Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

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

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) - 2/20/2011 12:32:57 PM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline 		The markers indicate that devices can be added (+) and devices can be upgraded (=)

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 31
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) - 2/20/2011 4:48:58 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		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...

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 32
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) - 2/20/2011 6:48:47 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 33
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) - 2/20/2011 6:59:30 PM   
stuman


Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 34
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) - 2/20/2011 8:18:49 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
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!

(in reply to stuman)
Post #: 35
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) - 2/20/2011 10:06:15 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 36
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) - 2/21/2011 1:39:55 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
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!!

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 37
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) - 2/21/2011 5:25:10 PM   
drw61


Posts: 894
Joined: 6/30/2004
From: South Carolina
Status: offline 		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!!


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 38
RE: Kates - 2/21/2011 9:21:10 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		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!

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to drw61)
Post #: 39
RE: Kates - 2/22/2011 10:37:24 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline 		How are you telling the difference?

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 40
RE: Kates - 2/22/2011 11:14:25 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		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.

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 2/22/2011 11:17:45 AM >

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 41
Installation of beta patch? - 2/24/2011 12:37:32 AM   
PaulWRoberts

 

Posts: 897
Joined: 4/22/2001
Status: offline 		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!

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 42
RE: Installation of beta patch? - 2/24/2011 8:59:37 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline 		No. The beta is just a code change so doesn't need any additional patches.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to PaulWRoberts)
Post #: 43
RE: Kates - 2/24/2011 11:46:43 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
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

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 44
RE: Kates - 2/24/2011 11:49:04 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
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.



< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 2/24/2011 11:50:08 AM >

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 45
RE: Kates - 2/24/2011 5:15:04 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 46
RE: Kates - 2/24/2011 6:40:43 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline
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!

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 47
RE: Kates - 2/24/2011 6:52:22 PM   
USSAmerica


Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline
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!

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 48
RE: Kates - 2/25/2011 1:16:57 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 49
RE: Kates - 2/25/2011 3:52:28 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline 		My fault. I must have lost the change out of the change log when my PC had its meltdown.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 50
RE: Kates - 2/25/2011 10:41:20 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 51
RE: Kates - 2/25/2011 4:15:06 PM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline 		Nice list of fixes, will this soon turn into a "normal" beta?

_____________________________

JOIN The Blitz Wargaming Club
JOIN Napoleonic Wargame Club
JOIN American Civil War Game Club

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 52
land diver in "j"? - 2/26/2011 1:24:01 AM   
viberpol


Posts: 838
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline 		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

_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 53
RE: land diver in "j"? - 2/26/2011 3:16:49 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to viberpol)
Post #: 54
RE: land diver in "j"? - 2/26/2011 3:16:51 AM   
Omat


Posts: 2414
Joined: 8/18/2004
Status: offline 		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

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
Bertrand Russell

(in reply to viberpol)
Post #: 55
RE: land diver in "j"? - 2/26/2011 5:56:03 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline 		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).

< Message edited by michaelm -- 2/26/2011 7:03:59 AM >

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Omat)
Post #: 56
RE: land diver in "j"? - 2/26/2011 12:52:31 PM   
Omat


Posts: 2414
Joined: 8/18/2004
Status: offline 		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).



_____________________________

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
Bertrand Russell

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 57
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 2/27/2011 9:05:20 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		27 Feb update...

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

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 58
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 2/28/2011 8:28:18 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by michaelm -- 2/28/2011 9:01:21 AM >

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 59
RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) upda... - 2/28/2011 11:59:05 AM   
dorjun driver


Posts: 641
Joined: 4/20/2006
From: Port Townsend: hex 210,51
Status: offline 		Thank FSM this isn't a bloody Leap Year, or nothing would have been done!

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> RE: Patch 06 - Public Beta - Build 1108j (build03) Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.297