Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

The PBJ in RHS

 
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 >> The PBJ in RHS Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The PBJ in RHS - 7/27/2007 1:15:11 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
The PBJ has just become a torpedo bomber - sans torpedoes. This is so it can operate on carriers.

The Shangra La Squadron will fly it - with modified armament - but only in EOS - there is no Shangra La Squadron in other scenarios for technical reasons.

This means PBJ units can upgrade to other torpedo bomber types, and other torpedo bomber units can upgrade to PBJ.
If they do, they can operate them on carriers. This is because the deal was that the Marines would have the capability to operate on big carriers. PBJs should never operate on small carriers. And they will always have higher attrition than smaller planes for technical reasons - which is good simulation.

Code is not clear - even to the programmers at Matrix. It is possible we may get some strange effects from this decision.
By not featuring any torpedo in the loadout, it probably won't use torpedoes - but we are not certain - and we asked.
We need some tests to see if this works out.

The alternate option is to turn PBJ back into a horizontal bomber in non EOS scenarios. Because it really could (and did in tests) operate on carriers, I regard it as more historical to permit it. While the Shangra La squadron only did a one way mission - the PBJ is "natural" - it lands back on the ship.

The Shangra La Squadron issue may go away - I think we may see it put into all forms of WITP by Matrix bye and bye.
If it does - we can take our version out in favor of the official one - which presumably will do the one way mission thing properly.
Post #: 1
RE: The PBJ in RHS - 7/27/2007 1:18:01 PM   
Terminus


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The Shangra La Squadron issue may go away - I think we may see it put into all forms of WITP by Matrix bye and bye.


Except of course that you don't know anything about that, because you have no contact whatsoever with the official development team. Stop pretending that you do.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 2
RE: The PBJ in RHS - 7/27/2007 5:27:59 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The Shangra La Squadron issue may go away - I think we may see it put into all forms of WITP by Matrix bye and bye.


Except of course that you don't know anything about that, because you have no contact whatsoever with the official development team. Stop pretending that you do.


How do you know that?

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 3
RE: The PBJ in RHS - 7/27/2007 6:30:03 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
While it is impossible to proove a negative proposition (so Terminus could in no case proove his assumption were true), only a single example can disprove one. In this case, we have the matter of the cavalry art, present in both CHS and RHS, but only after the senior Matrix programmer informed Andrew and I by email how to do it. Seems it was always part of WITP, but never implemented. We had no idea what the unused code meant in the particular field, nor is it a field one can normally see to change. It was implemented approximately simultaneously by CHS and RHS because Matrix apparently decided to "have contact" with these specific modders - and no one else was included on that particular occasion. Our Terminous likes to make strong, hostile, negative propositions, presumably because he does not want to accept a positive working relationship might exist between productive members of the community, official and unofficial.
That in turn probably tells us much more about him than about the people he throws darts at. I note once again that he does not elect to respect the terms he agreed to about participating in the Forum. In another example of the alleged nonexistent communication with Matrix, a Matrix programmer wrote that I could never please everyone (for example by including different views in different scenarios), and that being visible I must draw some hostile comments, no matter how much I tried or wished to please everyone. I believed - or at least hoped - that opinion was incorrect - but apparently the programmer knew the Forum better than I do. What positive purpose might be served by such comments is beyond my kin? But possibly my error is to put positive and Terminus in the same sentence. I begin to think he likes negativity and hostility - and that is simply that. On the matter in question, I don't know what will be done when, nor if an effort to do it might work or not? But I didn't just make the comment out of the blue, and I do expect to remove the Shangra La Squadron in its RHS form because it will be superceded by an official version (just as I had to remove wierd RHS settings for RHS Soviet ships when Matrix released an official version).

The truth is that we are in the process of adopting a standardized ship art set as a result of much work done BECAUSAE we accepted an official proposition from Matrix that CHS, RHS and stock use a common set of art. Somehow our version of the art was apparently plugged into a less than current set of RHS art. But there are many technical improvements in the standard art package, and it will be revised in "5-6 days" - and one can change it during a game in progress. Meanwhile we can use the older art set. But the point is - this was a Matrix initiated concept (curiously Cobra and I had dreamed up the same idea but not yet told anyone about it) - and it surly qualifies as "some form of communication." We might have avoided some frustration by not cooperating - but in the end we are all going to be better off that this has been done - and that both standards were developed and implemented - and may different artists products are being incorporated. This is a great example of the way communications and work ought to be done - with a positive and cooperative attitude - and I know of only one other computer game company that does this sort of thing. It is a great tribute to Matrix and the community that "some form of communication" does exist, and is fostered by Matrix, and apparently was part of their design philosophy.

I am an eternal optimist. I believe that sooner or later Terminus is going to figure out that, while I can be wrong, I would never lie (off a battlefield). I devote far too much time to this to waste time spinning wheels. He is wrong so often sooner or later the evidence must become overwhelming - no matter how strong his desire to hold hostile beliefs may be. From that day forward we will all cease to waste our time reading things that don't contribute to anything worthy of our time.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 7/27/2007 7:12:03 PM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 4
RE: The PBJ in RHS - 7/28/2007 3:46:17 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
I think you said that a torpedo bomber will torpedo anyway when i asked about using Torpedo bombers as an alternative for fighter bombers with recon capability. So you decided to experiment?

Btw about PJB http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b25_19.html  go from 1.html and you have all B-25 versions.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b25.html Top level

< Message edited by Dili -- 7/28/2007 3:54:21 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 5
RE: The PBJ in RHS - 7/28/2007 6:37:21 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
I did what Terminus above says I don't do: I communicated with Matrix. The reply was technical and not entirely conclusive, because of qualifiers that there might be routines not described. But it appeared to me that the tests should prevent torpedo attacks - and if there is any exception - I decided to rationalize it. The idea is not without technical merit - insofar as a Ventura or a B-26 could pull it off - so probably could a B-25. But - yes - it is in some sense an experiment. We seek to get closer to the historical reality than we have had: that these planes can fly from carriers.
Turns out code will only let a horizontal bomber transfer from a carrier - it never considers it to be a carrier plane. So we lied to it - getting the right performance and loadout should do the trick.

This was, FYI, a suggestion made by someone on the Forum - not my invention.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 6
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> The PBJ in RHS Page: [1]
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

0.625