CHS version 3.0

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design and the game editor for WITP.

Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

Buck Beach
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Upland,CA,USA

RE: CHS version 3.0

Post by Buck Beach »

ORIGINAL: DD696

Nope....a long time ago in the Marine Corps I learned never to volunteer for anything, but it would really be nice to get moving on this again. It was a team effort and still should be. I'm just glad a few people starting poking at the hive again to see what life this had left in it.

If it is going to get done other people besides me are going to have to get seriously involved. Andrew is willing. There are lots of other good ideas out there that could be rolled up into a finished product along with the bugs that Andrew has already stomped on. There ought to be several slots to be filled. Someone needs to twist Andrew's arm to finish up his great map work. There needs to be an aircraft czar, or perhaps two: one taking allies and the other japanese. Same with ships. Might need a weapons expert. Probably more than I can think of just offhand. Or perhaps divy it up along the lines of two teams, allied and axis.

It is true that all requested changes won't be liked by all. You just have to go with a consensus and get the product out. Everyone needs to remember that it is just data that anyone can modify, unless, of course, the game is already in progress. If someone is adament about a change, you, I repeat, you have the ability to change the data to your heart's content, just as I and other people have.

What I don't want to see is the base CHS getting shuffled by the wayside as the splintering continues. Keep CHS going, but as I said, anyone can then take that version and mod in their favorite have-to-be's.

What do you think? Who's willing to grab this tiger and take it for a ride?


Hmm! then if I hear you right, you are nothing more than a recruiter. You are now coming off a lot differently than your former posts. Maybe you should go back into hibernation because you appear to have nothing to offer, especially after so much whining and your Mutt and Jeff comments.

I expect this won't be received to well, but sure as hell if I had the talents that you professed to have, I would be up to my A**, in trying to help. I guess it is not that important to you.
DD696
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 12:57 pm
Location: near Savannah, Ga

RE: CHS version 3.0

Post by DD696 »

Note that I have never stated that I should take over CHS....that would be quite presumptive of me, wouldn't you think? It does not belong to me. I have never had anything to do with it other than pointing out some error corrections at times. The position has never been offered to me. All I have been trying to do is find out if there is still enthusiam out there for doing so. It takes more than one person to do this, unless you are El Cid. I don't profess to have any special qualities or talents, just a desire not to let this fade away. It is comments like yours that would make make just about anyone not want to become involved in trying to get this thing going again. Obiviously, you have nothing to offer other than snide comments. You ought to consider the hibernation option. Other people have more important things to do. The big emphasis appears to be to launch attacks on anyone who would like to garner up some support for CHS. Tell me there, Buck Beach, do you have the ability to appoint the CHS coordinator and do you have the power to do so?
USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.
Buck Beach
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Upland,CA,USA

RE: CHS version 3.0

Post by Buck Beach »

ORIGINAL: DD696

Note that I have never stated that I should take over CHS....that would be quite presumptive of me, wouldn't you think? It does not belong to me. I have never had anything to do with it other than pointing out some error corrections at times. The position has never been offered to me. All I have been trying to do is find out if there is still enthusiam out there for doing so. It takes more than one person to do this, unless you are El Cid. I don't profess to have any special qualities or talents, just a desire not to let this fade away. It is comments like yours that would make make just about anyone not want to become involved in trying to get this thing going again. Obiviously, you have nothing to offer other than snide comments. You ought to consider the hibernation option. Other people have more important things to do. The big emphasis appears to be to launch attacks on anyone who would like to garner up some support for CHS. Tell me there, Buck Beach, do you have the ability to appoint the CHS coordinator and do you have the power to do so?


Sorry pal, that dog won't fly. Here are a couple of quotes:

"Other changes would be easier also if the file structure wasn't so limited. It is possible to expand the number of slots for ships, aircraft, etc. It is not a difficult thing to do. I spent many years as a system's analyst for banks having to do and plan for such things. It is possible to give the player a seris of user input fields to define certain characteristics that effect gameplay. Example: there is a move underfoot to want to lower the experience level of pilots. All well and good, however, there are hardcoded aspects of the game which are then affected. Such as the experience level of an airgroup must be x% before it will fly certain missions and do certain tasks. This "x%" could easily be a user variable. These user variables are the key to finding the "happy balance" needed to play the game to everyone's satisfaction. These can be done, but it involves "change". The files must be expanded. If this is done all games currently in progress are now unplayable due to a different file structure. Ah, but in my many years of data processing work this is easily handled also. The programmer writes a conversion program to convert the old file format to the new file format. Now in the case of Personal Computers, where every user has the complete program system running on their own machines, this means that everybody's personal file saves have to be converted. Well, that can be done "automagically" during the install of a new release with the execution of the "file conversion program" rather than having each individual user trying to execute it himself."

And then: "Andrew's main post on the subject is in the thread "Possible suggestion/question for CHS", post #10. I do not know the fine art of importing comments from another thread (or this one, for that matter), so unless I write down what was stated and then retype the info I am out of luck with quotes. It does seem fairly clear to me that he said he was no longer doing CHS but would still maintain his beloved map, and that he would like an individual or individuals to come onboard to maintain CHS. Joe Wilkerson indicated above that a selection (Lemurs) has been made. If that is so, all is well. If any help is needed, I'll offer it. Just wanted to make sure CHS was not in the process of "fading away". Those of us with too much time on our hands worry about little things like this.



And then the last of your posts in that thread:

...and so DD696 lowers his banner and trudges slowly away, a small and faint voice not understood....
...on past more important things such as "the three dumbest things I ever did"...
...on past the eager players of WITP....
...on past the occasional players of WITP...
...on past the "should I really get into this" group...
...on past the gawkers and lurkers...
...on past the howling denizons of the forests and oceans...
...and yes, even far past the incoherent mumblings of the dwellers of "The Thread"...
...yes, way past them...
...........................
Maybe time to dust off the ol' '60 Vette and go burn the tires off....
More important things to do........



Hey don't blow smoke up our A**es. You "jacked me up" with all your hype and I think others too. No I do not have the ability to assist in any way, color me old and dumb but at least I'm honest. Look you got a total of 97 posts and you want me to hibernate. Your support appears to be only in the role of cheer leader. Put up or shut up, I say. If this cause is important to you then quit back peddling.

User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: CHS version 3.0

Post by JWE »

Understand that most people don’t particularly care about a CHS class and ship reorganization. I’ll keep plugging along and give the product to Andrew, what happens then, happens.

I have decided what to do about the standard art for CHS. I have the art, but it is organized in accord with the class and ship reorganization mod, so it won’t work with the current scenario set. So, I will make the art available as a kit; blank backgrounds and organized by type, as below. You can do what you want with it.

I know people want everything as Sides and Shills, but there are certain, let’s just say anomalies, in the CHS database, and it’s very difficult to make the art fit. Cut and paste, and renumber, is really the only answer. I’ll provide a background panel so things will look like the rest of the standard art sets.

Hopefully I can get Andrew to host these, so people don’t have to scroll through Spooky’s to get the whole collection. I’ll let you know where they will be.

Ciao. JWE


Image
Attachments
ARASADTypesBlank.jpg
ARASADTypesBlank.jpg (78.43 KiB) Viewed 147 times
User avatar
JeffroK
Posts: 6415
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am

RE: CHS version 3.0

Post by JeffroK »

wdolson, the big mistake in volunteering is getting into the Marines in the first place, its downhill from there.
 
To the CHS Team,
 
If needed, I am happy to volunteer to help in research.
 
I am good in the Commonwealth side of things, reasonable in the US and execrable on the japanese side and have a deep interest in the Pacific campaigns.
 
I also have an unhealthy interest in maps ans have a good collection of NG maps from the ages.
 
I could also help in testing, but cant spend a lot of time on it, slow computer (maybe slow computer operator)
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Buck Beach
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Upland,CA,USA

RE: CHS version 3.0

Post by Buck Beach »

ORIGINAL: JeffK

wdolson, the big mistake in volunteering is getting into the Marines in the first place, its downhill from there.

To the CHS Team,

If needed, I am happy to volunteer to help in research.

I am good in the Commonwealth side of things, reasonable in the US and execrable on the japanese side and have a deep interest in the Pacific campaigns.

I also have an unhealthy interest in maps ans have a good collection of NG maps from the ages.

I could also help in testing, but cant spend a lot of time on it, slow computer (maybe slow computer operator)

I too would like to help but don't know how. If you want me to run some tests maybe I could do that.

Old and slow.
Buck
User avatar
wdolson
Posts: 7669
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: CHS version 3.0

Post by wdolson »

ORIGINAL: JeffK

wdolson, the big mistake in volunteering is getting into the Marines in the first place, its downhill from there.

To the CHS Team,

If needed, I am happy to volunteer to help in research.

I am good in the Commonwealth side of things, reasonable in the US and execrable on the japanese side and have a deep interest in the Pacific campaigns.

I also have an unhealthy interest in maps ans have a good collection of NG maps from the ages.

I could also help in testing, but cant spend a lot of time on it, slow computer (maybe slow computer operator)

I always knew better than to volunteer for the Marines. Not my idea of fun.

As far as volunteering for CHS goes, if Andrew can give me an idea of the time commitment and if the team will have me, I'll do it. The problem is that I won't be able to do much actual hands on for a while, though I can coordinate.

I think I can handle the task. I don't have any ego investment in any particular outcome. My opinion of anything I've done so far is that if it goes by the wayside because someone else did something better, than so be it. The goal is to produce the best product, not have p***ing contests.

I am very familiar with software. I've been in the biz for 20 years and I run a small software company with my SO. I also serve as ombudsman for a social organization I belong to and I've been administrator of a large e-mail mailing list that has been around since 1993. I've been one of the three administrators since 1998.

My only problem is time. By late summer or so, I will hopefully have more time, but right now I'm working my tail off on a large work project, and when that's done, I have another big one to jump into. For the next few months, about all I can do is help coordinate different people's efforts and map out the plan.

The first question to answer is where does CHS fit in the WitP scheme? RHS has branched off from CHS in a major way. El Cid has done some huge changes to the mix that alters game dynamics. CHS makes the OOB more accurate, and the "Experimental Version" incorporates much of the Nik Mod. It hasn't gone as far as RHS in playing with the game engine.

How far do people want to go with CHS? Personally, I want to see CHS thrive because I think RHS goes a little too far. I like some of the changes for accuracy, such as incorporating drop tanks on some aircraft. Improvements to aircraft ranges is good too. I don't like the supply sinks and some of the other things that sort of fool the game engine.

I don't want to trash El Cid. He has put tremendous work into RHS and I respect that. It has its place, but I think we all agree that CHS has its place too.

So what does CHS 3.0 look like?

Which varients do we want to include/create? I saw someone calling for incorporating the Big B mod as a varient. I think we should also keep a stock A2A model varient. I assume there is a lobby for the NikMod varient too?

Anyway, that's what I would suggest as a starting point.

Bill
SCW Development Team
User avatar
JeffroK
Posts: 6415
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am

RE: CHS version 3.0

Post by JeffroK »

I would like to see a version, doesnt have to be CHS, which while having historical values for Shipping & Air, is willing to fudge the Ground a bit. You cant recreate the changes which Armies went through so to "fix" these is acceptable.
 
I also think that if its a team effort, running queries through the team before the Forum is the best way and if the Forum is used, to ask politely for help.
 
Having the various "Mods" is a great idea, I've played Niks as well as CHS. I havent tried the experimental or BigB as I decided to final at least 1 game (up to Dec43[:)] at the moment)
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
User avatar
Wahoo
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 1:58 pm

RE: CHS version 3.0

Post by Wahoo »

Whats the web address for CHS?
User avatar
wdolson
Posts: 7669
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: CHS version 3.0

Post by wdolson »

SCW Development Team
User avatar
jwilkerson
Posts: 8037
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:02 am
Location: Kansas
Contact:

RE: CHS version 3.0

Post by jwilkerson »

My goodness .. I'm not clear on what was first said that started up a tussle.

CHS is an "Open Source" project. This means it is owned by "everybody" which primarily means this forum. Now, like all/most open source projects, there is still a "gatekeeper" a person who decides whether a contribution belongs "in the next release" or not. This, in theory, preserves those attributes of the "product" that were desired by the original designers, who presumably approved the appointment of the first gatekeeper.

At this point Andrew is the gatekeeper. Don and Lemurs are the "gatekeepers emeritae" .. I was merely a contributor, before accepting a role working on the game code.

But this makes Andrew the person who would make any decision about whether or not, he is looking for a replacement. It was presumptuous of me to even air the topic, but he and I have discussed it a number of times and we have approached greater than zero people about whether they would be interested. So far, no takers. But anyone with the requisite Knowledge, Skills and Abilities would be "eligible" to be a subsequent gatekeeper.


(If even they were in the Marines [;)])


So, anyone with a real interest should just PM Andrew and take it from there.




AE Project Lead
SCW Project Lead
DD696
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 12:57 pm
Location: near Savannah, Ga

RE: CHS version 3.0

Post by DD696 »

Hi,

Wdolson, I agree with your comments entirely. BucK Beach, there is no point in responding to you, other than to say that I did offer to help out in August 2006 and no one took me up on the offer. I will again put forth an offer to help out. For the less comprehensive out there, that does not mean that I have just now staged a coup and appointed myself CHS coordinator. I have time that I can offer. Again, I have no special abilities or talents. I am not an expert in aircraft. You will never find me in a heated discussion of how many rivits were on a P-51D. I am not an expert in ships. What the defensive value of the chunk of armor located 31 feet from the from of the bow and 9 feet up from the bottom of the keel is in defending against an incoming 8" projective fired from some specific ship is I have absolutely no idea. So chances are that I am not qualified to be of any value here, but if I can, I'm willing to discuss how I can help out. Wdolson, if you would like, PM me. Same offer goes to others (most others, anyway).

Great day here in Delaware yesterday. Took the top off the ol' lady and had a ball! And, just in case my lack of talent and special abilities does not allow me to post the picture that may or may not appear below, it is of the '60 Vette and I do blow smoke (off the tires),,,

Edit...so much for the picture.
USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.
User avatar
wdolson
Posts: 7669
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: CHS version 3.0

Post by wdolson »

As jwilkerson said, it's up to Andrew Brown, since it's his baby at the moment.  I've PMed him.

As far as work goes, much of the work doesn't require any huge depth of knowledge.  Google is your friend for much of this.  If you can do web searches, I'm sure the CHS team can use you.  Whoever ends up leading the effort.

Bill
SCW Development Team
DD696
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 12:57 pm
Location: near Savannah, Ga

RE: CHS version 3.0

Post by DD696 »

Hope you get it. I haven't PM'ed Andrew as I've just been trying to see if the interest is there. Feel free to contact me if I can help out.
USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.
User avatar
Andrew Brown
Posts: 4082
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hex 82,170
Contact:

RE: CHS version 3.0

Post by Andrew Brown »

While I have made little progress with the next CHS update, I still work on it when I can, and it is not completely dead. I am happy to continue to coordinate the rest of the current update, but any assistance with the rest of the update, including with the actual coordination work, would be a huge help.

As soon as the current update is wrapped up I will have to drop out entirely, however.

The current update started as just a lot of scenario bug fixes, but as usual with these things, other "fixes" and "enhancements" invariably creep in. On top of that there are major contributions by JWE and Treespider that should be incorporated, at least in part, as well.

One major update I started, but which has taken a LOT of time to work on, is a major update to ship radars, including some new radar device types. If anyone is interested in helping with the research for that, then I would be particularly grateful. This particular project ended up taking a lot longer than I originally thought, which is why it remains uncompleted, given that the amount of spare time I have to devote to it is so small.

I will post some details of the changes made so far, plus a list of what I think remains to be done, in the next day or two.
Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website

Image
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: CHS version 3.0

Post by JWE »

OK, pretty much done with the class and ship reorganization. Need a couple of test runs, but I think it's good to go. Going to Andrew in a couple days.

Woof!! Besides the re-structuring and re-naming, I had to do a major revamp of the endurance and fuel stats. Wow!! A quick review seems to suggest that everyone will use a *lot*!! more fuel, I mean a *lot*!! more.. So power up them AOs cause you're gonna need then.

Stats on specific fuel consumption was based on 1952 statistics, for relatively modern displacement hull characteristics and an approximate 6000 SHP plant. Naval vessel specific fuel consumption stats were taken from a statistically significant sample of wartime data for CVs, BBs, CAs, CLs, DDs, DEs, and applied to the dinkies, on a rational basis of hull configuration vs power plant.
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: CHS version 3.0

Post by treespider »

ORIGINAL: JWE

OK, pretty much done with the class and ship reorganization. Need a couple of test runs, but I think it's good to go. Going to Andrew in a couple days.

Woof!! Besides the re-structuring and re-naming, I had to do a major revamp of the endurance and fuel stats. Wow!! A quick review seems to suggest that everyone will use a *lot*!! more fuel, I mean a *lot*!! more.. So power up them AOs cause you're gonna need then.

Stats on specific fuel consumption was based on 1952 statistics, for relatively modern displacement hull characteristics and an approximate 6000 SHP plant. Naval vessel specific fuel consumption stats were taken from a statistically significant sample of wartime data for CVs, BBs, CAs, CLs, DDs, DEs, and applied to the dinkies, on a rational basis of hull configuration vs power plant.

Yehaw!!! How much conversion from existing CHS to yours will be necessary in terms of TF assignments "At-Start"? Or will it simply be a change the art files , ship files and class files kind of upgrade...or was the location file affected as well?
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
User avatar
wdolson
Posts: 7669
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: CHS version 3.0

Post by wdolson »

ORIGINAL: JWE

OK, pretty much done with the class and ship reorganization. Need a couple of test runs, but I think it's good to go. Going to Andrew in a couple days.

Woof!! Besides the re-structuring and re-naming, I had to do a major revamp of the endurance and fuel stats. Wow!! A quick review seems to suggest that everyone will use a *lot*!! more fuel, I mean a *lot*!! more.. So power up them AOs cause you're gonna need then.

Stats on specific fuel consumption was based on 1952 statistics, for relatively modern displacement hull characteristics and an approximate 6000 SHP plant. Naval vessel specific fuel consumption stats were taken from a statistically significant sample of wartime data for CVs, BBs, CAs, CLs, DDs, DEs, and applied to the dinkies, on a rational basis of hull configuration vs power plant.

If I recall other discussions here, fuel and supply quantities are something of an abstration. 1 point of supply doesn't really correlate with 1 ton or any other measure. I thought the same applied to fuel.

Are you adjusting fuel consumption to some standard measure like 1 point equals 1 ton of fuel or 1 barrel of fuel?

If so, tanker capacity and fuel production needs to be adjusted. And we will also run into hard limits as far as how much fuel can be stored at a base. If fuel consumption is significantly more and production and transportation aren't adjusted accordingly, even the Allies are going to run out of fuel by the middle of the war. Also the fuel used in industry will remain the same, so if production is increased to reflect different needs of the ships, then that could throw off the production model.

It sounds like you aren't adjusting the capacity of the ships, so everything is going to have shorter range?

Bill
SCW Development Team
Halsey
Posts: 4688
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 10:44 pm

RE: CHS version 3.0

Post by Halsey »

Here's something that I'm finding out about the current CHS.

The extra bitmap slots that show upgrades DO change as the upgrades progress.

Mostly Allied BB's, CA's, CL's, and DD's.

My own personal bitmaps now refect this.[;)]
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: CHS version 3.0

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: wdolson
ORIGINAL: JWE

OK, pretty much done with the class and ship reorganization. Need a couple of test runs, but I think it's good to go. Going to Andrew in a couple days.

Woof!! Besides the re-structuring and re-naming, I had to do a major revamp of the endurance and fuel stats. Wow!! A quick review seems to suggest that everyone will use a *lot*!! more fuel, I mean a *lot*!! more.. So power up them AOs cause you're gonna need then.

Stats on specific fuel consumption was based on 1952 statistics, for relatively modern displacement hull characteristics and an approximate 6000 SHP plant. Naval vessel specific fuel consumption stats were taken from a statistically significant sample of wartime data for CVs, BBs, CAs, CLs, DDs, DEs, and applied to the dinkies, on a rational basis of hull configuration vs power plant.

If I recall other discussions here, fuel and supply quantities are something of an abstration. 1 point of supply doesn't really correlate with 1 ton or any other measure. I thought the same applied to fuel.

Are you adjusting fuel consumption to some standard measure like 1 point equals 1 ton of fuel or 1 barrel of fuel?

If so, tanker capacity and fuel production needs to be adjusted. And we will also run into hard limits as far as how much fuel can be stored at a base. If fuel consumption is significantly more and production and transportation aren't adjusted accordingly, even the Allies are going to run out of fuel by the middle of the war. Also the fuel used in industry will remain the same, so if production is increased to reflect different needs of the ships, then that could throw off the production model.

It sounds like you aren't adjusting the capacity of the ships, so everything is going to have shorter range?

Bill

Fuel is in tons, just like tanker capacity and production. Actual ship capacity in bunkerage tons vs cruising range (statistically processed) is what drove the result. Sometimes an endurance number is decreased, sometimes a fuel number is increased. No production increases. A few ships will have shorter range, some ships will have greater fuel consumption for their endurance values. Warships are pretty close, everything else has been adjusted.
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design”