WitPTracker AE Release 1.11 Available!

[Trugrit]

Too both those questions I am not sure. Most recent version of Tracker and the full version before the new Beta for the game I think.

I am confused why it is coming up with Shipyard stuff on Aircraft though.

It's the current amount of supply at the base.

look at this thread https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 3#p2575423

and yes it's an old thread, but I was comparing "Sy=" amounts appearing in my tracker in the industry data set and to their base supply amounts in the game and they match. I think that this enables you to calculate how much more supply you'd need in order to repair/build.

Nice catch! That post would be hard to find.

You sir are a steel eyed forum warrior. Bravo Zulu!

[GrosserKreuzer]

Not sure if this was already mentioned since I have not read this whole thread, but to me it looks like some specific data base numbers shown in the game do not match up with the numbers tracker gives.

When I was looking through some ships, specifically japanese (light) Crusiers, I was a bit disapointed to see that the 14cm and also the 15cm main guns of my new Agano type Crusiers were listed with 86 for penetration. When looking in game, the 14cm guns show 91 and the 15cm guns 114 penetration. Effect numbers also dont match and other guns like the 15,5cm also show different values. The Editor seems to match in game information.
I was using scen 1 and official version and beta look the same.

I would be interested if this is known/others can observe the same behavior or if I might have messed up my instalation/configuration.

[LowesyPC]

Too both those questions I am not sure. Most recent version of Tracker and the full version before the new Beta for the game I think.

I am confused why it is coming up with Shipyard stuff on Aircraft though.

It's the current amount of supply at the base.

look at this thread https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 3#p2575423

and yes it's an old thread, but I was comparing "Sy=" amounts appearing in my tracker in the industry data set and to their base supply amounts in the game and they match. I think that this enables you to calculate how much more supply you'd need in order to repair/build.

Nice catch! That post would be hard to find.

You sir are a steel eyed forum warrior. Bravo Zulu!

Yeah thank you for the catch. My big issue is I screwed up in regards to repair. I didn't realise that new factories don't Build per se. But they repair. And to repair you need to have 10k supply. Now I have that and have stopped some of factory expansion its all going ok now.

[Dewey169]

It's the current amount of supply at the base.

look at this thread https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 3#p2575423

and yes it's an old thread, but I was comparing "Sy=" amounts appearing in my tracker in the industry data set and to their base supply amounts in the game and they match. I think that this enables you to calculate how much more supply you'd need in order to repair/build.

Nice catch! That post would be hard to find.

You sir are a steel eyed forum warrior. Bravo Zulu!

Yeah thank you for the catch. My big issue is I screwed up in regards to repair. I didn't realise that new factories don't Build per se. But they repair. And to repair you need to have 10k supply. Now I have that and have stopped some of factory expansion its all going ok now.

NP.. I just remembered reading it somewhere and that's always what I've used it for.. and now that's it in the actual tracker thread people will find it easier... new forum not the easiest to search.

@Trugrit You do great work making those explanation screen shots in different conversations. I wish someone would include them in the 1127 beta user manual as they would help new players a lot...

[Dewey169]

Not sure if this was already mentioned since I have not read this whole thread, but to me it looks like some specific data base numbers shown in the game do not match up with the numbers tracker gives.

When I was looking through some ships, specifically japanese (light) Crusiers, I was a bit disapointed to see that the 14cm and also the 15cm main guns of my new Agano type Crusiers were listed with 86 for penetration. When looking in game, the 14cm guns show 91 and the 15cm guns 114 penetration. Effect numbers also dont match and other guns like the 15,5cm also show different values. The Editor seems to match in game information.
I was using scen 1 and official version and beta look the same.

I would be interested if this is known/others can observe the same behavior or if I might have messed up my instalation/configuration.

In the devices data set, on the Japanese side, this is what my tracker has for those two guns.. Based on the information in your question they match what you are seeing in the game... Hard to know what you are looking at without screen shots or more detail about what you're comparing (like name of data set, name of column, date of last update of vessel etc....) More detail you add to your questions help people to better give you an answer.

Make sure you're looking at the right model within that cruiser class in tracker that's in the game . If you're looking at a conversion or update for that ship that hasn't happened in the game yet then you might see different devices/values...

[GrosserKreuzer]

Not sure if this was already mentioned since I have not read this whole thread, but to me it looks like some specific data base numbers shown in the game do not match up with the numbers tracker gives.

When I was looking through some ships, specifically japanese (light) Crusiers, I was a bit disapointed to see that the 14cm and also the 15cm main guns of my new Agano type Crusiers were listed with 86 for penetration. When looking in game, the 14cm guns show 91 and the 15cm guns 114 penetration. Effect numbers also dont match and other guns like the 15,5cm also show different values. The Editor seems to match in game information.
I was using scen 1 and official version and beta look the same.

I would be interested if this is known/others can observe the same behavior or if I might have messed up my instalation/configuration.

In the devices data set, on the Japanese side, this is what my tracker has for those two guns.. Based on the information in your question they match what you are seeing in the game... Hard to know what you are looking at without screen shots or more detail about what you're comparing (like name of data set, name of column, date of last update of vessel etc....) More detail you add to your questions help people to better give you an answer.

Make sure you're looking at the right model within that cruiser class in tracker that's in the game . If you're looking at a conversion or update for that ship that hasn't happened in the game yet then you might see different devices/values...

Then it seems to be a problem on my end. I can not remember to have seen any differences between game and tracker before, but I will keep an eye on it from now on. Interestingly, only some devices seem to be inacurate and some numbers are correct on this devices (e.g. the 15cm twin has the right accuracy and for the 15.5cm only pen, anti-hard and anti-soft seem to be off). This inconsisten behavior makes it hard for me to get an idea what is causing this. It also cant be a mix up in names/numbers since their is no device on the entire list with 114 pen (like the 15cm gun).

Im adding a screenshot of my jap naval guns.

tracker_jap_nav_guns.JPG (407 KiB) Viewed 1313 times

[GrosserKreuzer]

looking a bit more and comparing with your screenshot, it seems that most fo my anti-armor and anti-soft values are wrong, also some are correct.

[Dewey169]

looking a bit more and comparing with your screenshot, it seems that most fo my anti-armor and anti-soft values are wrong, also some are correct.

It sounds like the turn was read from save of modified scenario instead of stock. Other than that I’m not sure what is the cause of your problem. You might consider re-saving the turn in the game and deleting the tracker data base files. Then reload the turn into tracker after making sure you’re loading the right save.

[s131313]

How does one reset Tracker for a new game?? It keeps going back to the previous game (although deleted) and since Tracker won't take older turns, I can not get it to pick up the new game. Thanks

[Nomad]

Go to the tracker folder and delete the files that start with trackerdb and then restart tracker

[s131313]

Go to the tracker folder and delete the files that start with trackerdb and then restart tracker

Thank you

[Nomad]

Here is a preliminary regions file for the new patch, scenario 2. I think scenario 1 would be the same. There are 3 bases that have errors, tracker can not find them. I am trying to figure out why.

super extended map.txt

(37.4 KiB) Downloaded 35 times

[Dewey169]

Here is a preliminary regions file for the new patch, scenario 2. I think scenario 1 would be the same. There are 3 bases that have errors, tracker can not find them. I am trying to figure out why.

super extended map.txt

Is it because they're listed as "PORT"? This from the beta and scenario#1.

[Nomad]

Yes, but in the editor they are listed as Type 6 - Secondary Airfield
not as Type 1 - Port

So, I do not know why the game lists them as a port and I have had problems before with Port Dickson.

I think there is some interaction with these bases listed as Type 6 and having a buildable port.
Kuala Krai is also a Type 6 base but does not have a buildable port.

Note that this is strictly a Tracker issue, not a game issue. So something in the code of Tracker is causing these bases to not show up.
As far as I know, the three bases work fine in the game.

If I remember right, if you change them Type from 6 to 5 Secondary Airfield to Primary Airfield the problem goes away.

[Dewey169]

Yes, but in the editor they are listed as Type 6 - Secondary Airfield
not as Type 1 - Port

So, I do not know why the game lists them as a port and I have had problems before with Port Dickson.

I think there is some interaction with these bases listed as Type 6 and having a buildable port.
Kuala Krai is also a Type 6 base but does not have a buildable port.

Note that this is strictly a Tracker issue, not a game issue. So something in the code of Tracker is causing these bases to not show up.
As far as I know, the three bases work fine in the game.

If I remember right, if you change them Type from 6 to 5 Secondary Airfield to Primary Airfield the problem goes away.

Are you sure it's tracker with the problem and not that the Beta has introduced the problem? As either scenario or map configuration issue... I've never played a mod only stock and I've never seen "PORT" listed on the base information screen in the game before. I always thought that you had "AF" or "BASE" where "AF" meant it was solely a land locked airfield...and BASE was a port facility that could also include but not always an airfield. My tracker won't recognize these three that are listed as "PORT" and I'm guessing they are the same ones that aren't appearing in yours..

these are the ones missing...

1605 Kuala Kangsar 40 Malaysia
1608 Port Dickson 40 Malaysia
1667 Carnegie 90 Australia appears as "PORT"

[Nomad]

It happened before in an earlier game using 1126b, not the new beta

And yes, they are the same three that I know have a problem

[Dewey169]

It happened before in an earlier game using 1126b, not the new beta

And yes, they are the same three that I know have a problem

Ok, understand your point, but in looking at Carnegie (62,141) in the game, it is 14 hexes deep into the Australia desert. it can't be a port. When you click on Carnegie, it's shows as "Australian Port". Wiluna(57,140) is on the same road to the west and shows as "Australian Base". On the List ALL bases (B key) Wiluna is listed as a "Base" and Carnegie is a "Port" but in tracker Wiluna appears but has the base type "beach" and Carnegie isn't there.

Both Port Dickson and Kuala Kangsar are shown in game on the base screen as "Commonwealth Port" and yet similar Port Swettenham has "Commonwealth Base".

If it wasn't for the fact that these three are part of the new bases introduced by the beta, I wouldn't disagree with you...

[Nomad]

I had not realized that Carnegie was in the middle of Australia. It should not have a port SPS of 2. That is a database error for sure.

As a test, I loaded scenario 1 into the editor and changed Carnegie to a Port Build of 0
and Port Dickson and Kuala Kangsar to Type 1 - Port

started the game and made a save. Tracker worked fine with those changes.

[Dewey169]

I had not realized that Carnegie was in the middle of Australia. It should not have a port SPS of 2. That is a database error for sure.

As a test, I loaded scenario 1 into the editor and changed Carnegie to a Port Build of 0
and Port Dickson and Kuala Kangsar to Type 1 - Port

started the game and made a save. Tracker worked fine with those changes.

Do you want to post that info to the beta thread so they can fix those bases? I gonna guess those three are like that in all the scenario's that they were added into.

In my tracker, on the bases data set, approx 10% of the bases have a type listed as "Beach". The two other types found are "airfields" and "base". Since I've only played stock, shouldn't there only be the two types? I'm sure it's not going to hurt anything but rather strange seeing something like Anyang(89,43) in China listed as "beach".

[Nomad]

I did post these suggested changes to the beta thread