WitPTracker AE Release 1.11 Available!

[floydg]

ORIGINAL: armin

Is the Floyd_Region_File any better then the Kulls or Nomads version? tried to see the spreadsheet and didnt found any info.

I fixed some errors in the base names for GC1 based on Nomad's version.

[larryfulkerson]

Many thanks for this new version. I've put it to good use almost immediately and I'm impressed.

[VSWG]

Many thanks! [&o]

I've updated without any problems.

[nashvillen]

CS cargo planning - major drool!

[JamesM]

I still can not get this utility to work

[floydg]

ORIGINAL: jamesm

I still can not get this utility to work

Edit the WitPTracker.bat file and change the startup command to read:

Code: Select all

java -Xms384m -Xmx512m -jar "WitPTracker.jar" nomap

If that doesn't work, try this one:

Code: Select all

java -Xms512m -Xmx640m -jar "WitPTracker.jar" nomap

[floydg]

Just realized that I left out one of the big features for the release... ship movement was added to the map:




Green squares are at-sea locations and green lines are drawn directly to connect them. Blue squares show in port locations.

[EDIT] I know I can do a lot more with it, so suggestions welcome.

[Dan Nichols]

On the Ship Repair/port view screen a number of columns do not sort. The up/down arrow shows up, but the column is not sorted. tot tons, repair cap, yard + PRA, and misc. The filter does not seem to do anything either. Neither does the berthed filter.

The new task force screen looks great and very useful.

[floydg]

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols
On the Ship Repair/port view screen a number of columns do not sort. The up/down arrow shows up, but the column is not sorted. tot tons, repair cap, yard + PRA, and misc. The filter does not seem to do anything either. Neither does the berthed filter.

Yes, the sorting doesn't work for some columns (fixing that now). But the filters work for me no problem...

[pws1225]

Great work, and much appreciated! Thanks guys.

[USSAmerica]

Thanks, gentlemen!

[Dan Nichols]

ORIGINAL: floydg

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols
On the Ship Repair/port view screen a number of columns do not sort. The up/down arrow shows up, but the column is not sorted. tot tons, repair cap, yard + PRA, and misc. The filter does not seem to do anything either. Neither does the berthed filter.

Yes, the sorting doesn't work for some columns (fixing that now). But the filters work for me no problem...

OK, filters do work, just not as I expected.

[nashvillen]

ORIGINAL: floydg

Just realized that I left out one of the big features for the release... ship movement was added to the map:




Green squares are at-sea locations and green lines are drawn directly to connect them. Blue squares show in port locations.

[EDIT] I know I can do a lot more with it, so suggestions welcome.

What about a date or turn number at each box? Not complaining, very happy with it.

[fcharton]

Hello,

When loading a previous game (saved in version 1.8.1) I get the following. Tracker then loads, but the device, ship, spip production upgrade and repairs, and the aircraft comparison tabs are empty. The industry tab graph doesn't work either. (But the task force and ship class screens look ok).

If I revert the .jar file to the previous version, the problem disappears. Apparently, the database is fine.

Thanks in advance
Francois

[floydg]

ORIGINAL: fcharton

Hello,

When loading a previous game (saved in version 1.8.1) I get the following. Tracker then loads, but the device, ship, spip production upgrade and repairs, and the aircraft comparison tabs are empty. The industry tab graph doesn't work either. (But the task force and ship class screens look ok).

If I revert the .jar file to the previous version, the problem disappears. Apparently, the database is fine.

Thanks in advance
Francois

Looks like your database was not upgraded to add the new data points. I don't know how that didn't happen... [&:]

[alimentary]

I have been struggling to understand the relevance of the cargo efficiency number quoted in Tracker. The column heading is Cargo/(F/H), implying that this is cargo capacity divided by fuel-per-hex. However, that characterization is incorrect.

It seems that the figure is currently computed as speed * cargo * range / bunker

I maintain that the correct figure-of-merit is cargo * range / bunker with
no correction for speed.

Searching the forums, I believe that I have found the posting in which this computation was proposed:

ORIGINAL: fcharton

ORIGINAL: n01487477
The table above shows you the pertinent efficiency info Fuel/Mile and cargo(F/M). Higher numbers are better for Cargo(F/M) and lower is better for fuel/mile.

I believe Cargo (M/F) is the right measure, here.

re speed, I think the general idea is that if you double cruise speed, you divide by two the number of convoys at sea at any given time, and therefore fuel usage (convoys loading and unloading are docked, and use no fuel). So perhaps the correct "unit of efficiency" for shipping lane fuel usage (under constraint of port load rates) would be something like

Cargo size x Speed x Endurance / Bunker capacity

under constraints (one day loading/unloading time)
ship tonnage < min ship port rate
nr of ships in convoy < min dock size / ship tonnage
nr of ships in convoy < min total port rate / ship tonnage

(interestingly, the unit here is something like squared miles per hour which corresponds to viscosity in fluid mechanics, not sure how to interpret this...)

Francois

The logic about doubling cruise speed halving the number of convoys at sea and thereby halving fuel consumption is complete poppycock.

Yes, if you move twice as fast, you halve the number of convoys at sea. But every convoy at sea is consuming fuel at double rate because fuel usage is based on hexes, not days and all of those convoys at sea are moving twice as fast and consuming twice as much fuel per day. The net effect is a wash -- speed does not enter in.

A figure computed in cargo ton-hexes per ton of fuel would seem proper. That's what the column heading calls for. That is what should be displayed.


If you wanted a separate column for cargo ton-hexes per ship-day... Speed would be very relevant for that.

[treespider]

Tried transferring .jar...no love.

Did a clean install...transferred all 90 save game files of current game and reports to new install folder...completed the multi-turn read...so far so good.

Looked at the LCU Production charts...Green line for Units Accumulative Arm Points ...no longer present

IIRC the same is true for vehicles.

[treespider]

Version 1.8 screen shot of same information

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Tried transferring .jar...no love.

Did a clean install...transferred all 90 save game files of current game and reports to new install folder...completed the multi-turn read...so far so good.

Looked at the LCU Production charts...Green line for Units Accumulative Arm Points ...no longer present

IIRC the same is true for vehicles.

That's weird, does a restart of tracker show it ?

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: alimentary

I have been struggling to understand the relevance of the cargo efficiency number quoted in Tracker. The column heading is Cargo/(F/H), implying that this is cargo capacity divided by fuel-per-hex. However, that characterization is incorrect.

It seems that the figure is currently computed as speed * cargo * range / bunker

I maintain that the correct figure-of-merit is cargo * range / bunker with
no correction for speed.

Searching the forums, I believe that I have found the posting in which this computation was proposed:

ORIGINAL: fcharton

ORIGINAL: n01487477
The table above shows you the pertinent efficiency info Fuel/Mile and cargo(F/M). Higher numbers are better for Cargo(F/M) and lower is better for fuel/mile.

I believe Cargo (M/F) is the right measure, here.

re speed, I think the general idea is that if you double cruise speed, you divide by two the number of convoys at sea at any given time, and therefore fuel usage (convoys loading and unloading are docked, and use no fuel). So perhaps the correct "unit of efficiency" for shipping lane fuel usage (under constraint of port load rates) would be something like

Cargo size x Speed x Endurance / Bunker capacity

under constraints (one day loading/unloading time)
ship tonnage < min ship port rate
nr of ships in convoy < min dock size / ship tonnage
nr of ships in convoy < min total port rate / ship tonnage

(interestingly, the unit here is something like squared miles per hour which corresponds to viscosity in fluid mechanics, not sure how to interpret this...)

Francois

The logic about doubling cruise speed halving the number of convoys at sea and thereby halving fuel consumption is complete poppycock.

Yes, if you move twice as fast, you halve the number of convoys at sea. But every convoy at sea is consuming fuel at double rate because fuel usage is based on hexes, not days and all of those convoys at sea are moving twice as fast and consuming twice as much fuel per day. The net effect is a wash -- speed does not enter in.

A figure computed in cargo ton-hexes per ton of fuel would seem proper. That's what the column heading calls for. That is what should be displayed.


If you wanted a separate column for cargo ton-hexes per ship-day... Speed would be very relevant for that.

So, what do you want a change to the formula, an added column or a change to the heading?

I only added it to give players an idea of better / worse ship classes for cargo hauling...