hermanhum
Posts: 2209
Joined: 9/21/2005 Status: offline
|
Here's a chat log discussing one bug, but covering the Sonar detection vs. land facility discussion: Session Start (Herman:#Harpoon): Sun Jul 26 18:22:05 2009 *** #Harpoon: @Herman *** #Harpoon was created on Sun Jul 26 18:21:42 2009. *** Mode change "-o Herman" for channel #Harpoon by Herman. *** Russell has joined #Harpoon. Herman: only reason I asked for the extra room is to ensure that we operate under Gilman doctrine -- anything said in here can be re-posted. that okay with you? Russell: Gilman doctrine? Russell: You are melodramatic Russell: But sure, we can repost anything Herman: okay Herman: do you know how the Transit mission operates in regards to its Formation patrols? Russell: Not exactly. I do not know how formation patrols operate any differently under one mission or the other. Herman: do you remember playing any HC? Russell: I've never played HC. Herman: ok Herman: here's how the Transit mission worked Herman: if you put a CVBG on Transit mission and then set up the ASW/AEW/CAP formation patrols, they would stay with the formation until something was detected. Then, they would detach to investigate/prosecute the target Herman: Transit mission is the only mission that does this. ASuW, AAW, Support, etc. do not Herman: IMO, it is the most powerful mission in the game because it allows the AI the most discretion Herman: that's why it was used the most in the H2 scenarios. anyone re-building the original H2 scens would have seen most scens with this mission Herman: this ability to detach was the most unique aspect for transit Herman: now, in 3.10, the air patrols no longer stick with the formation Russell: Ah, the bug report Herman: instead, they immediately launch and fly off to the refPt assigned to the transit mission Herman: and they SIT there :-( Russell: Okay, so CAP? Herman: CAP, AEW, ASW, all the formation patrols do it Herman: they don't stick to the formation until something is detected Herman: what bug report are you talking about? I haven't posted anything. have you seen something else? Russell: Just waiting for the preamble to finish. Herman: no, that's about it. Herman: just hoping that I was clear enough Russell: Is this unique to transit missions? Russell: Transit missions with formation patrols I mean. Herman: I'm not quite sure what you are asking Herman: all the other missions can have formation patrols, too Herman: they just never detached Russell: You say formation patrol aircraft are flying to the reference point instead of their patrol zones. Russell: That's what I got anyway. Herman: that's the general gist of the problem. yes. Herman: there is a bit more to it Russell: Okay, simple enough. I'll look into it. Herman: let's say that there was a CAP formation air patrol Russell: That is a major. Herman: the CVBG would launch the CAP for the formation. However, it would also launch the rest of the planes that would fly off to the Transit RefPts. Herman: that's what is happening in 3.10 Herman: the replacement planes should be sitting on the deck until needed Russell: Probably a result of the first issue. Herman: yes Herman: okay, do you need any other details? Herman: there are plenty of sample scens to choose from to see this Russell: Not right now. I'll build a test scenario and see what's what. Herman: okay, thanks for the time [18:36] Russell: Wait a sec Herman: ok Russell: On the issue with Sonar detecting land units Russell: There's no scenarios you know of that would be affected by exempting land units from sonar detection? Herman: I can't think of a single one Herman: the reason why I consider it a bug is because there are no Acoustic values for land units Herman: so, I can't believe that the original designers intended for land unit detection by sonar Russell: Neither do aircraft but there are situations where they are detected by passive sonar. Herman: true Russell: Just checking before I made the change. Herman: but it is outside the game, IMO Herman: are you saying that helos at low can be detected by sonar? Russell: Ya Herman: because I've never seen it Herman: are you sure? Russell: Vlow Russell: Dipping sonar Herman: righ Russell: Yes. Herman: it's the active sonar being detected Russell: I'm sure it is intended. Herman: isn't it? Herman: I'll test, but I think I looked at it before Russell: It's according to the paper rules. Herman: if you take a transport helo and have it hover at VLow, subs cannot detect it Herman: the subs seem to be hearing the active sonar from the dipper Herman: (at least that was how I remember testing it) Russell: Has to be 50 meters or lower. Herman: give me a sec and I'll whip up a test right away Russell: Harpoon3.ini setting Russell: SonarLogOut=ON Herman: this is 394 or 310? Russell: 3.10 Herman: k Herman: do I need AALogs on? Russell: Let me check Russell: No Herman: sonar logs are blank Russell: It will create a SonarLog.txt file alongside the scenario. Herman: right. I see the file Herman: nope. nothing Russell: Hmm, checking. Herman: helo does not appear Russell: Sonar active? Herman: it's a transport helo Herman: I'm trying to show you that helos don't get detectd Herman: it's the Active sonar that is detected, IMO Herman: if you want to go messing with this, you might have to also account for planes that swoop down to VLow alt, won't you? Herman: i.e. planes coming down to drop buoys or planes coming in at 30m Russell: Sonobuoys aren't messed with. The helicopter with dipping sonar does have to be active. Russell: The passive sonar sensor has a shot at detecting it. Herman: the sub sonar sensor can detect a passive helo at VLow? Russell: So saying it's detecting the active sonar isn't wrong. Herman: can you tell me which sub/helo combo you are using? Russell: I'm reading the code. Russell: I didn't say a passive helo could be detected. Herman: ah Russell: The passive sonar sensor has a shot at detecting it. Russell: It being an active dipping sonar. Herman: ah, okay Russell: Fixed the logging. Russell: Was requiring a successful detection to write to the log file. Herman: the only thing that is changed is the fact that the helos on sonobuoy mission might now be detected Russell: Or maybe more. Russell: I'd have to test it out to see if the code proves true (or if I'm missing something) Herman: I guess planes are no longer able to get down to 10m alt Russell: Low flying sonar active hovering (0 speed) aircraft seems to be the requirement. Herman: I agree that any helo at VLow and Hover should stand a chance of detection by a sub, but it seems like so much work to add such little additional returns Russell: Exempting land based units from sonar detection might actually give a speed boost. Russell: Detection is the most expensive part of the game engine. Herman: quite possibly Herman: I'll ask Jason when he comes back Herman: he's the former sub sonarman Russell: Yep. I'd like to hear what he has to say. Russell: But, I think the sonar vs. land unit issue falls further down the scale of return vs. effort. Herman: down? I'd think it was high, given the fact that a lot of detection cycles can be removed Russell: I mean there will be little return for high demand of cpu cycles. Herman: are you sure there is a sonar vs land detection cycle? Herman: ah, right Herman: the only problem seemed to be in the Active Russell: I've already made the change in the code but if anyone has a valid point I'll make it optional. Herman: did sonar actually try to detect land units passively, too? Russell: Does not appear so Herman: I wonder if you make a blanket change if it will affect any other type of land detection Herman: for example, if you are in command of a sub and the enemy land unit fires on your sub or on a land unit from your side, should it turn red/hostile? Herman: (I don't think that there are many/any land units with ASW ordnance) Russell: Would the sub detect the launch by sonar? Herman: no Russell: This is a strictly a change to sonar detection. Herman: okay. I'm just trying to think of potential side-effects Russell: It's a simple change so I can put out a beta. If we find something negative it's a simple change back or new option. Whichever is appropriate. Russell: But there's a few days before I even put out that build Russell: So there is time to consider. Herman: Is AGSI even considering putting out the old versions of H3 like Tony seems to be suggesting for HCE? Russell: I believe it was Don's idea so ya. Herman: okay, good to hear Herman: need anything else from me? Russell: Not now. Thanks for the bug report. Herman: okay. ciao
_____________________________
|