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: GOOD News

 
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 >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: GOOD News Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: GOOD News - 9/24/2014 3:54:24 AM   
btd64


Posts: 8632
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: online
SuluSea, Really nice work. Can you send it to me as well. Want to use it as a wall paper on my laptop.....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

I don't like paying for the same real estate twice..Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 421
RE: GOOD News - 9/24/2014 7:20:01 AM   
Reg


Posts: 2786
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Those damned ships have proven to be elusive buggers. It is to my BELIEF that they are now in the French Ship Art File. Will---for about the 50th time--take a look...



Hi John,

If you are having issues managing your art it might be worth your while
downloading my Distribution Manager from here Revolving Bitmap Distribution Manager V1.6



Option F then 2 creates and displays a HTML page which shows all the bitmaps in your art (or any other) folder cross referenced against scenario data.
(If you aren't using rotating ship art, everything will be in the 1941/All column).
Very handy for finding missing art or mismatch problems like this.....

It's written in MSDOS and a bit slow* so please be patient...

* I was expecting MSDOS to be blindingly fast on modern processors but no, Microsoft has nobbled DOS. I believe DOS is emulated under Windows now and uses the Windows disk access libraries (making it slower than windows itself).



If you have any problems drop me a line.



< Message edited by Reg -- 9/25/2014 5:57:53 AM >


_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 422
RE: GOOD News - 9/24/2014 1:07:00 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2324
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
Can I assume it does the airplanes too?

_____________________________


(in reply to Reg)
Post #: 423
RE: GOOD News - 9/24/2014 3:25:49 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7529
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: online
Just wanted to report that BTS 1.6 did not fix the 9th Indian Division.

At least not in an ongoing game that has reached March 13th, 1942.

It may be fixed for new game starts.

Someone else will have to report on that as I don't intend to let this glitch cause me to restart.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 424
RE: GOOD News - 9/24/2014 5:18:42 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9831
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Hans,

As far as I know, ongoing updates don't fix things like the 9th Indian for games in progress. Ships that go through an update will have the fix applied when they upgrade. The "TOE ID" is something that is set in stone when the game first start. However, we do need to identify them so they can be fixed for newer games.

_____________________________


(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 425
RE: GOOD News - 9/24/2014 6:23:56 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7529
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: online
10-4

I'll continue to report what turns up in my current game.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 426
RE: GOOD News - 9/25/2014 4:55:49 AM   
Reg


Posts: 2786
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Can I assume it does the airplanes too?


If you are talking about the Art Distribution Manager then yes. Option E then 1 will display installed rotating aircraft art. Example outputs can be seen here.

(The tool also automates the compilation of valid rotating ship and air artwork distributions but I don't think that function is needed here).

Sorry about hijacking your thread John but I thought this tool might make the job of verifying large quantities of custom artwork easier for you.




< Message edited by Reg -- 9/25/2014 6:02:29 AM >


_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 427
RE: GOOD News - 9/25/2014 4:57:10 AM   
JuanG


Posts: 905
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
John,

I found another LCU that seems to have lost its TOE in the upgrade to DBB.

Units #0093-0095 use TOE #2148, which in previous versions was the 'heavy' base force which would upgrade to TOE #2232 and include organic 12cm and 8cm AA guns. However, right now there is no TOE #2148 or #2232.

Also, Eighth USAAF, LCU #0150, starts with 180 AvSup, but uses TOE #2514 with a TOE of only 48 AvSup - is this intentional?

_____________________________


(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 428
RE: GOOD News - 9/25/2014 5:12:02 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17103
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Hell no---It is not intentional. This is simply the after effects of converting fully over to DB. We'll get it handled but...grrrr...it is frustrating!

Keep looking everyone. I'll do another clean-up on Sat. When more is found, Post here so we can get the list taken care of.

JUAN: What do you think of SuluSea's great new loading page??!! COOOOOOOL...



< Message edited by John 3rd -- 9/25/2014 6:12:50 AM >


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 429
RE: GOOD News - 9/25/2014 1:14:50 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2324
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
Reg, I am looking for a way to identify where I can add aircraft to the existing set without overwriting. Thanks

Juans new cover is great!!!

< Message edited by oldman45 -- 9/25/2014 2:15:28 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 430
RE: GOOD News - 9/26/2014 1:32:11 AM   
JuanG


Posts: 905
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Reg, I am looking for a way to identify where I can add aircraft to the existing set without overwriting. Thanks

Juans new cover is great!!!


You should be able to just do that via the 'ART/AlliedPlanes' directory. See the guide attached to the first post in this thread.

Also, I think you meant SuluSea's cover, and I do agree it is very impressive!

< Message edited by JuanG -- 9/26/2014 2:33:09 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 431
RE: GOOD News - 9/26/2014 12:41:09 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17103
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I have SuluSea's new loading screen. Will add it to the Allied Art Folder so everyone can enjoy it. NICE!


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 432
RE: GOOD News - 9/27/2014 7:13:40 PM   
btd64


Posts: 8632
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: online
John, I have been trying to review the allied OOB but can't access the scenario in the editor. I was looking at the indian 7th inf . It has half 42 squads. So I looked at the DBB's version and it did also. So I looked at Scenario 1 stock, Same thing so nothing to worry about then. But I would like to beable to look thru tomorrow as I am off for the next 2 days. Have some stuff to do, but I have about 10 to 12 hours I can use to review. PM me if there is something I can look at....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

I don't like paying for the same real estate twice..Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 433
RE: GOOD News - 9/28/2014 12:53:57 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17103
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
GP: I am going to work on the Update tonight and tomorrow. PLEASE take a look and see if you spot anything additionally. Really want to go through, fix things, and STEP AWAY for people to play!


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 434
RE: GOOD News - 9/28/2014 11:56:32 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2324
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
Thanks JuanG.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 435
Updates - 9/28/2014 1:39:42 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17103
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Went through and FIXED:

1. The Japanese base Force issue of it being set to 2148 when it is 2146. Did a little tweak on the 8cm, 4cm, and 12.7mm gun allotment.

2. The 8th Air Force Air Support amount and TOE was screwed up. I set the unit (and all US Air Force units) to the correct line and changed air support from 48 to 72. I am sure this was reduced for DB from its 150. Looks like the individual units were not refreshed after the downgrade. Since the US Air Force 41 Air Support was 36 I raised the US Air Force 42 Air Support to 72. Figured that as an improvement but still followed DB outlines on reduction in Air Support.

Am going to wait for a day to Post these updates on the website. GP: You're getting an email so you can look through BTS. These changes were in all three Mods so the new Mod number shall be:
045 Treaty Mod 1.5
050 RA 7.5
055 Between the Storms 1.7

Anyone else see something we have until tomorrow night to fix it under this update.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 436
RE: Updates - 9/28/2014 3:11:13 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 905
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Went through and FIXED:

1. The Japanese base Force issue of it being set to 2148 when it is 2146. Did a little tweak on the 8cm, 4cm, and 12.7mm gun allotment.



John, you will note that in RA v6 this was not the case - there were two distinct types of IJN base forces - the standard (#2146), and the type that upgraded to include the 12cm/8cm AA section (#2148->#2232). I do not think the issue is what you describe it as, rather the issue is that the latter two TOE units never made it across during the update.

I would also be very wary about hiking ALL US Air HQ supports up from 48 to 72 from 1942 onward - I pointed out the Eighth as it arrives late game and was clearly overstrength to its TOE, the others are in line with the 48. I worry that doing this in 1942 or without a corresponding increase to the IJN/IJA Air HQs might upset the balance in late 42 already. If you want larger US Air HQs I would suggest perhaps adding a '43 or '44 version with 72, and leaving the '42 one along at 48.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 9/28/2014 4:15:20 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 437
RE: Updates - 9/28/2014 3:24:28 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9831
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
See JuanG's post in my AAR for BC fixes.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3657481&mpage=7

_____________________________


(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 438
RE: Updates - 9/28/2014 7:13:05 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17103
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Here is what he said:

I have no idea where the numbers for that 330mm on the Dunkerque came from. The 16in/50 numbers were produced by JWE (because RA/BTS use the DBB naval guns numbers, which he is the authority of) and are largely in line with my own estimates.

At first glace it looks like the range on the 330mm is correct - it had a maximum range of ~45,600 yards at 35 degrees elevation when firing its 1235lb AP rounds, and a muzzle velocity of 2850fps (which is damn fast).

In comparison, the 16in/50 Mk3 which only ever saw use as a coastal mounting had a range of ~45,100 yards, at an angle of 46 degrees and a muzzle velocity of 2650fps when firing 2240lb AP (same shell as on Colorado class).

However, I believe JWE ran the numbers for them with a maximum elevation of 30 degrees, like the turrets on the Colorado class, which would put their maximum range in the 36-37,000 yard mark. For reference, Colorado firing the same shell at 2520fps and 30 degrees has a range of 35,000 yards. I would probably have picked 36-37,000 yards for the 16in/50s, but the difference is fairly minor.

As for penetration - the 2240lb Mk5 APC at 2650fps (Constitution class) penetrates 22.3in of Class A at 15,000 yards, and 19in at 20,000 yards. In comparison the same shell at 2520fps (Colorado) has a penetration of 20.7in and 17.5in respectively. I think the 16in/50 Mk3 is a little underrated currently at only 2 more penetration than the 16in/45 on the Colorado, something in the 760-770 range would be more appropriate.

The French shell is a newer design than the 2240lb Mk5 (the post-44 US shells do not seem to be modelled apart from on the 16in/50 Mk7), and due its high velocity its performance is impressive despite its size, however it does seem to be overperforming here. At 2850fps its penetration is 19.8in and 16.8in of Class A respectively. This would put it between the 16in/45 on the Colorado and the 14in/50 on the Tennessee/NM, with a penetration value around 700. For reference the French 15in on the Richilieu is only 754 in game.

One last thing I notice is the Ammo count on the Dunkerque - these carried 110 rounds per gun, so an ammo number of 16 is a little high. Consider that the Alaska class CB carried 166 rounds per gun of 12in (so a fairly close comparison), and also gets a 16. I would give Dunkerque a 14 at most, probably a 13, given that the 14in gunned US Standard BBs get a 12 at 100 rounds per gun.

So, potential fix list;
1) Increase range on 16in/50 to 37,000 yards.
2) Decrease penetration on 330mm to 700-710 (maybe JWE could run the numbers for the DBB model?)
3) Decrease ammo on Dunkerque main battery to 13.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 439
RE: Updates - 9/28/2014 7:14:27 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17103
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Went through and FIXED:

1. The Japanese base Force issue of it being set to 2148 when it is 2146. Did a little tweak on the 8cm, 4cm, and 12.7mm gun allotment.



John, you will note that in RA v6 this was not the case - there were two distinct types of IJN base forces - the standard (#2146), and the type that upgraded to include the 12cm/8cm AA section (#2148->#2232). I do not think the issue is what you describe it as, rather the issue is that the latter two TOE units never made it across during the update.

I would also be very wary about hiking ALL US Air HQ supports up from 48 to 72 from 1942 onward - I pointed out the Eighth as it arrives late game and was clearly overstrength to its TOE, the others are in line with the 48. I worry that doing this in 1942 or without a corresponding increase to the IJN/IJA Air HQs might upset the balance in late 42 already. If you want larger US Air HQs I would suggest perhaps adding a '43 or '44 version with 72, and leaving the '42 one along at 48.


The difference in 6 vs 7 is the DB conversion. Do you think we need to return those 12CM guns Juan? Was that the standard? I've got absolutely no issue fixing this.

The comment regarding American Air Force HQ units makes a lot of sense. Any other comments here?


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 440
RE: Updates - 9/28/2014 7:15:22 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17103
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
John (JWE/Symon): Do you have any thoughts as per Juan's recommendations?

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 441
RE: Updates - 9/29/2014 9:40:28 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9831
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
To Allied players: What do you think about the American supply situation early in the war?? I damaged their industry by about 50% across the board to have them need to ramp up their industry. A month into my game vs Cribtop, the USA still doesn't have significant surplus in supplies yet. There was the small industries that were repaired in the 30 days or less and then there will be another sizable chunk that will be done in 60 days or less. After this happens, their supply situation should be much more manageable.

My question for future versions of BTS, should the industry be damaged at 66% vs just 50% or is it OK as is??

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 442
RE: Updates - 9/29/2014 1:26:38 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17103
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Good question Michael. I'd like some commentary to that before we wrap this update.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 443
RE: Updates - 9/29/2014 8:34:43 PM   
btd64


Posts: 8632
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: online
Gents,
Industry damage at 50% seems ok. 66% may even be ok. After all, This is a game of challenges, and slow build up makes it more of a challenge. More realistic, I think so. In late 1940, If I remember correctly, war time industry was moving but not even near full speed....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

I don't like paying for the same real estate twice..Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 444
RE: Updates - 9/30/2014 12:10:09 AM   
Reg


Posts: 2786
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline
Hi John,

Have you ever considered the concept of slipping aircraft arrival dates so R&D is needed to allow new types to arrive at anything like the historical timelines?? Development of aircraft types not given priority would languish which is not the case under stock.

It will certainly add another layer to Japanese planning.

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 445
RE: Updates - 9/30/2014 1:53:18 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17103
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I think this makes sense to me. Scale the Americans back a bit further to better reflect what it truly was like.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 446
RE: Updates - 9/30/2014 1:53:55 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17103
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reg

Hi John,

Have you ever considered the concept of slipping aircraft arrival dates so R&D is needed to allow new types to arrive at anything like the historical timelines?? Development of aircraft types not given priority would languish which is not the case under stock.

It will certainly add another layer to Japanese planning.



LIKE that but don't have a clue as to how it would be done...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Reg)
Post #: 447
RE: Updates - 9/30/2014 8:47:24 AM   
Reg


Posts: 2786
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


quote:

ORIGINAL: Reg

Hi John,

Have you ever considered the concept of slipping aircraft arrival dates so R&D is needed to allow new types to arrive at anything like the historical timelines?? Development of aircraft types not given priority would languish which is not the case under stock.

It will certainly add another layer to Japanese planning.


LIKE that but don't have a clue as to how it would be done...



There is a Start Month and Year for each aircraft type in the editor. Just add a couple of months to this date. Possibly a bit less for early war and bit more for late war types...

You might need some input from someone more familiar with how much aircraft can be accelerated before you pick a delay figure...




_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 448
RE: Updates - 9/30/2014 12:14:35 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7529
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: online
Heads up on a few possible BTS glitches. I'm running 1.6.

The two Aussie brigades that start in Malaya usually combine with the Lark, Gull and Sparrow battalions to create the 8th Division.

BTS shows them combining to create the 20th Brigade. I'm a little concerned that I'm gonna get shorted another Allied division here.

Also, the Aussie militia brigades somehow skyrocketed in PP cost to release. They are over 1k PP.

They used to be about 450 PP. It is cheaper to buy out a US divisional regiment at about 650 PP to ship to Port Moresby than it is to free up a militia brigade.

Is this WAD?

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 9/30/2014 1:15:53 PM >


_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Reg)
Post #: 449
RE: Updates - 9/30/2014 4:46:40 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17103
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Any other issues/comments? I plan to do the update tonight and send the files to Michael so he can work on the US Economy.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 450
Page:   <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: GOOD News Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   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

0.211