Selected RHS 7.943 updates (and MRAO eratta)

[el cid again]

To include a tiny amount of eratta - as a courtesy because of a new game start request -

RHSCVO, RHSRAO and RHSEBO 7.943 are uploaded.

These are the same level as first issued RHSMRAO 7.943 is.

Others can be uploaded on request. There is no need to do these comprehehsive updates unless
you are starting a new game. It is OB eratta or enhancement only data.

[el cid again]

AIO scenarios uploaded - AIO, CAIO and MAIO

[Buck Beach]

Thanks Sid for the CAIO update.  I won't ask you to give me a detailed list of the changes it involves over the 7.942 as I am not trying to second guess you, however, I do note that you also updated the wpl (location) file.  I had just completed working on that field yesterday (to reinstate the riverports in India and part Burma) and I would sure like to avoid repeating all those data entries. But that being said, I do want to make the changes you included.  Will you share what you did?

BTW if you would care to, I wouldn't turn down a list of the changes you made in the wpc, wps and wpg files as second guess ammunition.[:D]

[Shark7]

Cid, where exactly are the micro-updates posted at? I can't seem to find them at the RHS site. Probably looking in the wrong place.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Thanks Sid for the CAIO update.  I won't ask you to give me a detailed list of the changes it involves over the 7.942 as I am not trying to second guess you, however, I do note that you also updated the wpl (location) file.  I had just completed working on that field yesterday (to reinstate the riverports in India and part Burma) and I would sure like to avoid repeating all those data entries. But that being said, I do want to make the changes you included.  Will you share what you did?

BTW if you would care to, I wouldn't turn down a list of the changes you made in the wpc, wps and wpg files as second guess ammunition.[:D]

In the interests of time I do not maintain a change log.

There were few changes. The main change between 7.942 and 7.943 was related to reclassifying DC patterns for a single class of USN destroyers - Farrigut I think. The later upgrades all went to pattern of 8.

Changes in air groups and locations fall into two categories:

Scenario 69 changes only

or eratta.

If I find a trivial error, it is my practice to immediately fix it in all files - and be done with it. These are very minor things - like
planning for example.

Scince Scenario 69 was not previously released - its 'changes' are only compared to RAO - not changes as such.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Cid, where exactly are the micro-updates posted at? I can't seem to find them at the RHS site. Probably looking in the wrong place.

We don't have access to the RHS site at this time. The site manager is out of the communications loop for some reason. The ONLY way to get the updates is from someone on the "primary distribution list" at this time. Or to send me an email address.

[el cid again]

I have found some eratta in the MRAO files - so I am reissuing ship, location and air group files for MRAO.
It will work fine without them - but some Japanese ships got "lost" when their TFs were deleted - and some
air groups have a different kind of seaplane than they should have for this scenario. [Note that changes in
air groups were reflected in changes in the aircraft pools - nothing is "free"]

I will call this scenario specific microupdate 7.9431 (RHSMRAO only)

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Thanks Sid for the CAIO update.  I won't ask you to give me a detailed list of the changes it involves over the 7.942 as I am not trying to second guess you, however, I do note that you also updated the wpl (location) file.  I had just completed working on that field yesterday (to reinstate the riverports in India and part Burma) and I would sure like to avoid repeating all those data entries. But that being said, I do want to make the changes you included.  Will you share what you did?

BTW if you would care to, I wouldn't turn down a list of the changes you made in the wpc, wps and wpg files as second guess ammunition.[:D]

In the interests of time I do not maintain a change log.

There were few changes. The main change between 7.942 and 7.943 was related to reclassifying DC patterns for a single class of USN destroyers - Farrigut I think. The later upgrades all went to pattern of 8.

Changes in air groups and locations fall into two categories:

Scenario 69 changes only

or eratta.

If I find a trivial error, it is my practice to immediately fix it in all files - and be done with it. These are very minor things - like
planning for example.

Scince Scenario 69 was not previously released - its 'changes' are only compared to RAO - not changes as such.

Wow Sid , I am really sort of very tired right now and I don't want to sound that negative, but, that sort of makes any action and changes that you make not subject to any review or discussion and not traceable because of your lack of discipline whether on purpose or not. This is so very contrary to any legitimate process. There is no base for accuracy, there is no reasoning, and there is no consensus of opinions. It is just you and your trip and the Alaskan long cold dark nights.

Got to bow out before I'm kicked out. I know I have declared I was out before but I am finding I can have no confidence in RHS regardless of how much I love it.

[el cid again]

I suggest you try doing a mod several times more complex than WITP. Then try managing 11 current (and updateing 10 older) scenarios in that mod. My problem is essentially the same one Matrix has - only slightly different in emphesis: IF you wish to have product in any timely sense (IF timely applies to RHS at all) THEN you must focus on product - not on micromanagement.

Consider that WITP is almost wholly undocumented. There was never a technical plan, and never a technical description of the basic program.
The reason is mainly that - if done to normal standards (and I write 150 page rule books for games - and 250 page technical manuals) - it would be cost prohibitive and we would have no product.

Consider that WITP had - initially - an almost unbelievably sloppy set of data in its files. The reason was that - before the WITP community formed with so much semi-volunteer expertise and labor - it would be cost prohibitive and we would have no product.

The person that saved WITP was - IMHO - Andrew Brown - with his map system - and later with his coordination of the CHS team. But that effort was ALSO limited by time - Andrew would write "most of your ideas we will think about in 6 or 12 months - and not consider at this time" because he lacked the time to review them - and because CHS required agreement by a "plank holder" that "his data" could be modified - which was difficult or impossible - but also a time consuming process. To document changes required three times the labor - and in the end - although it was reviewed and verified by no less than Joe Wilkerson - it was not good enough for the "plank holder." I have never considered such a process since - since it was not appreciated - and you certainly did not speak up and say "we should be using this sort of thing."

I have done some supplimental documentation - see utilities on aircraft carriers, battleships, economics, and aircraft, done for no other mod in similar detail. I might do more such documentation - but not because I have to - only for user convenience - and only time permitting.

If you studied information theory you would know that the first principle is that there must be errors. Managing these is possible in a variety of ways. But we do NOT have a clean slate to work with - and Matrix has NOT decided either to publish code nor to compile a technical manual on how WITP works. When a person with access says "this is what code says" - we assume it is right: it is offered as a courtesy and in good faith - and we accept it on that basis. Doing this we ran into two fundamental issues just revealed a week ago:

1) From the beginning the WITP code did not work with a major option used by half of RHS scenarios: Russian active scenarios do not permit air strikes (or apparently recon) over much of the USSR (inside a box of unknown dimensions).

2) The disclosure of how ASW code works was almost correct - but omitted a critical fact - and mis stated that a field was not used.

The ONLY way to figure this stuff out is to LISTEN to users and to TEST.

If you don't want to find the errors and fix them - RHS is not for you.

Documenting what has never worked - and what we do not know - is not really an option. Documenting 266,000 fields just of editor enterable data is not a viable option. And if you want to change that - I will feed you the files to document. It is entirely possible to compare files and come up with difference lists if you want to make or buy the right tools and take the time to run them.

There are fundamental problems with WITP. Not all are identified. The more we learn, the more we will identify them. Many - more than I would have expected - can be mitigated or fixed entirely. Others must wait for code changes. Others must wait for a new code system.
That said - there is no comparable product at this time - and I have been working on this for half a century. It takes up to a week to represent an hour of historical time if you attempt to do this manually - theater wide.

It is time to stop grousing and work on your diplomatic skills. You are not my boss - and you are not paying for my work - nor are you providing the sort of psychic pay that would encourage more work. We have identified and addressed hundreds (plural) of technical issues and thousands (probably tens of thousands) of data errors - and added tens of thousands of fields of new data (making the file set less incomplete).
We have (the Forum, and CHS and RHS teams in particular) have influenced WITP development - and managed to reverse a formally announced decision to stop developing the game. [For the record the RHS team includes many people - past an present - including some of the strongest critics of the effort - and including our distant relative EA - which not only evolved from EOS Level 6 - but which process contributed significant ideas to the Japan enhansed scenario concept. This idea - the Japan enhanced scenario - was first mentioned as a theoretical "maybe someday somebody will do it" option by Joe Wilkerson. So in a sense, the EOS family was done at his suggestion. Frustrated by the difficulty in changing the official database issued by Matrix in a timely way - I have been doing that since UV - and even the difficulty in doing that in CHS - I tried to create a new vehicle: one reason we have several scenarios is so YOU can have your cake and eat it too - we can accept more ideas if PLAYERS get to decide "I like this approach instead of that one" - and we can then either adopt ideas universally or we can adopt them in an appropriate scenario - but we get to accept more ideas that way.]

Here you are complaining about a tiny number of trivial changes that would take ten or twenty times as long to report as to just enter.
None were important. You may believe me or not - and you may use file comparison software if you passionately want to see them in glorious detail. The changes to the DC field of a dozen or so destroyers were the only thing worth documenting - and that was already posted. Everything else combined was less than that - which is to say this is much ado about almost nothing. If you want to "lose confidence" because I have not documented changes - what took you so many years to get around to it? I have not produced line by line documentation since I did aircraft for CHS - which in the end didn't get used by CHS in spite of being approved and adopted. I don't have any sense that such documentation is appreciated or valued - and if I am wrong - I will send you an address to mail your check to. [Joke: for the record I have been offered money by more than one person - and not yet accepted it - for this work]