT boats (but all the right ones are now in place) -
and do some technical stuff (make choices re art pointers, free up formation slots used only one time, etc).
This I promise will be done tomorrow. We will freeze at x.653 for play.

You have one more chance to point out eratta - and I have a few pointed out items not yet folded in.

4 UK air units have moved up in date slightly - and 2 AA units moved back - as did 18 Division - but it appears it is still arriving too soon (in all versions of WITP - not just RHS). We should nail that down. Also - if we learn no KV were in Far East - we will get rid of them - and free device slots.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 938
RE: RHS 5 & 6.651 micro update (eratta) - 3/2/2007 4:41:42 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: drw61


EOS 6.651
The following ship slots may need to be looked at, the ship weapons and the ship classes have differing layouts.
703 to 705 (Weapon 13.2AAMG has 10 should be 40, and 25MM has 6 should be 24)
709 to 722
771 to 818
872 to 874
9865 to 9873
9877
and 9880 to 9882

The Blenheim IV (Slot 173) upgrades to the Blenheim IF-NF should it be the Wellington IC (slot 214)?
The B24D (Slot 112) starts with a pool of 13
The B29/32 (Slot 119) starts with a pool of 14
I can’t find any air groups that upgrade to the P-80A


Will look at these in plus six hours. However - DID any air groups use P-80 A? If not - maybe we free up a slot?

Item 1: You are correct.

Item 2: Blenheim update - correct. one of the editors loves to reset the update to current slot minus 1 - so this sort of error shows up regularly.

Item 3: I think this is correct for B-24 - in spite of not being operational.

Item 4: This should be correct - but isn't. That is, if the code worked the way I think it should, we should be able to say "pre production aircraft can be used on the date of initial ops" - but regretfully it is "you can use them immediately" - so it is wrong. This is different from 3 - those machines existed - and could have been allocated when the war began - although you would not get any replacements for 9 months!

Item 5: This is actually correct: "The P-80A Shooting Star was operational with the USAF Strategic Air Command from 1946 to 1948 with its 1st through 46th Fighter Groups." We do not have any unit automatically upgrading to it. However,
it is listed as available to assign from June 1945. I no longer know why this is the case? If I ever did know - it may not be an RHS assignment. EDIT: It is not, it is "inherited" from CHS - and I have no clue what caused them to rate it as operational about a year early? Do you want to take it out? We can make it available later - or just in EOS?

< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/2/2007 3:04:50 PM >

(in reply to drw61)
Post #: 939
RE: RHS 5 & 6.651 micro update (eratta) - 3/2/2007 1:46:33 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		Using RHS CVO with latest PWHEX file, there are some Indian CA's at Calcutta refusing to move into the ocean.I thought maybe it was that they would not leave "India command" so I tried sending them to Madras..No dice..I have manually tried to "undock them", still no movement..Are these static units, and if so, do they need full fuel loads??

_____________________________




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 940
RE: RHS 5 & 6.651 micro update (eratta) - 3/2/2007 2:23:55 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		The "Indian CAs" are unrelated to pwhex.dat.

Instead, they are a result of upgrading of micro AK class ships to Baltimore class CA - a pointer issue that is fixed if you get any of the later releases. For safety I will check now to insure it is right.

Yep. Both Level 5 and Level 6 class files update the micro AK to itself - correctly. So you do not really have the later releases of RHS.

I have a report from an erratta tester he thought Cobra had somehow uploaded incorrect class files.

Anyone needing them can send me an email at trevethans@aol.com

I will send all class files out again tomarrow in a comprehensive - and frozen - update.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/2/2007 2:42:19 PM >

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 941
RE: RHS 5 & 6.651 micro update (eratta) - 3/2/2007 2:27:48 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		The reason I mentioned that PWHEX file was I wondered if the river(?) they are sitting is is attached to the ocean, or if this might be a closed hex?
Thank you.

< Message edited by m10bob -- 3/2/2007 2:42:36 PM >

_____________________________




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 942
RE: RHS 5 & 6.651 micro update (eratta) - 3/2/2007 2:34:05 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		You know, a huge reason some folks don't like using AI cargo convoys is because the convoys will traverse enemy territory.
A HUGE amount of this problem would be cured if your South Atlantic entry point could be made to generate AI convoys, (instead of just Frisco or Aden/Karachi..)

_____________________________




(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 943
RE: RHS 5 & 6.651 micro update (eratta) - 3/3/2007 12:56:46 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: m10bob

The reason I mentioned that PWHEX file was I wondered if the river(?) they are sitting is is attached to the ocean, or if this might be a closed hex?
Thank you.


I myself had several Indian river AKs upgrade to Baltimores - I could tell by the "ship name" - and I then found the upgrade pointer was indeed Baltimore - they upgraded in a repair yard at Dacca! Unrelated to pwhex, this happened because the upgrade code worked right - and it had bad data. My fault.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 944
RE: RHS 5 & 6.651 micro update (eratta) - 3/3/2007 1:00:00 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: m10bob

You know, a huge reason some folks don't like using AI cargo convoys is because the convoys will traverse enemy territory.
A HUGE amount of this problem would be cured if your South Atlantic entry point could be made to generate AI convoys, (instead of just Frisco or Aden/Karachi..)



AI is amazingly "stupid" - and it hardly can know about closed interior river systems - or other things not part of WITP design. I am pleased it does use exterior river systems properly. But I hate the way it routes even in the open sea in many cases - sending convoys where they cannot go at any speed - and not refueling nearby - routing the wrong way -
stuff like that.

But AI DOES generate convoys at the South Atlantic Entry point - just not as many as I would prefer. It does because I originate ships there. It does not send enough ships back - but it also does do that sometimes. It "thinks" this piont is Bombay because I used that slot.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 945
RE: RHS 5 & 6.651 micro update (eratta) - 3/3/2007 3:31:40 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Cleaning up very nicely. Reports indicate very few error points. After I freeze (one hour) Martin will do some slight enhancements that will fold into the next update - whenever that is. We will make it run more efficiently. We also are opening up slots of several kinds for later or modder use.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 946
RE: RHS integrated 6.642 integrated comprehensive updat... - 3/3/2007 3:50:26 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I can verify BA 18th Division went to Singapore, fought as a unit, and was captured there. It seems best to leave it as a single unit - more effective - fewer slots required. I have moved its location to Aden from Kerachi - and moved back its date to 8 January - which may be too soon for some elements - but as they must still be moved somewhere - it is not too bad a solution. If we get more data we might break it up - but the Allies hardly need more small units early on - and this will do.

No data on Soviet armor - so it will stay as it. It may be there were no heavy tanks in Far East - but only the 8 older brigades get them - and only 7 tanks per brigade isn't a lot. If they were not there we need to know what was used - and the late 1941 organization specifies them (Aug and Nov organization tables).

We will upload as is. Eratta cleaning up nicely and what remains may be more moot than meaningful.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 947
RE: RHS 5 & 6.653 comprehensive update (FROZEN) - 3/3/2007 11:53:32 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		The debugged versions of both Level 5 and 6 at x.65 level are now in the upload process. Level 6 is posted by Cobra - complete with a reviewed ship art package. [Map art was released some time ago, as were pwhex files corresponding to them] 6.651 was reviewed with software tools. 6.652 was reviewed by hand (independently). 6.653 incorporates some loose ends - and changes US PT boats from respawning to nonrespawning/all present (including a few cancelled units if the war lasts longer than history). It also adds a final 5 LSTs - 2 of them in the early series - 3 in the late series. All identified eratta are corrected - including a starting pool of B-29s (which has been removed before - but keeps sneaking back in!). I prefer to give you the total number of planes = monthly rate times x months plus whatever is left as a pool - but hard code won't let me do that. People could "upgrade" to the B-29 in 1941 - regretfully. [Smart software would not permit planes to be issued before the operational date] Anyway - this sort of thing should be fixed. I asked Cobra to do a final review of art - to make sure we don't have any crash ambushes waiting.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 948
RE: RHSRAO 6.653 Missing Ship Types - 3/3/2007 9:09:31 PM   
Fixin2

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 5/16/2006
Status: offline 		Just loaded RHSRAO 6.653 -- Pearl Harbor, San Diego and Manila have missing ship types in the active ship list with endurance =0.

Pearl Harbor Ship Type (none): ID 33/34/35; 36/37/38; 71/72/73; 74/75/76
San Diego Type (none): ID 77/78/79; 80/81/82;
Manila Type (none): ID 42/43/44; Me Ani;

When I click on one of above, the games crashes to desktop.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 949
RE: RHSRAO 6.653 Missing Ship Types - 3/3/2007 10:09:49 PM   
DrewBlack


Posts: 828
Joined: 7/3/2004
From: North Wales, UK
Status: offline 		Yer me to, bugger!!!!!

Cause ship class is set to none for those pt boats.

there is in fact 20 of these still in the editor with NO classes type, they will cause crashes if appearing in the game i think

Ship Slots:5015 -5034
If this is in deed frozen, can we just amend ourselves to "delayed" in editor or will Sid be doin a mirco update.

Sid Should be:

Slot:
5015-5018 Class -1504
5019-5025 Class -1505
5026-5030 Class -1506
5031-5034 Class -1505 these where in fact Higgins 78 but this is not included in database.

Hope this is of help.
Drew

< Message edited by DrewBlack -- 3/3/2007 10:56:01 PM >

(in reply to Fixin2)
Post #: 950
RE: RHSRAO 6.653 Missing Ship Types - 3/3/2007 10:16:33 PM   
CobraAus


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

Yer me to, bugger!!!!!

Cause ship class is set to none for those pt boats.

sorry guys I think this one for Sid to fix when he comes on line

Cobra Aus

(in reply to DrewBlack)
Post #: 951
RE: RHSRAO 6.653 Missing Ship Types - 3/4/2007 4:01:10 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		PT boats names are just numbers -

these clearly are PT boats.

If you crash - you need the new ship art - as the new art (triple boats) is required or it will crash.

IF you get it right - they are pretty.



(in reply to Fixin2)
Post #: 952
RE: RHSRAO 6.653 Missing Ship Types - 3/4/2007 4:02:19 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: DrewBlack

Yer me to, bugger!!!!!

Cause ship class is set to none for those pt boats.

there is in fact 20 of these still in the editor with NO classes type, they will cause crashes if appearing in the game i think

Ship Slots:5015 -5034
If this is in deed frozen, can we just amend ourselves to "delayed" in editor or will Sid be doin a mirco update.

Sid Should be:

Slot:
5015-5018 Class -1504
5019-5025 Class -1505
5026-5030 Class -1506
5031-5034 Class -1505 these where in fact Higgins 78 but this is not included in database.

Hope this is of help.
Drew


There is no Higgans 78 because there is no Higgans 78! It is renamed Higgans 80 ft.


Elco 77 ft are 1683 class

Higgans 80 ft are 1684 class

Elco 80 ft are 1685 class

All data from RHSEOS 6.653 - and it is all correct. Looking at it. Running it.

Reloaded, went to PH - they look lovely. If you have the right art - the ship display comes up with

PT a space and then the numbers -aa/bb/cc

The art has moving wakes for all three vessels - looks wonderful.

Bet you need the "river ships art update" package installed with

side art in Allied Side Art

shills in Allied Transportation Art

sub folders of Art Folder -

and you will need same for Japan too - except Japan at least puts "shil" in the folder name!




< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/4/2007 4:24:25 AM >

(in reply to DrewBlack)
Post #: 953
RE: RHSRAO 6.653 Missing Ship Types - 3/4/2007 5:22:08 AM   
Fixin2

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 5/16/2006
Status: offline 		El Cid,

I follow your postings almost every day and I want to thank you for all of the fine work that you and the other RHS members have done for the game.   I want to play Scenario 061 RHSRAOv6.653 and I have a problem with PT boats showing up as "none " type class on turn #1 as noted in my post above.   I copied the art components found in the Allied/Axis sub-folders of the "River Ships" folder to the correct allied/axis ships shils and sides folders.  When I look at the Alliedship_Transport and Alliedship_Back folders I can see the PT art images --- 0148, 0319, 0320, 0321 all contain 3 ships.  I may have installed something wrong.  if you have time I would appreciate you taking a look at the editor for this scenario. 

Thanks,

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 954
RE: RHSRAO 6.653 Missing Ship Types - 3/4/2007 6:57:42 AM   
CobraAus


Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline 		for those having problems with PT class CTD I have just uploaded 2 fix sets for the Frozen scenarios - see My download link thread for details

Cobra Aus

(in reply to Fixin2)
Post #: 955
RE: RHS 5 & 6.653 (FROZEN) class file microupdate (unc... - 3/4/2007 11:45:11 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Somehow along the way, the ship class files in the Upload subfolder failed to have at least three records related to PT boats. The correct files have been uploaded as a microupdate. These are not changed from my point of view - and the version numbers remain 5.653 or 6.653. But these class files are NOT the same as was in the x.653 file sets. Those file sets will be updated in due course - but this microupdate fixes the problem in the meanwhile for anyone on the primary distribution list.

Because the "fix sets" I sent out before I went to work also contained the bad files, they will not work. This set - containing both Level 5 and 6 files, will work. Mifune ran tests on the fix set files while I was at work and established the problem remained, so I ran file compares and found the problems.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 3/4/2007 12:00:47 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 956
RE: RHSRAO 6.653 Missing Ship Types - 3/4/2007 11:48:56 AM   
el cid again

 

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

ORIGINAL: Fixin2

El Cid,

I follow your postings almost every day and I want to thank you for all of the fine work that you and the other RHS members have done for the game.   I want to play Scenario 061 RHSRAOv6.653 and I have a problem with PT boats showing up as "none " type class on turn #1 as noted in my post above.   I copied the art components found in the Allied/Axis sub-folders of the "River Ships" folder to the correct allied/axis ships shils and sides folders.  When I look at the Alliedship_Transport and Alliedship_Back folders I can see the PT art images --- 0148, 0319, 0320, 0321 all contain 3 ships.  I may have installed something wrong.  if you have time I would appreciate you taking a look at the editor for this scenario. 

Thanks,


Before I had a chance - I was working for six hours - Mifune identified the offending records were missing. I simply had to send out files with them. I make so many copies that it is very hard not to have some good ones.

(in reply to Fixin2)
Post #: 957
RE: RHSRAO 6.653 Missing Ship Types - 3/4/2007 5:36:24 PM   
DrewBlack


Posts: 828
Joined: 7/3/2004
From: North Wales, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: DrewBlack

Yer me to, bugger!!!!!

Cause ship class is set to none for those pt boats.

there is in fact 20 of these still in the editor with NO classes type, they will cause crashes if appearing in the game i think

Ship Slots:5015 -5034
If this is in deed frozen, can we just amend ourselves to "delayed" in editor or will Sid be doin a mirco update.

Sid Should be:

Slot:
5015-5018 Class -1504
5019-5025 Class -1505
5026-5030 Class -1506
5031-5034 Class -1505 these where in fact Higgins 78 but this is not included in database.

Hope this is of help.
Drew


There is no Higgans 78 because there is no Higgans 78! It is renamed Higgans 80 ft.


Elco 77 ft are 1683 class

Higgans 80 ft are 1684 class

Elco 80 ft are 1685 class

All data from RHSEOS 6.653 - and it is all correct. Looking at it. Running it.

Reloaded, went to PH - they look lovely. If you have the right art - the ship display comes up with

PT a space and then the numbers -aa/bb/cc

The art has moving wakes for all three vessels - looks wonderful.

Bet you need the "river ships art update" package installed with

side art in Allied Side Art

shills in Allied Transportation Art

sub folders of Art Folder -

and you will need same for Japan too - except Japan at least puts "shil" in the folder name!





Hi

Here is my proof that Higgans 78's existed, its from a web page
http://www.ptboats.org/20-01-05-ptboat-006.html

As its from the PT BOAT ARCHIVE, I thought it may be fact...

Thanks for the quick update....great work.

Drew


< Message edited by DrewBlack -- 3/4/2007 5:53:12 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 958
RE: RHS 5 & 6.653 (FROZEN) class file microupdate (unc... - 3/4/2007 9:42:01 PM   
davidjruss


Posts: 235
Joined: 5/25/2002
From: Derby, England
Status: offline
Sid ,

Re the 6.653 PT fix posted on Cobra Aus site. You state that this fix is for those on the primary distribution list. Am I right therefore in assuming that there will be a further fix for the general gaming public. I say this as I am still getting CTD's after downloading the fix from Cobra.

DavidR

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 959
RE: RHSRAO 6.653 Missing Ship Types - 3/4/2007 9:52:49 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I am following materials from Conway's Maritime Press staff:
what is called the "78 foot Higgans" is classified as "80 foot Higgans"
by them. This may reflect a technical terminology thing - such as LWL
vs LOA - and I have not measured the vessels in question with a measuring
tape. Since they provided a comprehensive and standardized listing of all
classes, it met the test of a reputable and standard data set. There are
often differences between UK and US ideas of this sort - particularly about
ships. UK regarded US loadings of CVEs as "irresponsible" in a stabilty sense,
and they carried a lot less fuel than we did as a result.

(in reply to DrewBlack)
Post #: 960
Page:   <<   < prev  30 31 [32] 33 34   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: RHS integrated 6.642 integrated comprehensive update uploading in process Page: <<   < prev  30 31 [32] 33 34   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

1.250