RE: metric system??? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames



Message

warspite1 -> RE: metric system??? (4/15/2008 9:13:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Stabilo

Looking at these descibtions I recognized once again the problems with different notations.

I'm writing my unit describtions in a (European) metric system so the weight of a gun would be 3.456,78 kg. In contrast these ship desciptions use a different (American) system so it would read 3,456.78 kg. The Armor is described here in inches ("5.5 Inch Belt") a dimension unit inscrutable for hundreds of millions of Europeans.

Is there any standard for these data in this game? Do I have to change the descibtions I already wrote?   [&:]

Warspite1

I assume you are not doing ships - I`ve never seen gun weight used - only shell size - which I think has been the standard for all ship descriptions I`ve seen to date. There was some discussion (correctly so) on whether inches or mm should be used and I have incorporated both measures since.

As for maximum armour, the belt is the one I generally use as this tends to be the thickest - and is always shown in my sources as inches.

I am neither European nor American but British [:D] but in military literature am used to seeing different measurements of - for example artillery - e.g. the famous British 25-pounder or the infamous German 88mm.






Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: metric system??? (4/15/2008 10:47:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Stabilo

Looking at these descibtions I recognized once again the problems with different notations.

I'm writing my unit describtions in a (European) metric system so the weight of a gun would be 3.456,78 kg. In contrast these ship desciptions use a different (American) system so it would read 3,456.78 kg. The Armor is described here in inches ("5.5 Inch Belt") a dimension unit inscrutable for hundreds of millions of Europeans.

Is there any standard for these data in this game? Do I have to change the descibtions I already wrote?   [&:]

Warspite1

I assume you are not doing ships - I`ve never seen gun weight used - only shell size - which I think has been the standard for all ship descriptions I`ve seen to date. There was some discussion (correctly so) on whether inches or mm should be used and I have incorporated both measures since.

As for maximum armour, the belt is the one I generally use as this tends to be the thickest - and is always shown in my sources as inches.

I am neither European nor American but British [:D] but in military literature am used to seeing different measurements of - for example artillery - e.g. the famous British 25-pounder or the infamous German 88mm.





I think a German would say the famous 88mm and infamous 25 pounder.[;)]



Kaletsch2007 -> RE: metric system??? (4/15/2008 11:00:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Stabilo

Looking at these descibtions I recognized once again the problems with different notations.

I'm writing my unit describtions in a (European) metric system so the weight of a gun would be 3.456,78 kg. In contrast these ship desciptions use a different (American) system so it would read 3,456.78 kg. The Armor is described here in inches ("5.5 Inch Belt") a dimension unit inscrutable for hundreds of millions of Europeans.

Is there any standard for these data in this game? Do I have to change the descibtions I already wrote?   [&:]

Warspite1

I assume you are not doing ships - I`ve never seen gun weight used - only shell size - which I think has been the standard for all ship descriptions I`ve seen to date. There was some discussion (correctly so) on whether inches or mm should be used and I have incorporated both measures since.

As for maximum armour, the belt is the one I generally use as this tends to be the thickest - and is always shown in my sources as inches.

I am neither European nor American but British [:D] but in military literature am used to seeing different measurements of - for example artillery - e.g. the famous British 25-pounder or the infamous German 88mm.





I think a German would say the famous 88mm and infamous 25 pounder.[;)]

He would say, the world wide feared 88 and the over estimated 25 pounder[;)] Please do not take that to serious.



Stabilo -> RE: metric system??? (4/15/2008 1:17:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaletsch2007


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Stabilo

Looking at these descibtions I recognized once again the problems with different notations.

I'm writing my unit describtions in a (European) metric system so the weight of a gun would be 3.456,78 kg. In contrast these ship desciptions use a different (American) system so it would read 3,456.78 kg. The Armor is described here in inches ("5.5 Inch Belt") a dimension unit inscrutable for hundreds of millions of Europeans.

Is there any standard for these data in this game? Do I have to change the descibtions I already wrote?   [&:]

Warspite1

I assume you are not doing ships - I`ve never seen gun weight used - only shell size - which I think has been the standard for all ship descriptions I`ve seen to date. There was some discussion (correctly so) on whether inches or mm should be used and I have incorporated both measures since.

As for maximum armour, the belt is the one I generally use as this tends to be the thickest - and is always shown in my sources as inches.

I am neither European nor American but British [:D] but in military literature am used to seeing different measurements of - for example artillery - e.g. the famous British 25-pounder or the infamous German 88mm.





I think a German would say the famous 88mm and infamous 25 pounder.[;)]

He would say, the world wide feared 88 and the over estimated 25 pounder[;)] Please do not take that to serious.




Well, it's me who writes the artillery descriptions for the UK at the moment so it will be the over estimated 87,6 mm gun (called 25-pounder on some rainy islands deep in the Atlantic). [:D]


But to be serious:

What do you think about the "3,456.78 kg or 3.456,78 kg" problem? Is there a standard in this game?

What do you think about the metric system? I can write the maximum range of the 25-pounder was 13.400 yd or 12.250 m.




Kaletsch2007 -> RE: metric system??? (4/15/2008 1:48:28 PM)

I actually think, we should differ between description and comparison.
In my opinion, we should keep the common "name". The 88mm is known as the 88 and the 25 pounder is known by that. So, we should keep it as it is. But to enable all not historical educated players to see the differences, maybe a standard in meters and kg's would be appreciated, because it is the most common system. Most pound and inch knowing person know the meter and kg system, but not vice versa.
To answer your question, I would put 3456.78 kg.
That's the way e.g. Excel would do. Even if 3.456,78 kg seems familiar to me, that's maybe because I am German and I am used to it.

To be neutral and run around the follow on discussions, I recommend to put it in the Excel version.


Regards

But to be serious:

What do you think about the "3,456.78 kg or 3.456,78 kg" problem? Is there a standard in this game?

What do you think about the metric system? I can write the maximum range of the 25-pounder was 13.400 yd or 12.250 m.


[/quote]



Stabilo -> RE: metric system??? (4/15/2008 2:18:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaletsch2007

I actually think, we should differ between description and comparison.
In my opinion, we should keep the common "name". The 88mm is known as the 88 and the 25 pounder is known by that. So, we should keep it as it is. But to enable all not historical educated players to see the differences, maybe a standard in meters and kg's would be appreciated, because it is the most common system. Most pound and inch knowing person know the meter and kg system, but not vice versa.
To answer your question, I would put 3456.78 kg.
That's the way e.g. Excel would do. Even if 3.456,78 kg seems familiar to me, that's maybe because I am German and I am used to it.

To be neutral and run around the follow on discussions, I recommend to put it in the Excel version.


Regards

But to be serious:

What do you think about the "3,456.78 kg or 3.456,78 kg" problem? Is there a standard in this game?

What do you think about the metric system? I can write the maximum range of the 25-pounder was 13.400 yd or 12.250 m.






hm, my Excel writes 3.456,7 kg ...



Sabre21 -> RE: metric system??? (4/15/2008 3:50:47 PM)

I've been running into the same predicament editing the air files. Some things are in the metric while others are not. For instance engine output was all in horsepower rather than kW, speed was all in kph rather than knots or mph. In some cases weapon sizes and bombloads were mixed on one and opposite on the next. There was no real consistency.

I looked at what was being done with the ship files and used a similar format that I saw that seemed to be similar in most publications. This is where the english or american system is used first followed by the metric conversion in parenthesis.

Example

.B The F6F-3's two 2,100 hp (1566 kW) radial engines gave it a top speed of 435 mph (700 kph).
.B The Tigercat could carry a torpedo under the fuselage or up to a single 1000 lb (454 kg) bomb or three 5 inch (127mm) rockets under each wing.
.B The F6F-3 was also armed with four wing-mounted .79 cal (20mm) cannon, and
.B four nose-mounted .50 cal (12.7mm) machineguns.

You will note that the measurement for weapons under 1 inch use caliber and anything 1 inch and above use inches.  I thought about the common names and chose to use this method rather than confusing the average reader. The British method of naming cannons like "25 pounder" might be tricky..but I think that would be more appropriate than inches if it was the common name as long as the metric conversion follows it.

I also chose to use mph and kph for speed rather than the more common air usage of knots. I am a pilot and had to cringe at not using knots but after reviewing all my publications and references, fewer than 1% use knots. So I stuck with what is commonly found by the average reader.

On a stickier subject..having lived in Europe for 5 years I should have remembered that you continentals write numbers opposite from the way we do it here in the States. Gads..that's a tough one but I believe that again what is the standard out there? I have seen publications from all around the globe and I believe that more often you will see numbers written as 1,000,000.00 rather than 1.000.000,00.  Also from a military perspective, the first method seems to be used more often, especially when working in an international operation.

While it might be a good dose of culture for us here in the States to see the European methods of numbering, it will most likely confuse most of us rednecks and since we typically tend to abuse and impart our will on our overseas cousins anyways..whats a little more abuse [:D]

Sabre



SemperAugustus -> RE: metric system??? (4/15/2008 3:54:52 PM)

3,456.78 kg or 3.456,78 kg depends on the regional settings in windows. I suggest using US format or using space for thousands.

There are countries that divide after every two numbers (e.g. India) rather than every three numbers, so unless the decimal and dividers are taken from regional settings, just choosing one is the only alternative. Dates should obviously be written out fully if possible(i.e. no 05/06/07 dates).




composer99 -> RE: metric system??? (4/15/2008 5:41:11 PM)

Maybe avoiding punctuation marks for most number dividing (aside from the decimal) is the way to go (so for one million you write 1 000 000 instead of 1,000,000 or 1.000.000). For the decimal my own preference in unit write-ups would be for a period rather than a comma, if only because the game uses decimal points for all other fractions.



SemperAugustus -> RE: metric system??? (4/15/2008 6:06:23 PM)

quote:

Maybe avoiding punctuation marks for most number dividing (aside from the decimal) is the way to go (so for one million you write 1 000 000 instead of 1,000,000 or 1.000.000). For the decimal my own preference in unit write-ups would be for a period rather than a comma, if only because the game uses decimal points for all other fractions.


Period/full stops should be the thing to use for decimals, it is used in all English speaking countries as decimal separator.

If it is localized it can be fixed for respective language.



Froonp -> RE: metric system??? (4/15/2008 6:19:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

Maybe avoiding punctuation marks for most number dividing (aside from the decimal) is the way to go (so for one million you write 1 000 000 instead of 1,000,000 or 1.000.000). For the decimal my own preference in unit write-ups would be for a period rather than a comma, if only because the game uses decimal points for all other fractions.

Hey, people, this is a game made by a North American game company, and the game is all written in English.
So it seems to me that the numbers should be written in the US American way, that is 1 million is 1,000,000.00.

It the game is localized, and a crazy guy translates the writups, then the numbers will be fit to that localized translation, but since it is in American English, let's use American English way of writting numbers.


For the above, I don't speak about units.
For units I'd tend to propose that we use what is more commonly used in regards to the thing described :

Planes :
Engine output : hp seems pretty much common for me.
Weapons caliber : for machineguns, .50 cal & .33 cal or 12.7 & 7.7 mm are both commonly used, so I say that we should stick with the habit from the plane described. For example, US & British planes can use .50 cal while Russians & German & French planes rather use the 12.7 mm. But for 20 mm cannons I never seen the .79 cal. Let's use mm for all cannons.
Speeds : I'd propose that the speed is given in kmh with the mph in parenthesis, or the reverse, this is not a problem, even if that is not consistent through all the writups.
Altitudes : I propose that feets are used, as this is the most current and even us Europeans are used to use feets for altitude.
Bomb loads : I think that the lb are the most used, and we are all used to think about the bombloads in pounds.
Rockets : I think that both the inch & mm are used, I'd stick with the habit of the country of the plane talked about. Inches for Typhoon's rockets, mm for Me262 rockets. We all know how to convert one from the other, no need for both to appear.
Range : Km with miles in parenthesis or the reverse.

Ships :
Speeds : knots.
Armor : Inches.
Distances at sea (range or else) : Nautical miles.
Artillery caliber : I'd go with mm, as I think all people see what a 406 mm gun looks like, but not all realise that it is a 16 inch gun. Maybe 16 inch is not enough "visual" for non english people. Or maybe both.
Artillery range : I'd use meters, as yards are very restricted to US & English people, who also are familiar with meters.



Sabre21 -> RE: metric system??? (4/15/2008 7:15:02 PM)

I agree with a lot of what you say there Froonp but so far I've seen too many different styles of writing on these screenshots and some form of standardization is needed. You and me and many others that use this forum are familiar with common terminology for the various systems used in WWII but many others are not.

Many reference books, even some that date back 50 years use both the english and metric methods of measurement. Although like you said, it's odd to see .79 cal used for a 20mm cannon, but where do you draw the line on this. Most likely the primary market for this game is going to be grognards like us here that love this stuff and know it better than our own wife's birthday. But what about all those others that buy this game that aren't so hard core..do they really care if it says 20mm or not..probably not.

As a former military pilot, I am more than happy to stick with those things I am most familiar with..20mm is far easier for me to comprehend..as is a .50 cal machinegun. It puts a picture into my head of exactly what that is. But again..for others..seeing 12.7mm is correct..or maybe even .79 cal. also ask any pilot the speed of his airplane and he will tell it to you in knots..not mph nor kph.

I flew Cobra's..we used 2.75 in FFAR (rockets), 20mm cannon, Tow missile system, altitude was in feet , fuel was in US gallons, we measured distance in meters and kilometers but speed in knots (go figure). There are a lot of different methods of measurement and description used there..but that's what we used and I am sure every plane and ship out there has the same problems. For us it's ok..for the average joe..it's more than confusing.

I will go with what ever the powers to be deem the best..but I reckon unless otherwise told..I'll continue using the format I am using above..english with metric following it in parenthesis, that seems to be the method all of my reference books use.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: metric system??? (4/15/2008 8:15:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SemperAugustus

3,456.78 kg or 3.456,78 kg depends on the regional settings in windows. I suggest using US format or using space for thousands.

There are countries that divide after every two numbers (e.g. India) rather than every three numbers, so unless the decimal and dividers are taken from regional settings, just choosing one is the only alternative. Dates should obviously be written out fully if possible(i.e. no 05/06/07 dates).



The MWIF standards are:

1 - Decimal points (periods) for decimal numbers and commas for numbers in the thousands and millions (American system).

2 - The text files for unit writeups does not refer to internal Windows system parameters (like spreadsheet programs do), so the settings on your system do not matter.

3 - Dates need to include a word or abbreviation for the month: April 9, 2008. Using only numbers is a bad idea. Many places in the program dates do reference internal Windows systems parameters. Which is why some of Patrice screen shots say Avril. The writeups do not though.

4 - I do not really care whether mph, kph, or knots are used. I let the authors decide. If they standardize, that's great. But if they don't, I'm not going to worry about it.



Sabre21 -> RE: metric system??? (4/15/2008 10:07:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


The MWIF standards are:

1 - Decimal points (periods) for decimal numbers and commas for numbers in the thousands and millions (American system).

2 - The text files for unit writeups does not refer to internal Windows system parameters (like spreadsheet programs do), so the settings on your system do not matter.

3 - Dates need to include a word or abbreviation for the month: April 9, 2008. Using only numbers is a bad idea. Many places in the program dates do reference internal Windows systems parameters. Which is why some of Patrice screen shots say Avril. The writeups do not though.

4 - I do not really care whether mph, kph, or knots are used. I let the authors decide. If they standardize, that's great. But if they don't, I'm not going to worry about it.


The Great OZ has spoke..so it shall be[&o][&o][:D]

PS: I can't believe I've been a member of this forum now for almost 7 years with an average of almost 5 posts a month..hehe.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: metric system??? (4/19/2008 5:25:53 AM)

Andy has been going through all the air unit writeups by Graham (Greyshaft) and tidying things up. Much thanks.[&o]

Besides putting the 1300 air unit description entries into numerical order (better he than me), fixing some spelling and typos, his main effort has been to standardize things. I know this will make some of you very happy.

Here are 3 examples from the US fighters (the internal unit numbers place the US fighters first in the file).

Hp to kW, mph to kph (he reluctantly decided to not show knots as well), ... I am wondering if maybe we should also be adding cost to build in dollars, pounds, and rubles.[;)]

[image]local://upfiles/16701/B03900932C73429EA2818A950FCBFE27.jpg[/image]



Sabre21 -> RE: metric system??? (4/19/2008 6:15:13 AM)

Curse you Red Baron!![:@]  There's 2 typo's in item 1266 (last 47D on screen). I guess I'm glad you happened to post that particular one..both typos are now fixed.

Sabre21



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: metric system??? (4/19/2008 6:45:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

Curse you Red Baron!![:@]  There's 2 typo's in item 1266 (last 47D on screen). I guess I'm glad you happened to post that particular one..both typos are now fixed.

Sabre21

The missing blank before .50 and the apostrophe in it's?



Froonp -> RE: metric system??? (4/19/2008 12:56:44 PM)

That's great !
Good Job Andy !
Show us the German planes this is where there were the most errors of designation cohesion.

One remark : Should there be a blank space between a number and the unit ? Example : 1,040 hp instead of 1,040hp ?

Also, specificaly about the P-40C here, even if leaving the name of the writup as the counter was named by ADG, shouldn't you also write in the writup that the correct name was Warhawk ?



Froonp -> RE: metric system??? (4/19/2008 12:58:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

Curse you Red Baron!![:@]  There's 2 typo's in item 1266 (last 47D on screen). I guess I'm glad you happened to post that particular one..both typos are now fixed.

Sabre21

The missing blank before .50 and the apostrophe in it's?

2,500lbs instead of 2500lbs and 1,134kg instead of 1134kg ?



Sabre21 -> RE: metric system??? (4/19/2008 5:57:12 PM)

I'm gonna have to double check all the commas in any of the 4 digit numbers..those are 2 I didn't catch. The 2 typos I initially spotted included the missing space between mounted and .50 cal, and the small "t" on the ten at the beginning of the 3rd bullet. So really there are 4 typos with the 2 missing commas. All are now fixed. The lack of a comma thing in numbers is a habit from my army days, we never used them for brevity reasons.

As for the name kittyhawk and tomahawk..I know they are british designations..but it was only the P-40 that I refered to the original name of Warhawk. I didn't think it was necessary to explain it in every one of the series. I also wasn't too sure how much room I had for write-ups, but it appears there's plenty of room. Adding another line won't hurt these. I think I will go back and tweak the P-40's a bit.

Oh the space between numbers and hp/kW, etc., on the lines of bullets. Originally there were no spaces but I added one the first time I did all this. Then I started to run into the problem that the bullet line was too long. Not wanting it to spill over to another line, I had to shorten things, and that space was a result. But if I did it to a few, I had to do it to all.

It's surprising what you can catch when it's displayed as it would look in the game and not just plain text all crammed together.

Sabre



Froonp -> RE: metric system??? (4/19/2008 6:23:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sabre21
I'm gonna have to double check all the commas in any of the 4 digit numbers.

There is one easy way to spot them.
Load the writup file with MS Word, and use the Search function.
This search function have advanced features, one that allows to search for "any number" (^#). So if you put this 4 tumes (^#^#^#^#), you will find all writings that are made of 4 numbers.



Sabre21 -> RE: metric system??? (4/19/2008 6:38:03 PM)

Yep..just corrected all of them..probably well over a hundred missing commas. I'm just gonna have to train my eyeballs to catch 4 digit numbers without commas.



warspite1 -> RE: metric system??? (4/19/2008 6:50:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

I'm gonna have to double check all the commas in any of the 4 digit numbers..those are 2 I didn't catch. The 2 typos I initially spotted included the missing space between mounted and .50 cal, and the small "t" on the ten at the beginning of the 3rd bullet. So really there are 4 typos with the 2 missing commas. All are now fixed. The lack of a comma thing in numbers is a habit from my army days, we never used them for brevity reasons.

As for the name kittyhawk and tomahawk..I know they are british designations..but it was only the P-40 that I refered to the original name of Warhawk. I didn't think it was necessary to explain it in every one of the series. I also wasn't too sure how much room I had for write-ups, but it appears there's plenty of room. Adding another line won't hurt these. I think I will go back and tweak the P-40's a bit.

Oh the space between numbers and hp/kW, etc., on the lines of bullets. Originally there were no spaces but I added one the first time I did all this. Then I started to run into the problem that the bullet line was too long. Not wanting it to spill over to another line, I had to shorten things, and that space was a result. But if I did it to a few, I had to do it to all.

It's surprising what you can catch when it's displayed as it would look in the game and not just plain text all crammed together.

Sabre
Warspite1

Sabre - re your last sentence - I couldn`t agree more. I read the write ups through before submitting to Steve but as soon as I see them "in the counter", errors seem to jump out at me where they don`t just looking at plain text...........[:@]

Re your second sentence, I think its important to add approriate detail on all counters in a series as of course players won`t look at these in any particular order and the danger then is that the narrative on a later version won`t make sense. This struck me when you wrote of a plane being an improved version - but without the background you can`t know what its an improved version of.

By the way I like the way you have sought to standardise the aircraft write ups - they are looking good.





Sabre21 -> RE: metric system??? (4/19/2008 7:24:47 PM)

Ok..I just added a generic line in the P-40 write-ups that kind of explain the tomahawk and kittyhawk names but not getting into the I, IA, II, III, etc, variants. I agree with ya on placing data on each write-up to explain anomalies.

Thanks warspite..I'm gonna need some serious band-aids for my eyeballs after all this[X(]

I wanted to keep as much of Graham's original write-ups as possible, but in many cases I re-phrased them to fit into a standarized format. For instance any historical anecdotes or similar type data all went into the second paragraph. Like for instance references to the Flying Tiger's or Doolittle's raid.

I also would write in the 1st line..manufacturer (Curtiss), designation (P-40), name (Tomahawk), # seats (1), # engines if more than 1, unique data..like carrier-based or jet, type (fighter), date of service and primary user. This is pretty much the format I am using. There were a few variations to the format when I had to explain a unique aircraft type or model that had a name change due to a different manufaturer picking up the contract.

Oh and in case you catch it above in the P-40 write-up..I already added the missing manufacturer name[:)]

Sabre



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: metric system??? (4/19/2008 7:54:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

I'm gonna have to double check all the commas in any of the 4 digit numbers..those are 2 I didn't catch. The 2 typos I initially spotted included the missing space between mounted and .50 cal, and the small "t" on the ten at the beginning of the 3rd bullet. So really there are 4 typos with the 2 missing commas. All are now fixed. The lack of a comma thing in numbers is a habit from my army days, we never used them for brevity reasons.

As for the name kittyhawk and tomahawk..I know they are british designations..but it was only the P-40 that I refered to the original name of Warhawk. I didn't think it was necessary to explain it in every one of the series. I also wasn't too sure how much room I had for write-ups, but it appears there's plenty of room. Adding another line won't hurt these. I think I will go back and tweak the P-40's a bit.

Oh the space between numbers and hp/kW, etc., on the lines of bullets. Originally there were no spaces but I added one the first time I did all this. Then I started to run into the problem that the bullet line was too long. Not wanting it to spill over to another line, I had to shorten things, and that space was a result. But if I did it to a few, I had to do it to all.

It's surprising what you can catch when it's displayed as it would look in the game and not just plain text all crammed together.

Sabre

One thing that I did when I added the bullet points for these (yes, I put in most of the bullet formating in the air unit writeups) was to simply make two bullet points instead of 1. For instance, The P-47D has ",or ten 5-inch (127MM) rockets." Originally that had all been on one line.

Oh, and it's is a contraction of "it is"; its is the possessive for an impersonal pronoun.



Sabre21 -> RE: metric system??? (4/19/2008 8:43:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

One thing that I did when I added the bullet points for these (yes, I put in most of the bullet formating in the air unit writeups) was to simply make two bullet points instead of 1. For instance, The P-47D has ",or ten 5-inch (127MM) rockets." Originally that had all been on one line.

Oh, and it's is a contraction of "it is"; its is the possessive for an impersonal pronoun.


Yep..I caught onto that with the double bullets and was doing that if needed.

I missed the apostrophe in the it's..those are fixed too as well as all the commas.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: metric system??? (4/21/2008 4:11:39 AM)

I just updated my records on unit writeups for the air and naval units.

Andy tells me he is 23% done standardizing and otherwise tidying up the 1345 air units.

As of today, for the 1112 naval units I have:

45% - done
6% - done but needing formatting for MWIF
8% - assigned
11% - unassigned named units
30% - unassigned anonymous units (subs, naval trasnports, amphibious, etc.)



warspite1 -> RE: metric system??? (4/21/2008 4:25:36 AM)

Steve

I am happy to take the Commonwealth Submarines on board.

Rgds

Rob



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: metric system??? (4/21/2008 6:16:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Steve

I am happy to take the Commonwealth Submarines on board.

Rgds

Rob

Thanks! [&o] Done.



SemperAugustus -> RE: metric system??? (4/21/2008 11:43:55 AM)

Please let me know if you need help with Japanese units



Page: <<   < prev  25 26 [27] 28 29   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.202942