RE: CHS version 3.0

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: CHS version 3.0

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: CHS version 3.0

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/3/2007 3:03:57 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

Maybe Andrew can answer this one, how much time does it take? I could do the job, and I'd like to, but at the moment, I don't even have any time to play the game. I'm self employed and extremely busy right now. I'm hoping things will begin to improve by mid to late summer.

A few months back I did do some work with the DB, starting with the most recent CHS. I fixed the errors in the pilot DB, which I passed on to Andrew. I also went through the OOB for Marine air, RAF, Navy patrol squadrons, and to some extent FAA. Additionally, I found a lot of errors in the late war RN fleet. Dixie got inspired and found a lot more.

I also made some changes to the aircraft stats. I didn't focus on the air to air model. I was focused on speed, range, and load out. I added drop tanks to many aircraft that routinely carried them. From the bit of playing I've done, I see I need to tweak that a little further. I also added a 1000 lb AP and made that the standard armament of the SBD and SB2C. The default load was the 1000 lb for those two in the real world. The SB2C sometimes carried 2X 500 lb on some missions, but it regularly carried 1000 lbs. I also freed up 4 slots by combining artwork for the recon and fighter versions of some US aircraft and added some missing aircraft.

Some of my changes were experimental. I tried adding naval HQs to Pearl Harbor and the West Coast ports with repair facilities. I definitely think Pearl should have a naval HQ. That had a siginificant affect on repairs there in the real world. Not sure about the other HQs, though I'm seeing fewer cases where ships hang up repairing with 1 Sys damage.

Bill

< Message edited by wdolson -- 5/3/2007 3:39:10 AM >

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 31

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/3/2007 7:29:31 AM

Buck Beach

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

Referencing the thread your post , I tried to bring up on this late last August entitled CHS: The End of the Line? I got shot down faster than a duck flying over Wisconsin. There appeared to be only three of us interested in keeping this gem updated and alive. Since then, I play it, but sure as heck never mention it. I just find other things to do with my spare time.

I have read the original thread and I must say that there looked to be a positive attitude for your probe (aside from the off topic issues). Like Tanaka said or questioned, it did not appear that anybody shot you down.

You appear to know what you are talking about (from an ignorant persons view point), so please continue to follow with the others to resurrect CHS. I like your thoughts on being able to tweak the game to be able to have on going changes without so many restarts.

Please don't get offended and give up. Take an example from El Cid. There are so many negative attitudes toward his endeavorers, without the slightest thought some may be very good issues. But, he continues, and if I might add bring, some very good concepts to the table.

Go for it DD696.

(in reply to DD696)

Post #: 32

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/3/2007 1:51:48 PM

tanjman

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Maybe Andrew can answer this one, how much time does it take? I could do the job, and I'd like to, but at the moment, I don't even have any time to play the game. I'm self employed and extremely busy right now. I'm hoping things will begin to improve by mid to late summer.

A few months back I did do some work with the DB, starting with the most recent CHS. I fixed the errors in the pilot DB, which I passed on to Andrew. I also went through the OOB for Marine air, RAF, Navy patrol squadrons, and to some extent FAA. Additionally, I found a lot of errors in the late war RN fleet. Dixie got inspired and found a lot more.

I also made some changes to the aircraft stats. I didn't focus on the air to air model. I was focused on speed, range, and load out. I added drop tanks to many aircraft that routinely carried them. From the bit of playing I've done, I see I need to tweak that a little further. I also added a 1000 lb AP and made that the standard armament of the SBD and SB2C. The default load was the 1000 lb for those two in the real world. The SB2C sometimes carried 2X 500 lb on some missions, but it regularly carried 1000 lbs. I also freed up 4 slots by combining artwork for the recon and fighter versions of some US aircraft and added some missing aircraft.

Some of my changes were experimental. I tried adding naval HQs to Pearl Harbor and the West Coast ports with repair facilities. I definitely think Pearl should have a naval HQ. That had a siginificant affect on repairs there in the real world. Not sure about the other HQs, though I'm seeing fewer cases where ships hang up repairing with 1 Sys damage.

Bill

Bill,

I was thinking about placing the following Naval Districts in the game (for a mod I've been sort of working on since WitP came out) for the same reason.

11th Naval District - San Diego, California
12th Naval District - San Francisco, California
13th Naval District - Seattle, Washington
14th Naval District - Pearl Harbor, Territory of Hawaii

_____________________________

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

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 33

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/3/2007 2:56:47 PM

DD696

Posts: 964
Joined: 7/9/2004
From: near Savannah, Ga
Status: offline

Hi,

Since there does seem to be growing interest in continuing the growth of CHS, I suggest someone start a new thread appropriately titled for discussion on this subject. To clarify a couple points, by getting "shot down" I meant that I could raise virtually no interest in a discussion of the subject and was also told in that thread by a mod that another person had agreed to take over the CHS job, so I let it go. Now, obiviously, that other person has not stepped forward and CHS has stagnated and is splintering in all directions.

To clarify a second point that was brought up, yes, I do think I have a lot of good ideas (but then so do a lot of other people). A lot of my ideas that I was bringing up simply cannot be implemented by anyone other than the guys programming this game. I was just stating that changes "could" be made IF those changes were something they (or whoever controls what they do) deemed it worth doing. Again, no one wanted to discuss anything about this. As it stands, restrictions in the size of data base and hard-coded programming restrictions are becoming a major stumbling block in expanding the various scenerios. Frankly, I do not think that anything will be done along these lines as it would not be deemed profitable. I am also of the opinion that the code updates are probably going to come to an end in the very near future. It has been around eight months since the last update and one of the programmers brought on board to keep this game alive pretty much disappeared around that time.

On another point, which always raises the hackles of the PBEM'ers, I feel the greatest drawback to this game is the lack of an editor that allows the game to be edited while the game is in progress. Having to require a restart in a game of this immense size and commitment just because the data on a plane needs updating (to put it simply) is a very absurd notion. But then, whenever ideas like this are put forth the Mutt and Jeff team go to work attempting to pooh-pooh the ideas of the author and the author himself. I think anything that has been on this forum for any lenght of time can figure out who the Mutt and Jeff team is composed of.

So, if any of you fellows want to start a serious discussion of the future of CHS, I would be happy to join in. We do have to persuade Andrew to join in also. It's still his baby apparently and he is still slowly rocking it.

_____________________________

USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.

(in reply to Buck Beach)

Post #: 34

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/3/2007 3:21:37 PM

treespider

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

Part of the "problem" with CHS is that it is/was a group effort and required the consent of the group for various "radical/experimental" changes...

It sounds to me like DD696 has volunteered to undertake the role of CHS coordinator...I'm sure Andrew wouldn't mind as he is busy with other things

_____________________________

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 DD696)

Post #: 35

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/3/2007 3:26:08 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Yeah... Good luck with that...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 36

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/3/2007 3:56:27 PM

Andrew Brown

Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696
We do have to persuade Andrew to join in also. It's still his baby apparently and he is still slowly rocking it.

I am happy to continue with some sort of involvement with CHS. I have had very little time to devote to it of late, but I do have a partially updated copy, that I tentatively call version 2.09, which contains a lot of bug fixes (including the pilot updates that wdolson provided). I also have a list of things I would like to add to it, such as the ship changes that JWE has worked on, and some of Treespider's recent work.

I am currently trying to complete a map update I started AGES ago, and when that finally sees the light of day I may be able to spend a little bit of time on a CHS update. But if there are others readly and willing to help out now then I am more than happy for them to do so.

The biggest problem with any sort of collaborative effort is arriving to some sort of consensus on which changes should be added to the scenario. The more changes that get proposed, and the broader they are, the less likely that agreement will be reached for their inclusion.

Andrew

(in reply to DD696)

Post #: 37

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/3/2007 7:39:21 PM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696
We do have to persuade Andrew to join in also. It's still his baby apparently and he is still slowly rocking it.

I am happy to continue with some sort of involvement with CHS. I have had very little time to devote to it of late, but I do have a partially updated copy, that I tentatively call version 2.09, which contains a lot of bug fixes (including the pilot updates that wdolson provided). I also have a list of things I would like to add to it, such as the ship changes that JWE has worked on, and some of Treespider's recent work.

I am currently trying to complete a map update I started AGES ago, and when that finally sees the light of day I may be able to spend a little bit of time on a CHS update. But if there are others readly and willing to help out now then I am more than happy for them to do so.

The biggest problem with any sort of collaborative effort is arriving to some sort of consensus on which changes should be added to the scenario. The more changes that get proposed, and the broader they are, the less likely that agreement will be reached for their inclusion.

Andrew

So why does everyone keep winking at Andrew?

Andrew, maybe someone or someones would at least agree to helping complete the changes you dont have the time to finish right now?

_____________________________

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 38

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/3/2007 7:53:30 PM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696
We do have to persuade Andrew to join in also. It's still his baby apparently and he is still slowly rocking it.

I am happy to continue with some sort of involvement with CHS. I have had very little time to devote to it of late, but I do have a partially updated copy, that I tentatively call version 2.09, which contains a lot of bug fixes (including the pilot updates that wdolson provided). I also have a list of things I would like to add to it, such as the ship changes that JWE has worked on, and some of Treespider's recent work.

I am currently trying to complete a map update I started AGES ago, and when that finally sees the light of day I may be able to spend a little bit of time on a CHS update. But if there are others readly and willing to help out now then I am more than happy for them to do so.

The biggest problem with any sort of collaborative effort is arriving to some sort of consensus on which changes should be added to the scenario. The more changes that get proposed, and the broader they are, the less likely that agreement will be reached for their inclusion.

Andrew

If CHS is going to continue to live - it needs a head coordinator / gate keeper. I think this was Don at the beginning and then after a bit of musical chairs in the late summer of '05 Andrew wound up with the role, which he has had ever since. And it is a tough role to pass on. But maybe Andrew would be open to some "volunteers" for taking the role. I know we've asked a number of folks who have been "smart enough"

to turn us down. But if someone wants the job, Andrew might be listening! But you need to think about a commitment in terms of 1-2 years. And you'll have to find your own replacement - if this thing is still alive then!!!

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 39

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/3/2007 8:04:24 PM

DD696

Posts: 964
Joined: 7/9/2004
From: near Savannah, Ga
Status: offline

Nope....a long time ago in the Marine Corps I learned never to volunteer for anything, but it would really be nice to get moving on this again. It was a team effort and still should be. I'm just glad a few people starting poking at the hive again to see what life this had left in it.

If it is going to get done other people besides me are going to have to get seriously involved. Andrew is willing. There are lots of other good ideas out there that could be rolled up into a finished product along with the bugs that Andrew has already stomped on. There ought to be several slots to be filled. Someone needs to twist Andrew's arm to finish up his great map work. There needs to be an aircraft czar, or perhaps two: one taking allies and the other japanese. Same with ships. Might need a weapons expert. Probably more than I can think of just offhand. Or perhaps divy it up along the lines of two teams, allied and axis.

It is true that all requested changes won't be liked by all. You just have to go with a consensus and get the product out. Everyone needs to remember that it is just data that anyone can modify, unless, of course, the game is already in progress. If someone is adament about a change, you, I repeat, you have the ability to change the data to your heart's content, just as I and other people have.

What I don't want to see is the base CHS getting shuffled by the wayside as the splintering continues. Keep CHS going, but as I said, anyone can then take that version and mod in their favorite have-to-be's.

What do you think? Who's willing to grab this tiger and take it for a ride?

_____________________________

USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 40

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/4/2007 1:18:33 AM

Buck Beach

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

Nope....a long time ago in the Marine Corps I learned never to volunteer for anything, but it would really be nice to get moving on this again. It was a team effort and still should be. I'm just glad a few people starting poking at the hive again to see what life this had left in it.

If it is going to get done other people besides me are going to have to get seriously involved. Andrew is willing. There are lots of other good ideas out there that could be rolled up into a finished product along with the bugs that Andrew has already stomped on. There ought to be several slots to be filled. Someone needs to twist Andrew's arm to finish up his great map work. There needs to be an aircraft czar, or perhaps two: one taking allies and the other japanese. Same with ships. Might need a weapons expert. Probably more than I can think of just offhand. Or perhaps divy it up along the lines of two teams, allied and axis.

It is true that all requested changes won't be liked by all. You just have to go with a consensus and get the product out. Everyone needs to remember that it is just data that anyone can modify, unless, of course, the game is already in progress. If someone is adament about a change, you, I repeat, you have the ability to change the data to your heart's content, just as I and other people have.

What I don't want to see is the base CHS getting shuffled by the wayside as the splintering continues. Keep CHS going, but as I said, anyone can then take that version and mod in their favorite have-to-be's.

What do you think? Who's willing to grab this tiger and take it for a ride?

Hmm! then if I hear you right, you are nothing more than a recruiter. You are now coming off a lot differently than your former posts. Maybe you should go back into hibernation because you appear to have nothing to offer, especially after so much whining and your Mutt and Jeff comments.

I expect this won't be received to well, but sure as hell if I had the talents that you professed to have, I would be up to my A**, in trying to help. I guess it is not that important to you.

(in reply to DD696)

Post #: 41

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/4/2007 1:50:16 AM

DD696

Posts: 964
Joined: 7/9/2004
From: near Savannah, Ga
Status: offline

Note that I have never stated that I should take over CHS....that would be quite presumptive of me, wouldn't you think? It does not belong to me. I have never had anything to do with it other than pointing out some error corrections at times. The position has never been offered to me. All I have been trying to do is find out if there is still enthusiam out there for doing so. It takes more than one person to do this, unless you are El Cid. I don't profess to have any special qualities or talents, just a desire not to let this fade away. It is comments like yours that would make make just about anyone not want to become involved in trying to get this thing going again. Obiviously, you have nothing to offer other than snide comments. You ought to consider the hibernation option. Other people have more important things to do. The big emphasis appears to be to launch attacks on anyone who would like to garner up some support for CHS. Tell me there, Buck Beach, do you have the ability to appoint the CHS coordinator and do you have the power to do so?

_____________________________

USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.

(in reply to Buck Beach)

Post #: 42

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/4/2007 3:24:01 AM

Buck Beach

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

Note that I have never stated that I should take over CHS....that would be quite presumptive of me, wouldn't you think? It does not belong to me. I have never had anything to do with it other than pointing out some error corrections at times. The position has never been offered to me. All I have been trying to do is find out if there is still enthusiam out there for doing so. It takes more than one person to do this, unless you are El Cid. I don't profess to have any special qualities or talents, just a desire not to let this fade away. It is comments like yours that would make make just about anyone not want to become involved in trying to get this thing going again. Obiviously, you have nothing to offer other than snide comments. You ought to consider the hibernation option. Other people have more important things to do. The big emphasis appears to be to launch attacks on anyone who would like to garner up some support for CHS. Tell me there, Buck Beach, do you have the ability to appoint the CHS coordinator and do you have the power to do so?

Sorry pal, that dog won't fly. Here are a couple of quotes:

"Other changes would be easier also if the file structure wasn't so limited. It is possible to expand the number of slots for ships, aircraft, etc. It is not a difficult thing to do. I spent many years as a system's analyst for banks having to do and plan for such things. It is possible to give the player a seris of user input fields to define certain characteristics that effect gameplay. Example: there is a move underfoot to want to lower the experience level of pilots. All well and good, however, there are hardcoded aspects of the game which are then affected. Such as the experience level of an airgroup must be x% before it will fly certain missions and do certain tasks. This "x%" could easily be a user variable. These user variables are the key to finding the "happy balance" needed to play the game to everyone's satisfaction. These can be done, but it involves "change". The files must be expanded. If this is done all games currently in progress are now unplayable due to a different file structure. Ah, but in my many years of data processing work this is easily handled also. The programmer writes a conversion program to convert the old file format to the new file format. Now in the case of Personal Computers, where every user has the complete program system running on their own machines, this means that everybody's personal file saves have to be converted. Well, that can be done "automagically" during the install of a new release with the execution of the "file conversion program" rather than having each individual user trying to execute it himself."

And then: "Andrew's main post on the subject is in the thread "Possible suggestion/question for CHS", post #10. I do not know the fine art of importing comments from another thread (or this one, for that matter), so unless I write down what was stated and then retype the info I am out of luck with quotes. It does seem fairly clear to me that he said he was no longer doing CHS but would still maintain his beloved map, and that he would like an individual or individuals to come onboard to maintain CHS. Joe Wilkerson indicated above that a selection (Lemurs) has been made. If that is so, all is well. If any help is needed, I'll offer it. Just wanted to make sure CHS was not in the process of "fading away". Those of us with too much time on our hands worry about little things like this.

And then the last of your posts in that thread:

...and so DD696 lowers his banner and trudges slowly away, a small and faint voice not understood....
...on past more important things such as "the three dumbest things I ever did"...
...on past the eager players of WITP....
...on past the occasional players of WITP...
...on past the "should I really get into this" group...
...on past the gawkers and lurkers...
...on past the howling denizons of the forests and oceans...
...and yes, even far past the incoherent mumblings of the dwellers of "The Thread"...
...yes, way past them...
...........................
Maybe time to dust off the ol' '60 Vette and go burn the tires off....
More important things to do........

Hey don't blow smoke up our A**es. You "jacked me up" with all your hype and I think others too. No I do not have the ability to assist in any way, color me old and dumb but at least I'm honest. Look you got a total of 97 posts and you want me to hibernate. Your support appears to be only in the role of cheer leader. Put up or shut up, I say. If this cause is important to you then quit back peddling.

(in reply to DD696)

Post #: 43

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/4/2007 4:26:00 AM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

Understand that most people don�t particularly care about a CHS class and ship reorganization. I�ll keep plugging along and give the product to Andrew, what happens then, happens.

I have decided what to do about the standard art for CHS. I have the art, but it is organized in accord with the class and ship reorganization mod, so it won�t work with the current scenario set. So, I will make the art available as a kit; blank backgrounds and organized by type, as below. You can do what you want with it.

I know people want everything as Sides and Shills, but there are certain, let�s just say anomalies, in the CHS database, and it�s very difficult to make the art fit. Cut and paste, and renumber, is really the only answer. I�ll provide a background panel so things will look like the rest of the standard art sets.

Hopefully I can get Andrew to host these, so people don�t have to scroll through Spooky�s to get the whole collection. I�ll let you know where they will be.

Ciao. JWE

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Buck Beach)

Post #: 44

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/4/2007 5:27:43 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

wdolson, the big mistake in volunteering is getting into the Marines in the first place, its downhill from there.

To the CHS Team,

If needed, I am happy to volunteer to help in research.

I am good in the Commonwealth side of things, reasonable in the US and execrable on the japanese side and have a deep interest in the Pacific campaigns.

I also have an unhealthy interest in maps ans have a good collection of NG maps from the ages.

I could also help in testing, but cant spend a lot of time on it, slow computer (maybe slow computer operator)

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 45

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/4/2007 5:54:01 AM

Buck Beach

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

wdolson, the big mistake in volunteering is getting into the Marines in the first place, its downhill from there.

To the CHS Team,

If needed, I am happy to volunteer to help in research.

I am good in the Commonwealth side of things, reasonable in the US and execrable on the japanese side and have a deep interest in the Pacific campaigns.

I also have an unhealthy interest in maps ans have a good collection of NG maps from the ages.

I could also help in testing, but cant spend a lot of time on it, slow computer (maybe slow computer operator)

I too would like to help but don't know how. If you want me to run some tests maybe I could do that.

Old and slow.
Buck

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 46

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/4/2007 10:01:36 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

wdolson, the big mistake in volunteering is getting into the Marines in the first place, its downhill from there.

To the CHS Team,

If needed, I am happy to volunteer to help in research.

I am good in the Commonwealth side of things, reasonable in the US and execrable on the japanese side and have a deep interest in the Pacific campaigns.

I also have an unhealthy interest in maps ans have a good collection of NG maps from the ages.

I could also help in testing, but cant spend a lot of time on it, slow computer (maybe slow computer operator)

I always knew better than to volunteer for the Marines. Not my idea of fun.

As far as volunteering for CHS goes, if Andrew can give me an idea of the time commitment and if the team will have me, I'll do it. The problem is that I won't be able to do much actual hands on for a while, though I can coordinate.

I think I can handle the task. I don't have any ego investment in any particular outcome. My opinion of anything I've done so far is that if it goes by the wayside because someone else did something better, than so be it. The goal is to produce the best product, not have p***ing contests.

I am very familiar with software. I've been in the biz for 20 years and I run a small software company with my SO. I also serve as ombudsman for a social organization I belong to and I've been administrator of a large e-mail mailing list that has been around since 1993. I've been one of the three administrators since 1998.

My only problem is time. By late summer or so, I will hopefully have more time, but right now I'm working my tail off on a large work project, and when that's done, I have another big one to jump into. For the next few months, about all I can do is help coordinate different people's efforts and map out the plan.

The first question to answer is where does CHS fit in the WitP scheme? RHS has branched off from CHS in a major way. El Cid has done some huge changes to the mix that alters game dynamics. CHS makes the OOB more accurate, and the "Experimental Version" incorporates much of the Nik Mod. It hasn't gone as far as RHS in playing with the game engine.

How far do people want to go with CHS? Personally, I want to see CHS thrive because I think RHS goes a little too far. I like some of the changes for accuracy, such as incorporating drop tanks on some aircraft. Improvements to aircraft ranges is good too. I don't like the supply sinks and some of the other things that sort of fool the game engine.

I don't want to trash El Cid. He has put tremendous work into RHS and I respect that. It has its place, but I think we all agree that CHS has its place too.

So what does CHS 3.0 look like?

Which varients do we want to include/create? I saw someone calling for incorporating the Big B mod as a varient. I think we should also keep a stock A2A model varient. I assume there is a lobby for the NikMod varient too?

Anyway, that's what I would suggest as a starting point.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 47

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/4/2007 10:32:25 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

I would like to see a version, doesnt have to be CHS, which while having historical values for Shipping & Air, is willing to fudge the Ground a bit. You cant recreate the changes which Armies went through so to "fix" these is acceptable.

I also think that if its a team effort, running queries through the team before the Forum is the best way and if the Forum is used, to ask politely for help.

Having the various "Mods" is a great idea, I've played Niks as well as CHS. I havent tried the experimental or BigB as I decided to final at least 1 game (up to Dec43

at the moment)

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 48

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/4/2007 8:11:33 PM

Wahoo

Posts: 30
Joined: 9/4/2004
Status: offline

Whats the web address for CHS?

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 49

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/5/2007 2:14:33 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

http://www.bur.st/~akbrown/witp/CHS_download.html

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Wahoo)

Post #: 50

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/5/2007 2:43:07 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

My goodness .. I'm not clear on what was first said that started up a tussle.

CHS is an "Open Source" project. This means it is owned by "everybody" which primarily means this forum. Now, like all/most open source projects, there is still a "gatekeeper" a person who decides whether a contribution belongs "in the next release" or not. This, in theory, preserves those attributes of the "product" that were desired by the original designers, who presumably approved the appointment of the first gatekeeper.

At this point Andrew is the gatekeeper. Don and Lemurs are the "gatekeepers emeritae" .. I was merely a contributor, before accepting a role working on the game code.

But this makes Andrew the person who would make any decision about whether or not, he is looking for a replacement. It was presumptuous of me to even air the topic, but he and I have discussed it a number of times and we have approached greater than zero people about whether they would be interested. So far, no takers. But anyone with the requisite Knowledge, Skills and Abilities would be "eligible" to be a subsequent gatekeeper.

(If even they were in the Marines

)

So, anyone with a real interest should just PM Andrew and take it from there.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to DD696)

Post #: 51

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/5/2007 11:56:43 AM

DD696

Posts: 964
Joined: 7/9/2004
From: near Savannah, Ga
Status: offline

Hi,

Wdolson, I agree with your comments entirely. BucK Beach, there is no point in responding to you, other than to say that I did offer to help out in August 2006 and no one took me up on the offer. I will again put forth an offer to help out. For the less comprehensive out there, that does not mean that I have just now staged a coup and appointed myself CHS coordinator. I have time that I can offer. Again, I have no special abilities or talents. I am not an expert in aircraft. You will never find me in a heated discussion of how many rivits were on a P-51D. I am not an expert in ships. What the defensive value of the chunk of armor located 31 feet from the from of the bow and 9 feet up from the bottom of the keel is in defending against an incoming 8" projective fired from some specific ship is I have absolutely no idea. So chances are that I am not qualified to be of any value here, but if I can, I'm willing to discuss how I can help out. Wdolson, if you would like, PM me. Same offer goes to others (most others, anyway).

Great day here in Delaware yesterday. Took the top off the ol' lady and had a ball! And, just in case my lack of talent and special abilities does not allow me to post the picture that may or may not appear below, it is of the '60 Vette and I do blow smoke (off the tires),,,

Edit...so much for the picture.

< Message edited by DD696 -- 5/5/2007 11:59:01 AM >

_____________________________

USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 52

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/5/2007 1:45:34 PM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

As jwilkerson said, it's up to Andrew Brown, since it's his baby at the moment. I've PMed him.

As far as work goes, much of the work doesn't require any huge depth of knowledge. Google is your friend for much of this. If you can do web searches, I'm sure the CHS team can use you. Whoever ends up leading the effort.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to DD696)

Post #: 53

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/5/2007 2:06:06 PM

DD696

Posts: 964
Joined: 7/9/2004
From: near Savannah, Ga
Status: offline

Hope you get it. I haven't PM'ed Andrew as I've just been trying to see if the interest is there. Feel free to contact me if I can help out.

_____________________________

USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 54

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/5/2007 4:43:10 PM

Andrew Brown

Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline

While I have made little progress with the next CHS update, I still work on it when I can, and it is not completely dead. I am happy to continue to coordinate the rest of the current update, but any assistance with the rest of the update, including with the actual coordination work, would be a huge help.

As soon as the current update is wrapped up I will have to drop out entirely, however.

The current update started as just a lot of scenario bug fixes, but as usual with these things, other "fixes" and "enhancements" invariably creep in. On top of that there are major contributions by JWE and Treespider that should be incorporated, at least in part, as well.

One major update I started, but which has taken a LOT of time to work on, is a major update to ship radars, including some new radar device types. If anyone is interested in helping with the research for that, then I would be particularly grateful. This particular project ended up taking a lot longer than I originally thought, which is why it remains uncompleted, given that the amount of spare time I have to devote to it is so small.

I will post some details of the changes made so far, plus a list of what I think remains to be done, in the next day or two.

(in reply to DD696)

Post #: 55

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/8/2007 12:32:47 AM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

OK, pretty much done with the class and ship reorganization. Need a couple of test runs, but I think it's good to go. Going to Andrew in a couple days.

Woof!! Besides the re-structuring and re-naming, I had to do a major revamp of the endurance and fuel stats. Wow!! A quick review seems to suggest that everyone will use a *lot*!! more fuel, I mean a *lot*!! more.. So power up them AOs cause you're gonna need then.

Stats on specific fuel consumption was based on 1952 statistics, for relatively modern displacement hull characteristics and an approximate 6000 SHP plant. Naval vessel specific fuel consumption stats were taken from a statistically significant sample of wartime data for CVs, BBs, CAs, CLs, DDs, DEs, and applied to the dinkies, on a rational basis of hull configuration vs power plant.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 56

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/8/2007 12:50:28 AM

treespider

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

OK, pretty much done with the class and ship reorganization. Need a couple of test runs, but I think it's good to go. Going to Andrew in a couple days.

Woof!! Besides the re-structuring and re-naming, I had to do a major revamp of the endurance and fuel stats. Wow!! A quick review seems to suggest that everyone will use a *lot*!! more fuel, I mean a *lot*!! more.. So power up them AOs cause you're gonna need then.

Stats on specific fuel consumption was based on 1952 statistics, for relatively modern displacement hull characteristics and an approximate 6000 SHP plant. Naval vessel specific fuel consumption stats were taken from a statistically significant sample of wartime data for CVs, BBs, CAs, CLs, DDs, DEs, and applied to the dinkies, on a rational basis of hull configuration vs power plant.

Yehaw!!! How much conversion from existing CHS to yours will be necessary in terms of TF assignments "At-Start"? Or will it simply be a change the art files , ship files and class files kind of upgrade...or was the location file affected as well?

_____________________________

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 JWE)

Post #: 57

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/8/2007 1:29:45 AM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

OK, pretty much done with the class and ship reorganization. Need a couple of test runs, but I think it's good to go. Going to Andrew in a couple days.

Woof!! Besides the re-structuring and re-naming, I had to do a major revamp of the endurance and fuel stats. Wow!! A quick review seems to suggest that everyone will use a *lot*!! more fuel, I mean a *lot*!! more.. So power up them AOs cause you're gonna need then.

Stats on specific fuel consumption was based on 1952 statistics, for relatively modern displacement hull characteristics and an approximate 6000 SHP plant. Naval vessel specific fuel consumption stats were taken from a statistically significant sample of wartime data for CVs, BBs, CAs, CLs, DDs, DEs, and applied to the dinkies, on a rational basis of hull configuration vs power plant.

If I recall other discussions here, fuel and supply quantities are something of an abstration. 1 point of supply doesn't really correlate with 1 ton or any other measure. I thought the same applied to fuel.

Are you adjusting fuel consumption to some standard measure like 1 point equals 1 ton of fuel or 1 barrel of fuel?

If so, tanker capacity and fuel production needs to be adjusted. And we will also run into hard limits as far as how much fuel can be stored at a base. If fuel consumption is significantly more and production and transportation aren't adjusted accordingly, even the Allies are going to run out of fuel by the middle of the war. Also the fuel used in industry will remain the same, so if production is increased to reflect different needs of the ships, then that could throw off the production model.

It sounds like you aren't adjusting the capacity of the ships, so everything is going to have shorter range?

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 58

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/8/2007 1:47:39 AM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

Here's something that I'm finding out about the current CHS.

The extra bitmap slots that show upgrades DO change as the upgrades progress.

Mostly Allied BB's, CA's, CL's, and DD's.

My own personal bitmaps now refect this.

_____________________________

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 59

RE: CHS version 3.0 - 5/8/2007 2:07:03 AM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

OK, pretty much done with the class and ship reorganization. Need a couple of test runs, but I think it's good to go. Going to Andrew in a couple days.

Woof!! Besides the re-structuring and re-naming, I had to do a major revamp of the endurance and fuel stats. Wow!! A quick review seems to suggest that everyone will use a *lot*!! more fuel, I mean a *lot*!! more.. So power up them AOs cause you're gonna need then.

Stats on specific fuel consumption was based on 1952 statistics, for relatively modern displacement hull characteristics and an approximate 6000 SHP plant. Naval vessel specific fuel consumption stats were taken from a statistically significant sample of wartime data for CVs, BBs, CAs, CLs, DDs, DEs, and applied to the dinkies, on a rational basis of hull configuration vs power plant.

If I recall other discussions here, fuel and supply quantities are something of an abstration. 1 point of supply doesn't really correlate with 1 ton or any other measure. I thought the same applied to fuel.

Are you adjusting fuel consumption to some standard measure like 1 point equals 1 ton of fuel or 1 barrel of fuel?

If so, tanker capacity and fuel production needs to be adjusted. And we will also run into hard limits as far as how much fuel can be stored at a base. If fuel consumption is significantly more and production and transportation aren't adjusted accordingly, even the Allies are going to run out of fuel by the middle of the war. Also the fuel used in industry will remain the same, so if production is increased to reflect different needs of the ships, then that could throw off the production model.

It sounds like you aren't adjusting the capacity of the ships, so everything is going to have shorter range?

Bill

Fuel is in tons, just like tanker capacity and production. Actual ship capacity in bunkerage tons vs cruising range (statistically processed) is what drove the result. Sometimes an endurance number is decreased, sometimes a fuel number is increased. No production increases. A few ships will have shorter range, some ships will have greater fuel consumption for their endurance values. Warships are pretty close, everything else has been adjusted.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: CHS version 3.0