RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support



Message

michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (2/20/2011 12:32:57 PM)

The markers indicate that devices can be added (+) and devices can be upgraded (=)



Halsey -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (2/20/2011 4:48:58 PM)

Ahh, ok then.

Then I really don't care to have the extra symbols on the LCU screen.
I'm more concerned about current strength as a player, not upgrades.

Sorry...



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (2/20/2011 6:48:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

The markers indicate that devices can be added (+) and devices can be upgraded (=)


Let me put my vote in as really liking this change. Saves many mouse clicks between the LCU screen and the pools.



stuman -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (2/20/2011 6:59:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

The markers indicate that devices can be added (+) and devices can be upgraded (=)


Let me put my vote in as really liking this change. Saves many mouse clicks between the LCU screen and the pools.


+1



witpqs -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (2/20/2011 8:18:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

The markers indicate that devices can be added (+) and devices can be upgraded (=)


Let me put my vote in as really liking this change. Saves many mouse clicks between the LCU screen and the pools.


+1


Having the symbols on screen rocks!



PaxMondo -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (2/20/2011 10:06:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

The markers indicate that devices can be added (+) and devices can be upgraded (=)


Let me put my vote in as really liking this change. Saves many mouse clicks between the LCU screen and the pools.

+1



Having the symbols on screen rocks!

+1

A very nice new feature. Thanks for the support.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (2/21/2011 1:39:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Having the symbols on screen rocks!


Although I must say that having these symbols now makes me see how badly some of my units have been managed. Bad moose!!



drw61 -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) (2/21/2011 5:25:10 PM)

You're not the only one! [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Having the symbols on screen rocks!


Although I must say that having these symbols now makes me see how badly some of my units have been managed. Bad moose!!




PaxMondo -> RE: Kates (2/21/2011 9:21:10 PM)

Ok, in Build 02, Kates with bombs would level bomb at 9000 and glide bomb at 10,0000.  Now in Build 03 Kates level bomb from both 9000 and 10,000.  Which is WAD?

I'm ok either way, but would like to know which is going to be in place going forward.  [;)]

If a preference can be made, then I would like to vote for the Build 02 style (glide bombing at 10,000).  It made pairing with Vals easier in terms of getting coordination with your escort.

Thanks!



michaelm75au -> RE: Kates (2/22/2011 10:37:24 AM)

How are you telling the difference?



PaxMondo -> RE: Kates (2/22/2011 11:14:25 AM)

By reading the combat reports ... looking at the altitudes.  Used to send them in at 10,000 and it would say "4 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 4000 feet" (something between 3000 - 5000, so apparently a glide bomb attack).  Send them in at 9000 and it would say 4 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet".  Now, whatever altitude I send them in at, is what they bomb at. Oh and the AA losses would support the altitudes: so it doesn't appear to be FOW.

BTW: easy to test. Just run Scen 1 Dec 7 start with Patch 02 and then patch 03. Vary the Kate altitude. Very reproducible for me.

Thanks for checking.



PaulWRoberts -> Installation of beta patch? (2/24/2011 12:37:32 AM)

Quick question:

Can I install this beta patch (patch 6 build 3) on a clean 1.106i, or do I also need the earlier beta builds installed?

Thanks!



michaelm75au -> RE: Installation of beta patch? (2/24/2011 8:59:37 AM)

No. The beta is just a code change so doesn't need any additional patches.



michaelm75au -> RE: Kates (2/24/2011 11:46:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

By reading the combat reports ... looking at the altitudes.  Used to send them in at 10,000 and it would say "4 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 4000 feet" (something between 3000 - 5000, so apparently a glide bomb attack).  Send them in at 9000 and it would say 4 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet".  Now, whatever altitude I send them in at, is what they bomb at. Oh and the AA losses would support the altitudes: so it doesn't appear to be FOW.

BTW: easy to test. Just run Scen 1 Dec 7 start with Patch 02 and then patch 03. Vary the Kate altitude. Very reproducible for me.

Thanks for checking.


One line of code changed!!
TBs were better at bombing than they were at torpedoing apparently.
It was decided to simply add the TB to the original glide bomb exclusion of just LBs for now.

There were cases of TBs performing glide bombing but as with most things, this was a compromise to address the TB bombing accuracy.



PaxMondo -> RE: Kates (2/24/2011 11:49:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

By reading the combat reports ... looking at the altitudes.  Used to send them in at 10,000 and it would say "4 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 4000 feet" (something between 3000 - 5000, so apparently a glide bomb attack).  Send them in at 9000 and it would say 4 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet".  Now, whatever altitude I send them in at, is what they bomb at. Oh and the AA losses would support the altitudes: so it doesn't appear to be FOW.

BTW: easy to test. Just run Scen 1 Dec 7 start with Patch 02 and then patch 03. Vary the Kate altitude. Very reproducible for me.

Thanks for checking.


One line of code changed!!
TBs were better at bombing than they were at torpedoing apparently.
It was decided to simply add the TB to the original glide bomb exclusion of just LBs for now.

There were cases of TBs performing glide bombing but as with most things, this was a compromise to address the TB bombing accuracy.


Michael, thanks for the response. Since this is WAD, I'm going to use Patch 03 going forward in my game. Just wanted to be sure of this.

Understand the reasoning and appreciate the great support.




inqistor -> RE: Kates (2/24/2011 5:15:04 PM)

If that would not be big problem, could we get in warning quotas (like low on supply, or lack of enough support) LIGHT RED colour, instead of DARK RED?
Background is dark, and red colour is dark, and sometimes it is hard to see text at first-sight.



Mynok -> RE: Kates (2/24/2011 6:40:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

By reading the combat reports ... looking at the altitudes.  Used to send them in at 10,000 and it would say "4 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 4000 feet" (something between 3000 - 5000, so apparently a glide bomb attack).  Send them in at 9000 and it would say 4 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet".  Now, whatever altitude I send them in at, is what they bomb at. Oh and the AA losses would support the altitudes: so it doesn't appear to be FOW.

BTW: easy to test. Just run Scen 1 Dec 7 start with Patch 02 and then patch 03. Vary the Kate altitude. Very reproducible for me.

Thanks for checking.


One line of code changed!!
TBs were better at bombing than they were at torpedoing apparently.
It was decided to simply add the TB to the original glide bomb exclusion of just LBs for now.

There were cases of TBs performing glide bombing but as with most things, this was a compromise to address the TB bombing accuracy.


Whoa! That is a major change!



USSAmerica -> RE: Kates (2/24/2011 6:52:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

By reading the combat reports ... looking at the altitudes.  Used to send them in at 10,000 and it would say "4 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 4000 feet" (something between 3000 - 5000, so apparently a glide bomb attack).  Send them in at 9000 and it would say 4 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet".  Now, whatever altitude I send them in at, is what they bomb at. Oh and the AA losses would support the altitudes: so it doesn't appear to be FOW.

BTW: easy to test. Just run Scen 1 Dec 7 start with Patch 02 and then patch 03. Vary the Kate altitude. Very reproducible for me.

Thanks for checking.


One line of code changed!!
TBs were better at bombing than they were at torpedoing apparently.
It was decided to simply add the TB to the original glide bomb exclusion of just LBs for now.

There were cases of TBs performing glide bombing but as with most things, this was a compromise to address the TB bombing accuracy.


Whoa! That is a major change!


Our grunts and airfield maintenance guys at Darwin agree! [:D]



PaxMondo -> RE: Kates (2/25/2011 1:16:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

By reading the combat reports ... looking at the altitudes.  Used to send them in at 10,000 and it would say "4 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 4000 feet" (something between 3000 - 5000, so apparently a glide bomb attack).  Send them in at 9000 and it would say 4 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet".  Now, whatever altitude I send them in at, is what they bomb at. Oh and the AA losses would support the altitudes: so it doesn't appear to be FOW.

BTW: easy to test. Just run Scen 1 Dec 7 start with Patch 02 and then patch 03. Vary the Kate altitude. Very reproducible for me.

Thanks for checking.


One line of code changed!!
TBs were better at bombing than they were at torpedoing apparently.
It was decided to simply add the TB to the original glide bomb exclusion of just LBs for now.

There were cases of TBs performing glide bombing but as with most things, this was a compromise to address the TB bombing accuracy.


Whoa! That is a major change!


Yeah, through me for a loop when I stumbled upon it. It's fine though, once you know that its there. And effective: TB's are no longer the uber-bombers. They're ok of course, just not super anymore.



michaelm75au -> RE: Kates (2/25/2011 3:52:28 AM)

My fault. I must have lost the change out of the change log when my PC had its meltdown.



PaxMondo -> RE: Kates (2/25/2011 10:41:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

My fault. I must have lost the change out of the change log when my PC had its meltdown.

Np michael. And yes, it is REALLY working. [;)]



BigDuke66 -> RE: Kates (2/25/2011 4:15:06 PM)

Nice list of fixes, will this soon turn into a "normal" beta?



viberpol -> land diver in "j"? (2/26/2011 1:24:01 AM)

I always thought it's this way:

A/c type: DB
(1) Group altitude: 10-15K
A/c are treated as if performing a diving attack

Do the land based dive bombers excluded from this rule in the newest patch?
Because I've got something like this:

Morning Air attack on TF, near Little Andaman at 39,58

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 105 NM, estimated altitude 20,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 30 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-48-IIc Lily x 7

No Japanese losses

Allied Ships
CL Caradoc, Bomb hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
7 x Ki-48-IIc Lily bombing from 15000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 100 kg GP Bomb



michaelm75au -> RE: land diver in "j"? (2/26/2011 3:16:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

I always thought it's this way:

A/c type: DB
(1) Group altitude: 10-15K
A/c are treated as if performing a diving attack

Do the land based dive bombers excluded from this rule in the newest patch?
Because I've got something like this:

Morning Air attack on TF, near Little Andaman at 39,58

Weather in hex: Light cloud

Raid detected at 105 NM, estimated altitude 20,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 30 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-48-IIc Lily x 7

No Japanese losses

Allied Ships
CL Caradoc, Bomb hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
7 x Ki-48-IIc Lily bombing from 15000 feet
Naval Attack: 2 x 100 kg GP Bomb


Applies to all DB
Problem with ranges is often is that it is not clear as if ranges are inclusive of the numbers. In some cases, it is and other not.
I had changed some ranges in code to be inclusive as in 10-15k translates as 10,000 to 15,001.

In the above case, Diving attack 10-15K --> above 10K (inclusive) below 15K (exclusive) ie 10,11,12,13,14K
I'll a quick scan through to see if I have been consistent.



Omat -> RE: land diver in "j"? (2/26/2011 3:16:51 AM)

Hello

Only a small Issue

TF 110 on the way to Cape Town with 2 Ap`s and ML No. 202 ...the ML is without fuel but the whole TF have enough Fuel to reach Cape town. Normaly the small ships get some fuel from the others.



Omat



michaelm75au -> RE: land diver in "j"? (2/26/2011 5:56:03 AM)

Offmap movement doesn't always do fuel re-distribution unless the TF endurance drops below minimum.

I guess this may have something to do with how refueling from ships works. Any TF is the hex can supply fuel.
In the case of offmap, all TFs going to the same offmap base will end up in the same hex, but with various 'times to base'. Even same 'time to base' could represent widely spaced TFs.

I had made a change when offmap for refueling as the current method actually will use fall in to the situation I mentioned above. Once the TF drops below minimum, ANY TF in same hex would refuel it.
Now, it will limit the refuel to TFs that have same time-to-base. With this, it can refuel ships that run out of fuel (as in your example).



Omat -> RE: land diver in "j"? (2/26/2011 12:52:31 PM)

Hello Michaelm

Thanks for your explanations. [;)] As I mentioned it is not a very important issue.

Omat
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Offmap movement doesn't always do fuel re-distribution unless the TF endurance drops below minimum.

I guess this may have something to do with how refueling from ships works. Any TF is the hex can supply fuel.
In the case of offmap, all TFs going to the same offmap base will end up in the same hex, but with various 'times to base'. Even same 'time to base' could represent widely spaced TFs.

I had made a change when offmap for refueling as the current method actually will use fall in to the situation I mentioned above. Once the TF drops below minimum, ANY TF in same hex would refuel it.
Now, it will limit the refuel to TFs that have same time-to-base. With this, it can refuel ships that run out of fuel (as in your example).




Halsey -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (2/27/2011 9:05:20 PM)

27 Feb update...

On overstacked airfields, the support information has nonsense now.
Instead of the +- aircraft support levels that it use to have.



michaelm75au -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (2/28/2011 8:28:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

27 Feb update...

On overstacked airfields, the support information has nonsense now.
Instead of the +- aircraft support levels that it use to have.

Can you supply picture?
I don't remember any change (at least not intentional).
[Edit]
Forget it.
Does look like an un-intentional error.
[edit]
Updated the attachment in first post.



dorjun driver -> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) updated 27 Feb (2/28/2011 11:59:05 AM)

Thank FSM this isn't a bloody Leap Year, or nothing would have been done!



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.685547