Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The slow down problems have some relation to OS, but it's more hardware than anything else. If you can upgrade your memory, I'd recommend it. Crucial has a memory selection tool, you can enter information on your system, but it can scan your system too if you want:
http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/systemscanner

Crucial is one of the most reliable brands out there. Additionally I've never had a problem with their recommendations, and I've installed a lot of memory. For an older system, the memory is probably going to be very cheap. You should be able to get at least to 2 GB, and most motherboards of that vintage could go to 4 GB. If the system doesn't have enough RAM, it swaps stuff out to disk which is a lot slower than RAM. If you have enough RAM to hold the entire program at once, you won't have to swap out to disk.

AE is very memory intensive, if I remember correctly, it takes about 350 MB to 400 MB of RAM. The OS also takes some memory, so 512 MB is marginal.

We were up to close to 1 GB of RAM at one point, we had to unload a bunch of images from memory and just load them as needed, but a lot of the art needs to remain in memory all the time. The database also needs to reside in memory and it takes up a lot of RAM. This is a very data intensive game.

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
I've seen mine go over 600MB.... but it's not an issue for me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichardAckermann

Thanks. I will take a look at it. I noticed my HD is quite loud with this game.

quote:


If you mean your actual disk, then this would imply to me that your OS is accessing the HDD a lot in order to do one of two things: 1) load/unload/reload items for the game as it needs them, or 2) creating and using a large page file. A page file is essentially HDD space that is used as RAM. It is highly inefficient compared to actual RAM. I'm not sure if Win2K does this - I only used that OS for about six months back in 2002.

If by HD you mean your computer (fans and such, not disk "clicking" and "whirring"), then it would say to me that the machine is struggling overall. RAM almost always helps with this.

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichardAckermann

Thanks for all the advice. My hard disk is actually already corrupting a file now and then. Backup is already on stick.

There are a few new things I consider to be nice to have, so here's another 2 cents of mine.

First, I'd love to be able to rename airgroups. Adding new location or whatever info I want to tag onto them.

Second, I'd love to have a button to remove AC from a group, just like the reserve can be taken back to pool.
I frequently run low on some airframes, but a lot of 'em are still locked up in rear area units.
As of now I need to wait for production or totally disband a rear unit, just because I need 10 out of 45 planes somewhere else right now. If possible, make redistribution of AC more flexible. Let me take the operational craft out of groups back to pool without disbanding the entire unit.
A few days of delay would be OK.

This one just got into my mind, so I could be wrong about this, but I think patrol planes (Mavis,Emily) cannot do ground attacks, but they can use bombs. Would be nice to be able to use them in that bombing role.

With the last thing I am not sure if my idea is sane at all, mostly because of balancing.
I noticed all AC are worth 1 VP, but would the loss of a 4EB not be more critical than, say, a SBD Dauntless in terms of industry and crew? After all, ships are already scored on actual value.
What about making AC worth their engine count in VP? Would that be a good idea or just imbalance the score system?

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The slow down problems have some relation to OS, but it's more hardware than anything else. If you can upgrade your memory, I'd recommend it. Crucial has a memory selection tool, you can enter information on your system, but it can scan your system too if you want:
http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/systemscanner

Crucial is one of the most reliable brands out there. Additionally I've never had a problem with their recommendations, and I've installed a lot of memory. For an older system, the memory is probably going to be very cheap. You should be able to get at least to 2 GB, and most motherboards of that vintage could go to 4 GB. If the system doesn't have enough RAM, it swaps stuff out to disk which is a lot slower than RAM. If you have enough RAM to hold the entire program at once, you won't have to swap out to disk.

AE is very memory intensive, if I remember correctly, it takes about 350 MB to 400 MB of RAM. The OS also takes some memory, so 512 MB is marginal.

We were up to close to 1 GB of RAM at one point, we had to unload a bunch of images from memory and just load them as needed, but a lot of the art needs to remain in memory all the time. The database also needs to reside in memory and it takes up a lot of RAM. This is a very data intensive game.

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichardAckermann

Thanks. I will take a look at it. I noticed my HD is quite loud with this game.

quote:


If you mean your actual disk, then this would imply to me that your OS is accessing the HDD a lot in order to do one of two things: 1) load/unload/reload items for the game as it needs them, or 2) creating and using a large page file. A page file is essentially HDD space that is used as RAM. It is highly inefficient compared to actual RAM. I'm not sure if Win2K does this - I only used that OS for about six months back in 2002.

If by HD you mean your computer (fans and such, not disk "clicking" and "whirring"), then it would say to me that the machine is struggling overall. RAM almost always helps with this.

It's almost certainly the swap file getting hit because it's running out of RAM. Internally Windows 2K and XP were virtually identical, the internal version number of 2K was 5.0 and XP was 5.1. Xp just added support for some new hardware that came along after 2K was introduced and some changes to the user interface.

The game does load and unload image files on the fly, but there is nothing in there that's going to sense how much RAM you have and get more aggressive about it.

As for working faster in windowed mode, I'm not surprised. DirectX has windowed mode for debugging games and most game programs don't make it available to the end users, but it kind of creates a pseudo virtual machine for debugging purposes that probably bypasses some of the hardware problems with DirectX that are slowing down the game.

Another possibility might be the way newer monitors work. LCD screens work best at their max resolution and the graphics card has to do extra work to step the image down to a smaller resolution. The game is designed to run in 1024X768 mode, though the command line switches allow you to adjust this. If you set the command line switches to the max screen resolution and then ran in full screen it might run as fast, but it still might not. Old CRT monitors didn't have the same quirk with resolution.

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: cohimbra

Previously, when I looked at Air Database ingame, if I click on (example) p-47D I go to the dedicate page;
then if I clik again on P-47D string (in yellow) I returned to the air list at the p-47 point;
after new beta, when you included a new 'back' button, if I click again on p-47d string I returned to the air list, but at beginning and not to the p-47D point.

I know, my english is very bad but I hope you understand what I mean. If not, I try to be more clear.

Regard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

ORIGINAL: cohimbra

Previously, when I looked at Air Database ingame, if I click on (example) p-47D I go to the dedicate page;
then if I clik again on P-47D string (in yellow) I returned to the air list at the p-47 point;
after new beta, when you included a new 'back' button, if I click again on p-47d string I returned to the air list, but at beginning and not to the p-47D point.

I know, my english is very bad but I hope you understand what I mean. If not, I try to be more clear.

Regard.

The 'back' button was added to you back to the previous screen rather than press on the plane's name again. That should return you to the list at the p-47D point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cohimbra

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

ORIGINAL: cohimbra
Previously, when I looked at Air Database ingame, if I click on (example) p-47D I go to the dedicate page;
then if I clik again on P-47D string (in yellow) I returned to the air list at the p-47 point;
after new beta, when you included a new 'back' button, if I click again on p-47d string I returned to the air list, but at beginning and not to the p-47D point.
I know, my english is very bad but I hope you understand what I mean. If not, I try to be more clear.
Regard.

The 'back' button was added to you back to the previous screen rather than press on the plane's name again. That should return you to the list at the p-47D point.

This don't work for me, both choose back or press on the plane's name again bring me back to the top of the database list. Not a big issue, obviously, just to let you know it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

You mean the game code does not keep track of the TF record of a given ship,right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mundy

This is probably waaaay out of scope.

What would be nice is that if the Japanese player is bringing in advanced aircraft at a very early date, the Allied production would respond up to a point to accelerate the arrival of new aircraft.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

I see what you mean now. I also notice that your minimap doesn't display.

I realized after the fact that you were in windowed mode.

My laptop is a 1920x1080 display and to get it to fit in Windowed mode, I had to use -w -px1680 -py1050. What is the max your monitor can do?

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Suggestion.(Glad I found this thread)..

Port Moresby is being invaded right now and I managed to cobble together a good allied cruiser and destroyer force with a superior rated skipper to intervene, but 60 miles from their mission, they ran into a single Japanese landing barge, sunk it, and turned for home as if their mission was accomplished.

From experience I have learned to obviate this problem by delegating port sized 2 Moresby as their "home base", but I feel that is too gamey.

Is their a way to prevent "after single combat retreats"?

An ideal fix might be to have a dial allowing the retreat only after meeting a certain sized opponent, or even a number of individual contacts?

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Many of my missions are set "Do not retire", yet they will.
I'm an old-timer too, Admiral..LOL


In your nice example, can you tell me how the Phoenix was unable to keep track of that other tub?
IMHO nothing should have remained on the water but oil and debris, aside from the one warship itself.
That's not FOW, that's silly.

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Many of my missions are set "Do not retire", yet they will.
I'm an old-timer too, Admiral..LOL


In your nice example, can you tell me how the Phoenix was unable to keep track of that other tub?
IMHO nothing should have remained on the water but oil and debris, aside from the one warship itself.
That's not FOW, that's silly.

I do not have an explanation for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Many of my missions are set "Do not retire", yet they will.
I'm an old-timer too, Admiral..LOL

The reason I think it gamey to set those CA's as Moresby as their home base is because if the port is a size 1 or 2, it could not support the ships anyway.
It only prevents them from straying too far...
That is gamey.

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Suggestion.(Glad I found this thread)..

Port Moresby is being invaded right now and I managed to cobble together a good allied cruiser and destroyer force with a superior rated skipper to intervene, but 60 miles from their mission, they ran into a single Japanese landing barge, sunk it, and turned for home as if their mission was accomplished.

From experience I have learned to obviate this problem by delegating port sized 2 Moresby as their "home base", but I feel that is too gamey.

Is their a way to prevent "after single combat retreats"?

An ideal fix might be to have a dial allowing the retreat only after meeting a certain sized opponent, or even a number of individual contacts?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Many of my missions are set "Do not retire", yet they will.
I'm an old-timer too, Admiral..LOL


In your nice example, can you tell me how the Phoenix was unable to keep track of that other tub?
IMHO nothing should have remained on the water but oil and debris, aside from the one warship itself.
That's not FOW, that's silly.

I do not have an explanation for it.

Night action - visibility. Thunderstorms, low moonlight. No radar. Easy to explain.

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Many of my missions are set "Do not retire", yet they will.
I'm an old-timer too, Admiral..LOL

The reason I think it gamey to set those CA's as Moresby as their home base is because if the port is a size 1 or 2, it could not support the ships anyway.
It only prevents them from straying too far...
That is gamey.

If you don't also set threat tolerance to absolute, there is still a chance that they will retire - overriding their Remain On Station orders. I believe this is covered in the manual. Maybe not, but I thought so.

OK - you're interpreting home port incorrectly. Home port is intended to be the port that your TF returns to. Just because a port can't fully rearm/replenish a given ship doesn't mean that you can't base them there. You're intentionally handicapping yourself when you do this for no real reason IMO. If that's how you want to play, that's fine, but you should also be aware that it will affect your TFs in precisely this manner - if they run into something and are based elsewhere, they're going to retire away from the port you actually want to defend.

What if you had AKEs/AEs or enough naval support squads there to "support" these ships? Whether or not you can rearm somewhere does not just depend on port size. I don't even have a realistic historical basis for your self-limiting avoidance of "gamey" here - Ulithi Atoll can only go up to size 6 in the game, yet handled hundreds (thousands?) of ships based there. What about Kavieng? The IJN based CAs there in real life (half of the Battle of Savo Island task force came from there), yet it can only get to size 4 when fully built up - which is not enough to support CAs. Or what about the Germans "basing" battlecruisers and battleships in Norwegian fjords with no port facilities? Again, if you want to play this way, that's fine. I just think it's headscratchingly silly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Suggestion.(Glad I found this thread)..

Port Moresby is being invaded right now and I managed to cobble together a good allied cruiser and destroyer force with a superior rated skipper to intervene, but 60 miles from their mission, they ran into a single Japanese landing barge, sunk it, and turned for home as if their mission was accomplished.

From experience I have learned to obviate this problem by delegating port sized 2 Moresby as their "home base", but I feel that is too gamey.

Is their a way to prevent "after single combat retreats"?

An ideal fix might be to have a dial allowing the retreat only after meeting a certain sized opponent, or even a number of individual contacts?

This is not necessarily a bug at all. Nor is it even behaviour that should be altered by changing the game code.

There are many very legitimate reasons, why your cruiser TF decided to return to its home port. The most obvious one, but by no means the only possible reason, is that enemy sea and air forces are far too strong. The next most obvious reason is your TF leader is not as suitable for the task as you believe him to be.

Alfred