Not a Known ANW Issue? #03 - List Issue #122 Missiles not releasing.

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Not a Known ANW Issue? #03 - List Issue #122 Missiles not releasing.

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.] >> [Modern] >> Harpoon 3 - Advanced Naval Warfare >> Not a Known ANW Issue? #03 - List Issue #122 Missiles not releasing.

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Not a Known ANW Issue? #03 - List Issue #122 Missiles n... - 6/14/2009 5:04:53 AM

Bucks

Posts: 679
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

Reported as Follows:

quote:

Missiles not releasing

Missiles not releasing even though they are assigned in Weapons allocation window [Originally reported by KlubMarcus].

1. Run [HUD] Missiles not releasing (3.9.2).SAV in GE
2. Order Flankers to fire on enemy fighters
3. Weapons allocation screen will appear ([HUD] Missiles not releasing 1 (3.9.2).gif)
4. Assign 4 Alamo C and 2 Alamo D to first target
5. Unpause game.
6. No missiles appear.
7. Process must be repeated over, and over, again until missiles finally release at approximately 18nm
8. If weapons appear in the weapons allocation window, they should fire right away when assigned. If they cannot fire due to lack of fuel, weapon sensor not detecting target, altitude restriction, etc, then the weapon should not present itself as ready for allocation. This is misleading and requires the player to re-attack over, and over, again, until weapons are actually seen to launch.

This is a really really simple one and isn't a bug, it's called realism...

The Weapon Allocation window will fill with weapons for launch once the database Maximum Range value is reached and a valid target has been detected within the weapon's maximum range.

In the case of these missiles max range specified below:

R-27ER - [AA-10 Alamo C] Max Range is 47.6nm
&
R-27ET - [AA-10 Alamo D] Max Range is 44.0nm

Complaint centres on the inability to fire these weapons, Ok but where's the consideration of ALL of the issues involved here? There's none, like so many of the "list's" reports people seem unable to "get their heads" around this stuff.

This is a two (2) conditions fulfilled before firing situation:

1>. Target is within max range of the weapon

2>. Any sensors required to illuminate or guide the weapon concerned have to illuminate or have the target detected before they release.

So in the report we have a target within range of the weapon. Then people are confused why it didn't launch, range is only half the battle. The illumination radar for the Alamo C and IR seeker for the Alamo D have not gained a lock on the "Forward Aspect" of the intended Tornado targets.

One must remember that a "front on" shot is dealing with the smallest values for both IR and Radar platform aspects. Also the Tornado although a large aircraft in WW2 terms, compared to a Boeing 747 it's really small...

In conclusion, there are two factors here and not a real issue.

1.> DB Max range determines the placement of the maximum range rings in the GUI and that's what you see in game. This value is not used to determine the release point of any weapon in question, it simply gives the player an indication of when he's reached what I'll call the "engagement zone".

2.> Once within the weapon's maximum range the GE then commences checking to ensure any sensor requirements are fulfilled, i.e. Target is illuminated, weapon "on-board" sensors have a lock on the target etc.

I ran the test myself and managed to not force the GE to do anyhing (I run my tests in MP, GE simply carries out the missions I've provided) and so I'm not constantly intervening in the hope of achieving a preconceived result.

When left to its own devices the GE handled the situation perfectly. I understand people wanting an explanation constantly in game, covering every aspect of what's happening. I simply believe if you know your subject you already know the answer. The screenshot I have provided shows the GE is capable of following the action and achieving exactly what you guys were after.

4:1 loss ratio - RAF is now short 4 Aircraft for the loss of 1 Russian Aircraft. Maybe a human would do better, although as the Russian CAG on the Kuznetsov I'm smiling.

Cheers

Darren

- Ignorance truly is blissful for some, while others seek the truth...

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Bucks -- 6/14/2009 5:08:38 AM >

_____________________________

*******************************************
Editor HUD-II/HUD3 Harpoon Databases

http://www.taitennek.com/hud3-db/hud3-index.htm

Development Team H3ANW v3.8, v3.9, v3.10 & v3.10.1
*******************************************

Post #: 1

Problem - 6/14/2009 5:22:20 AM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

I commend you on a fine selection of problem to discuss. However, it's a bug and here's why:

When the Weapons Allocation window appeared in the functional H2/H3 version, that was the last step before weapons released. If you were able to you allocate weapons to the various targets, the weapons released right away.

Unfortunately, this procedure is broken in ANW. When the Weapons Allocation window appears, the player is able to allocate weapons to various targets. Once he returns to the game map, he will usually see that his weapons have not released from the aircraft. This means that he has to do it all over, again. And again, and again. Until those weapons actually release.

I agree that the number of checks made by the Game Engine are probably okay, but I think that the order that those weapons firing checks are being made is where the problem lies. IMO, in the functional H2/H3 game, the engine conducts all necessary checks before the Weapons Allocation window appears.

In the currently broken ANW, the engine makes some firing limitation checks, shows the weapons allocation window, then checks for some more weapons firing limitations. It is not that the checks are disagreeable or unneeded, IMO, but it is probably the order in which they are conducted which is presenting this faulty behaviour.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to Bucks)

Post #: 2

RE: Not a Known ANW Issue? #03 - List Issue #122 Missil... - 6/14/2009 5:28:32 AM

Bucks

Posts: 679
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

This is "broken" ?

I send out 4 aircraft and lose one, while destroying the entire apposing force? I've explained it, so now you know, file it away in the grey matter and deal with it. Again if you think 3.6.3 is a better product stick with it and keep your opinions regarding ANW to yourself.

Cheers

Darren

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Bucks -- 6/14/2009 5:30:39 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Bucks)

Post #: 3

Problem - 6/14/2009 5:33:33 AM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

It most certainly is, if you have to repeat the firing procedure 30 times before the missiles actually release.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bucks)

Post #: 4

RE: Problem - 6/14/2009 5:37:55 AM

Bucks

Posts: 679
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

I didn't repeat it once.

I pointed out I tested it in MP, I can't change a thing once the game is running. I wanted to see if it was an issue. Seeing the really bad code (in your opinion) could, I assumed humans would be able to deal with it once educated to the facts of the situation.

oh well

Darren

_____________________________

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 5

Problem - 6/14/2009 5:40:57 AM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

Sadly, we also tried to play a game between human players and noted the same deficiency. The weapons just don't launch until you move much closer and continuously re-allocate weapons in the Allocation window.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bucks)

Post #: 6

RE: Problem - 6/14/2009 5:45:30 AM

Bucks

Posts: 679
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

So you tried to micro manage the situation and you scream it's wrong. I allowed the mission the aircraft were on to execute that mission with most desirable results. Again, why is it a problem if the GE can make it work? You can't?

Want to do better than that...

Darren

_____________________________

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 7

Problem - 6/14/2009 5:48:53 AM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

It's wrong because human players tend to use the Manual/Plotted mission most of the time. Of course, there are some who enjoy the use of AI-controlled Missions, but the majority of the users I've encountered always go with the Manual option in both solitaire and MP.

I'm pretty certain that they want to play the game and not have the AI play it for them.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bucks)

Post #: 8

RE: Problem - 6/14/2009 7:12:36 AM

FreekS

Posts: 323
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

ehh, was this issue not fixed by AGSI?

Freek

_____________________________

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 9

Problem - 6/14/2009 7:48:16 AM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

It was claimed as fixed by Patch 3.9.4 but the behaviour persists.

_____________________________

(in reply to FreekS)

Post #: 10

RE: Problem - 6/14/2009 11:46:50 AM

mgarnett

Posts: 270
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

Hi Herman,

I'm certainly no expert, however this appears more to be an aspect of the game engine not working the way you Oor other people) want rather than a bug, IMHO. Perhaps it would clearer if issues were classified as either a bug (which IMHO this is not) or as a feature request.

If I understand it correctly, you would like a feature added with respect to the weapons allocation screen. I think that's a fair enough request, but it certainly doesn't seem like a bug to me. I think Darren explained things quite clearly and he convinced me that this was not a bug and that the game was behaving as designed. I do think, however, that your feature request is a good one and would accomodate those players who like to mnually control or micro-manage things.

Cheers

Mark

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 11

Problem - 6/14/2009 8:07:03 PM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

I can understand where you might not think it's a bug, but I'm pretty certain that it is since missiles always launched once the Weapon Allocation Menu appeared since the days of H2. These guys report the same thing and, IIRC, they are former H2/H3 players, too.

RAM
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1957795

KlubMarcus
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1789222

I can understand why you might not think it is a bug, though. However, right from the start of this thread, there has been a disconnect. Everyone reported a problem with the Manual allocation of weapons. However, it is painfully apparent from the very first message in this thread that the problem wasn't even tested for. We reported Problem AAA and he tested for (non-existent) Problem XXX.

The original poster assumed that his missiles never fired. Unfortunately, this was never claimed in the report. They do fire. However, they do not fire when allocated, hence the problem. We're just asking for the function to be back to the way it used to work when it worked. I would not call that a feature request, but it may be a matter of semantics.

_____________________________

(in reply to mgarnett)

Post #: 12

RE: Problem - 6/14/2009 9:44:07 PM

Bucks

Posts: 679
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

And I want the following:

All motor vehicles to be built to Ford Model T standards...

The US to stop producing really bad TV shows

Iran to become Persia again.

Run the 1987 Melbourne Cup again so I can "get on" before they jump.

Portugal to become a Constituional Monarchy - I get a shot at the throne.

*** Sorry I forgot it's 2009, and that stuff is in the past.

_____________________________

(in reply to hermanhum)

Post #: 13

RE: Problem - 6/14/2009 9:49:28 PM

Bucks

Posts: 679
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

There's a simple solution, tell these people:

DO NOT USE THE HUD3

REALISM ISN"T THEIR THING

STICK TO THE PDB - (Pillaged Database)

see that was easy...

_____________________________

(in reply to Bucks)

Post #: 14

RE: Problem - 6/15/2009 12:47:00 PM

mgarnett

Posts: 270
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

Hey, I have kids so my idea of micro managing things went out the door when my first child was born. Now days, I'm happy to have the computer do a little thinking for me so I can concentrate on the "big picture". My brain can only handle so many things at once these days!

I liked micro-managing at one point, but now I just find that sort of stuff too tedious so for me, the current behaviour is more to my liking.

I'm a relatively new Harpooner but I've been playing computer wargames for many years. My first Harpoon was on the Commodore Amiga of all things. Anyway, it seems to me, agin IMHO, that some people want the micro managing capabilities of the old H2/H3 days and don't like the paradigm shift that the new version has taken. I can understand this disappointment but as a player who likes the new direction, I'm glad the paradigm shift was made. As the saying goes, you can't keep all the people happy all of the time.

So for me, I'm glad the HUD3 is around and I'm glad I don't have to micro manage, but in the same breath, I can sympathise with those of us who aren't so happy. So to Herman, I respect your opinion but I disagree.

Cheers

Mark

(in reply to Bucks)

Post #: 15

RE: Problem - 6/15/2009 1:51:19 PM

Bucks

Posts: 679
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

Mark,

Thanks for your comments, and I extend my sympathies to you in regard to inheriting the "parent brain" situation. They grow up and the mush you might be calling your brain now, will return (Personally I doubt you've lost any of it).

I suppose the change was part of the Professional version becoming part of the family and most Militaries will be looking at a "mission based" paradigm where this reflects the SOP for a particular service. A good example of real life micro management gone wrong, would be the US experience in Vietnam and the need to get the OK from High Command before using AIM-7 Sparrows.

I wasn't part of that situation (thankfully) but I believe from the pilot's POV it can't have made much sense. Poor guy is facing someone out to kill him and he's waiting for the "go code" or having to mix it with the opposition after giving up his advantage. Down to 'winders and until they added a gun to the F-4, common sense would have suggesed the Sparrow, but common sense is rare.

I don't wish to come across as an ogre, after sinking years into this stuff, I have an issue with the "list", although it doesn't seem to have deterred you from jumping back onboard. I haven't noticed any other games where a member of that very game's "community" takes it upon himself to compose such a work. It may not have put you off, but we can't start to measure what loss of potential customers it may have had an effect on. People need to be aware that the speed of development is closely tied to the success of the game in financial terms. At present AGSI is relying on a small group of people who give up their time to work on a project they believe in and I have to wonder if some people understand what's really going on.

Thanks again for your comments and I wanted to push you in the direction of the 3.10 Beta. We've been discussing missions and 3.10 introduces chained or linked mission where your units will complete one tasking then move on to something new. Not only that, we're even doing boarding now, so I better get back to the demonstration scen I'm working on for the current Gulf of Aden situation.

Cheers & keep on 'Pooning

Darren

_____________________________

(in reply to mgarnett)

Post #: 16

RE: Problem - 6/15/2009 3:08:42 PM

FreekS

Posts: 323
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bucks

I don't wish to come across as an ogre, after sinking years into this stuff, I have an issue with the "list", although it doesn't seem to have deterred you from jumping back onboard. I haven't noticed any other games where a member of that very game's "community" takes it upon himself to compose such a work. It may not have put you off, but we can't start to measure what loss of potential customers it may have had an effect on. People need to be aware that the speed of development is closely tied to the success of the game in financial terms. At present AGSI is relying on a small group of people who give up their time to work on a project they believe in and I have to wonder if some people understand what's really going on.
Darren

I also have an issue with 'the List'; in particular with the recent trend to describe it as a sort of heresy performed by a single individual who aims for the games demise, or something.
I see myself as co-author of the list, having verified most of the testfiles and bug reports and authored some. The vast majority reflect bugs or unwanted (by us) behaviour of the AI, oftentimes compared with the harpoon3.6 version, which lacked some nice features (such as MultiPlayer) but was awfully good in making the AI agressive towards a player.

I applaud Russell who from 393 (or earlier) to 394 did a LOT of working with all members of the community to get rid of a significant number of bugs. Unfortunately some new ones (re-)occurred and some old ones were not fixed.

I recommend that the active Harpoon brains cooperate to jointly prioritise 'the List'. I suspect we will find 5-10 issues that are high priority for people, and many of the others may become low priority accepted behaviour.

But I'm really puzzled by an attitude that looks like: "There is a list of bugs which may hurt sales and therefore lets just denigrate it and its authors, and the problem will go away". Anybody thats worked on any kind of product development (and I have all my career) thows thats just plain stupid.

Freek

< Message edited by FreekS -- 6/15/2009 3:09:24 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Bucks)

Post #: 17

RE: Problem - 6/15/2009 4:19:24 PM

cuthbo2001

Posts: 103
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline

Darren, before you push anyone else in the direction of the 3.10 beta , being one such "pushed" person you should be aware that the time bomb on it has expired , so I guess I will have to now go and reinstall upto patch 3.94 again .

(in reply to FreekS)

Post #: 18

RE: Problem - 6/15/2009 5:19:28 PM

Bucks

Posts: 679
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

Cuthbo,

Check for the B20 version, I have it here and it just started fine. I'm close to where the days begin, so if it's working here, should be fine anywhere to the west of me as well.

Cheers

Darren

3.10 Beta 20 Link

http://www.harpoon5.com/beta/anw/H3Cx_310B20.zip

_____________________________

(in reply to cuthbo2001)

Post #: 19

RE: Problem - 6/15/2009 6:04:33 PM

keeferon01

Posts: 334
Joined: 6/18/2005
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

Do I need a password for that link

_____________________________

(in reply to Bucks)

Post #: 20

RE: Problem - 6/15/2009 7:33:46 PM

TonyE

Posts: 1551
Joined: 5/23/2006
From: MN, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron James

Do I need a password for that link

yes, head to http://forum.computerharpoon.com and investigate the beta access.

_____________________________

Sincerely,
Tony Eischens
Harpoon (HC, HCE, HUCE, Classic) programmer
HarpGamer.com Co-Owner

(in reply to keeferon01)

Post #: 21

RE: Problem - 6/15/2009 8:28:48 PM

cuthbo2001

Posts: 103
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline

Darren thanks for that. can I just clarify the beta hosted on the matrix site is not the latest? Given that this is ,I think usually the first port of call would it not avoid confusion to keep this up to date or else perhaps a redirection to the current version.

(in reply to TonyE)

Post #: 22

Problem - 6/15/2009 8:39:18 PM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mgarnett

I liked micro-managing at one point, but now I just find that sort of stuff too tedious so for me, the current behaviour is more to my liking.

I'm a relatively new Harpooner but I've been playing computer wargames for many years. My first Harpoon was on the Commodore Amiga of all things. Anyway, it seems to me, agin IMHO, that some people want the micro managing capabilities of the old H2/H3 days and don't like the paradigm shift that the new version has taken. I can understand this disappointment but as a player who likes the new direction, I'm glad the paradigm shift was made. As the saying goes, you can't keep all the people happy all of the time.

I'm sure that I must have explained it badly.

The game currently can and always has been able to accommodate your 'new style' of play (i.e. let the AI handle it). However, the entire point is that the game should be able to accommodate all styles of play, since this has always been the way it was. H2/H3 allowed you to play the game with the AI in control and also allowed you to micro-manage if you so chose.

Taking away and reducing game capabilities is not an improvement in my book. Adding new capabilities is considered upgrading. Of course, others have their opinions, too, but this is what is happening.

It isn't a paradigm shift. For example, if your car decides that it will only start on odd-numbered hours, the car isn't "broken" because it still starts. However, it is definitely buggy because you can't do what you want to do when you want to do it.

If that isn't sufficient explanation for you, I guess that we'll just have to hold different opinions.

Still looking for that first game of MP with you.

_____________________________

(in reply to mgarnett)

Post #: 23

Problem - 6/15/2009 8:42:06 PM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TonyE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron James

Do I need a password for that link

yes, head to http://forum.computerharpoon.com and investigate the beta access.

Any process that needs to hide behind a username and password is not open and public.

_____________________________

(in reply to TonyE)

Post #: 24

Problem - 6/15/2009 9:14:30 PM

hermanhum

Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FreekS

I also have an issue with 'the List'; in particular with the recent trend to describe it as a sort of heresy performed by a single individual who aims for the games demise, or something.
I see myself as co-author of the list, having verified most of the testfiles and bug reports and authored some. The vast majority reflect bugs or unwanted (by us) behaviour of the AI, oftentimes compared with the harpoon3.6 version, which lacked some nice features (such as MultiPlayer) but was awfully good in making the AI agressive towards a player.

[snip]

But I'm really puzzled by an attitude that looks like: "There is a list of bugs which may hurt sales and therefore lets just denigrate it and its authors, and the problem will go away". Anybody thats worked on any kind of product development (and I have all my career) thows thats just plain stupid.

It is the mark of pure and simple desperation to find someone to blame and is an utter waste of time. Some folks just fail to understand that the bugs exist and will occur whether or not anyone makes up a list or talks about them.

Trying to affix blame is just ludicrous. AGSI owns the game code. Thereby, AGSI owns the bugs and are the only persons capable of fixing them. It doesn't matter who reports them, Stephen Hawking or Bill Gates. They will be around until they are fixed. Until then, there isn't much to talk about in ANW except the poor behaviours.

_____________________________

(in reply to FreekS)

Post #: 25

RE: Problem - 6/15/2009 9:46:59 PM

RedMike

Posts: 1281
Joined: 3/14/2002
From: Alaska
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FreekS

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bucks

I don't wish to come across as an ogre, after sinking years into this stuff, I have an issue with the "list", although it doesn't seem to have deterred you from jumping back onboard. I haven't noticed any other games where a member of that very game's "community" takes it upon himself to compose such a work. It may not have put you off, but we can't start to measure what loss of potential customers it may have had an effect on. People need to be aware that the speed of development is closely tied to the success of the game in financial terms. At present AGSI is relying on a small group of people who give up their time to work on a project they believe in and I have to wonder if some people understand what's really going on.
Darren

I also have an issue with 'the List'; in particular with the recent trend to describe it as a sort of heresy performed by a single individual who aims for the games demise, or something.
I see myself as co-author of the list, having verified most of the testfiles and bug reports and authored some. The vast majority reflect bugs or unwanted (by us) behaviour of the AI, oftentimes compared with the harpoon3.6 version, which lacked some nice features (such as MultiPlayer) but was awfully good in making the AI agressive towards a player.

I applaud Russell who from 393 (or earlier) to 394 did a LOT of working with all members of the community to get rid of a significant number of bugs. Unfortunately some new ones (re-)occurred and some old ones were not fixed.

I recommend that the active Harpoon brains cooperate to jointly prioritise 'the List'. I suspect we will find 5-10 issues that are high priority for people, and many of the others may become low priority accepted behaviour.

But I'm really puzzled by an attitude that looks like: "There is a list of bugs which may hurt sales and therefore lets just denigrate it and its authors, and the problem will go away". Anybody thats worked on any kind of product development (and I have all my career) thows thats just plain stupid.

Freek

I concur with Freek.

_____________________________

Hannibal ad portas

(in reply to FreekS)

Post #: 26

RE: Problem - 6/15/2009 10:36:58 PM

Bucks

Posts: 679
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuthbo2001

Darren thanks for that. can I just clarify the beta hosted on the matrix site is not the latest? Given that this is ,I think usually the first port of call would it not avoid confusion to keep this up to date or else perhaps a redirection to the current version.

Cuth,

While the Beta is in progressive testing, the latest version will always be available from the AGSI site. I've yet to download anything from Matrix being so close to this and I'm only assuming that Matrix are hosting the last official release Patch rather than beta versions. (I may be wrong, again I haven't used the Matrix site).

Cheers

Darren

_____________________________

(in reply to cuthbo2001)

Post #: 27

RE: Problem - 6/16/2009 3:22:10 AM

keeferon01

Posts: 334
Joined: 6/18/2005
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TonyE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron James

Do I need a password for that link

yes, head to http://forum.computerharpoon.com and investigate the beta access.

Ok cool I will go take a look

_____________________________

(in reply to TonyE)

Post #: 28

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Modern] >> Harpoon 3 - Advanced Naval Warfare >> Not a Known ANW Issue? #03 - List Issue #122 Missiles not releasing.

Page: [1]