Preview of Harpoon 3.9.4

[rsharp@advancedgamin]

Folks,

This thread is to preview the 3.9.4 release of Harpoon ANW.

You can see how our effort to address the list collected by the PDB crowd is going so far:

http://hud3.harpoon5.com/mantis/summary_page.php

Make sure you have the 'The List' project selected from the upper right drop down list. About half way down the page is the By Resolution Summary. The breakdown goes like this:

Open: Unconfirmed and unhandled issues.
Fixed: Confirmed and fixed.
Unable to Produce: Just as it says. We used the supplied test scenarios and rebuilt them with new databases. Still couldn't reproduce the described behavior.
Duplicate: These issues were duplicates of one of the issues listed as Fixed. This is usually because the reported issue was describing the actual bug in different ways or was just an exact duplicate of the issue that got in the list somehow.
No Change Required: These issues existed but are either fixed in the process of starting the scenario or were fixed in previous versions. Unable to reproduce them.
Won't Fix: The issue is either intended behavior or something that we believe documentation will handle sufficiently. These issues represent a lack in proper documention or misunderstanding of the rules as written.

For resolved issues, so far about half of the issues reported are actual bugs and the other half are something else. I believe this ratio will hold up for the rest of the reported issues.

See some of what we've fixed in 3.9.4:
http://hud3.harpoon5.com/mantis/changelog_page.php

We've fixed most of the issues that we consider major but I'm open to consider more. What do the readers of this forum think we should handle next for the list of issues remaining?

http://hud3.harpoon5.com/mantis/view_all_bug_page.php

I plan on putting out a beta of the 3.9.4 release on Matrix early next month to let early adopters or database editors get a grip on it first. Also, we'll try to fix bugs given through feedback on these forums. The public release may come later in the month depending on the feedback.

Let me know what you think.

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

Unable to Produce: Just as it says. We used the supplied test scenarios and rebuilt them with new databases. Still couldn't reproduce the described behavior.
Duplicate: These issues were duplicates of one of the issues listed as Fixed. This is usually because the reported issue was describing the actual bug in different ways or was just an exact duplicate of the issue that got in the list somehow.
No Change Required: These issues existed but are either fixed in the process of starting the scenario or were fixed in previous versions. Unable to reproduce them.
Won't Fix: The issue is either intended behavior or something that we believe documentation will handle sufficiently. These issues represent a lack in proper documention or misunderstanding of the rules as written.

Since there is a discrepancy between what has been independently reported and verified and what AGSI claims that it cannot reproduce, please post the problems encountered by AGSI. Hopefully, additional clarification can be found. AFAIK, all problems are replicable, but everyone's human and mistakes could have been made.

[FreekS]

Russell,
 
Great that some bugs will be fixed in 3.9.4; especially the 'missiles don't release'  one!
 
My priorities:
 
1. Mantis #070: Nav zone Reset:
 
Nav Zones re-set by mission editor

Nav Zones are re-set by mission editor every time a mission is edited.
 
Since I use nav zone a LOT to create off-axis air attacks and to make course of AI controlled ships more varied; this bug is the main one preventing me from using the ANW Scenario Editor.
 
2. Mantis number 101:
Torps inoperative in shallow water

Mk46 ASW torpedoes are inoperative in shallow water and will not release when water depth is -10m.

Not only ASW but also sub launched torps don;t work in -10m water. To me having subs be able to be in such water but not fire or be fired upon is a problem. The 3.6 behaviour where the sub would surface in anything shallower than -20 is better.
 
3. Mantis number 138

 
[*]Delayed On-Station ViCond Faulty

Delayed On-Station ViCond does not wait for delay time to expire before evaluating.

I noticed this one is coded ' resolved'  but the note mearly explains how it should function and suggests I read the manual. I confirmed this in a scen made for 3.9.3; the delta time (how long the unit is inside the vic-box) functions OK but the delayed part (how long untill it can enter) does not.
 
These three would be very great to look at in detail!
 
Freek

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: FreekS

Great that some bugs will be fixed in 3.9.4; especially the 'missiles don't release' one!

That's at least the claim. No way anyone can verify it until the Patch is actually released, though.

There's been just too many claims of functions made/fixed in the past that simply have not appeared. [:(]

[rsharp@advancedgamin]

Freek,

Thanks for the feedback.

1. Mantis #070: Nav zone Reset:

Nav Zones re-set by mission editor

Just changed this one to not override user nav zone changes. It will need more testing.

2. Mantis number 101:
Torps inoperative in shallow water

I believe the issue a matter of realism vs. gameplay. Torpedos in H3 require a safe clearance of 10 meters to operate. This is arbitrary on our part but many believe that torpedos dropped in 10 meters would hit the bottom. That said, I would side with consistent gameplay on this as subs can operate in 10 meters of water. I'll see about making the safe clearance requirement a bit less constricting but no promises.

Delayed On-Station ViCond Faulty

Delayed On-Station ViCond does not wait for delay time to expire before evaluating.

I noticed this one is coded ' resolved' but the note mearly explains how it should function and suggests I read the manual. I confirmed this in a scen made for 3.9.3; the delta time (how long the unit is inside the vic-box) functions OK but the delayed part (how long untill it can enter) does not.

You are correct and I was wrong. The On-station VC was flagged as absolute time and not relative time as I had hallucinated. The test for absolute time flagged on-station VC was reversed. I'll need to confirm this fix to make sure that the documentation and code match the correct intended behavior... but I believe the issue is fixed. I've re-opened the issue to show this.

Herman, I'm only going to post issues on this forum for special cases. It saves me a lot of time keeping track of issues if they are in an issue tracking system. This is more time I can spend handling issues. The issue tracker is public and will remain so. I repeat my invitation to everyone join in and give your feedback on an per issue basis. I promise to give each due process and that the issue tracker will remain public. I can do little else concerning this. As always, thanks for your input. I'd also like to thank you and all those involved for collecting the test scenarios and steps to reproduce these issues. That alone has led to a lot of the issues being fixed.

Does anyone else have a favorite issue to handle?

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

ORIGINAL: FreekS

2. Mantis number 101:
Torps inoperative in shallow water

I believe the issue a matter of realism vs. gameplay. Torpedos in H3 require a safe clearance of 10 meters to operate. This is arbitrary on our part but many believe that torpedos dropped in 10 meters would hit the bottom. That said, I would side with consistent gameplay on this as subs can operate in 10 meters of water. I'll see about making the safe clearance requirement a bit less constricting but no promises.

I won't claim to know what happens in real life and the suggested restriction does appear reasonable on the surface, but it creates incredible problems within the game and, IMO, is simply a currently limitation of the game to simulate. Here are some of the problems that I believe this behaviour causes:

• 1) As noted, it is arbitrary. As has been previously mentioned, AGSI does not deliberately try to make old scenarios incompatible with ANW, but this is one of those cases. This breaks all previous scenarios with submarines or ships.
• 2) The AI simply cannot understand this limitation. If the AI detects a sub or ship in shallow water (-10m), it will launch all available assets (planes, ships, helos, and subs) to prosecute the contact. The fact that they will attack over, and over, again until they expend 100s of torpedoes is just plain silly and the weapons just drop and disappear.
• 3) Human players can always re-arm with other weapons or simply stop wasting them, but the AI just cannot make that cognitive leap.
• 4) Once a sub/ship moves into shallow water and cannot fire it's torpedo weapons, it lacks the ability to move out. The idea suggested to draw nav zones to restrict such movement might be possible, but that means re-editing the 100s of pre-existing scenarios to ensure that they do not suffer from this problem.
• 4a) And the Nav Zones don't even work in many instances. see Helos violate NAV zone
• 4b) It is infeasible to draw that many nav zones. In many instances, the map simply does not provide sufficient detail on depth to allow a scenario editor the ability to draw nav zones around only the shallow waters.
• 4c) The Nav zones would have to not only restrict sub movement, it would also have to restrict ship movement since many ships are armed with torpedoes, too. Another problem would now arise if the ships actually have to traverse the shallow waters in order to achieve their ViConds.
• 5) This problem is not solely associated with ASW torpedoes delivered from aircraft. Ships and subs also cannot fire torpedoes from shallow depths.

These are just some of the reasons I feel that the shallow water restriction simply will not work with the current ANW level of simulation.

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

I'm only going to post issues on this forum for special cases. It saves me a lot of time keeping track of issues if they are in an issue tracking system. This is more time I can spend handling issues. The issue tracker is public and will remain so. I repeat my invitation to everyone join in and give your feedback on an per issue basis. I promise to give each due process and that the issue tracker will remain public. I can do little else concerning this. As always, thanks for your input. I'd also like to thank you and all those involved for collecting the test scenarios and steps to reproduce these issues. That alone has led to a lot of the issues being fixed.

Sorry, this won't be happening on any AGSI-controlled site.

Fool me once....
The last time I reported bugs to the AGSI forum, I was banned for it by AGSI Staff.

Fool me twice...
The last time I talked about bugs on the AGSI IRC chat channel, I was also banned from there by AGSI Staff.

Of course, everyone is free to choose for themselves but, suffice it to say, I won't be participating under an AGSI regime ever again.

I'd invite AGSI to live chat online so that further details can be provided more easily and thereby "talk them through the bug replication process" but, seeing as I'm still banned from AGSI chat, that means the only option available is posting up problems on Matrix. On the other hand, every question ever posted by AGSI on Matrix forum has been answered fully and completely.

Missing files?
Proposed solutions?
Replication problems?

All have been answered without exception.

It's pretty clear that AGSI seems to be having the problem replicating issues. It is only reasonable to expect AGSI to let users know what those problems are so that feedback may be given.

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

Does anyone else have a favorite issue to handle?

[ol][*]ASW/WH torps tracking wrong targets

WH/ASW torps tracking targets they cannot hit.

[*]AAW patrol motionless

AAW patrol motionless instead of flying between assigned reference points.

[*]Generic strikes seek additional targets

Generic strikes seek additional targets after initial target is destroyed even if secondary targets have no relation to original target.

[*]Submarine evades own torpedoes

Submarine evades her own wake-homing torpedoes after firing. This does not occur with wire-guided torpedoes.

[*]CTD when altitude changed

CTD when altitude changed

[*]AI subs will not stop re-charging

Sub never stops re-charging.

[*]Active sonobuoys dropped passively

Sonobuoys with active-only sonar systems are dropped in passive mode even when the "Drop Active Sonobuoy" hotkey is depressed.

[*]Subs activate sonar on ship strike mission

Subs activate sonar on ship strike mission. Previously, subs only activated radar on ship strike mission.

[*]Sub goes active on ASuW

Sub goes active on ASuW area patrol mission even though mission setting is for EmCon.

[*]Unable to Pause game in MP

Unable to Pause game in MP. Game starts immediately and cannot stop. Also causes problems with ghost sessions on some servers.[/ol]
Here are some of the more serious issues I believe to still plague 3.9.3

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

ORIGINAL: FreekS

1. Mantis #070: Nav zone Reset:

Nav Zones re-set by mission editor

Just changed this one to not override user nav zone changes. It will need more testing.

If this has been corrected, then another issue needs to be resolved before Nav Zones can be created in ANW with the same efficiency as they were in H3:

• Unable to enlarge Nav Zone
  
  Once a Nav Zone has been draw, user is unable to enlarge it by adding additional points

[rsharp@advancedgamin]

Herman,

I'm unable to reproduce the describe issue with enlarging nav zones. I tried your test scenario with the exact steps described but the nav zone enlarged. Maybe there is a problem with the terms.

When you say reference points, do you mean vertices in the nav zone polygon?

Is there some other behavior besides the nav zone expanding that you expect?

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

I'm unable to reproduce the describe issue with enlarging nav zones. I tried your test scenario with the exact steps described but the nav zone enlarged. Maybe there is a problem with the terms.

When you say reference points, do you mean vertices in the nav zone polygon?

Is there some other behavior besides the nav zone expanding that you expect?

In H3, when you move the Anchor Point of the 3-corner polygon to a new position, it should actually change that polygon to a 4-corner polygon. It should add a new vertex every time the Anchor Point is moved.

The description is mis-leading. The overall size of the polygon is irrelevant. The inability to increase the number of vertices is the problem. My apologies for the confusion.

[hermanhum]

That Triangle should be able to change into this 5-sided polygon.

[rsharp@advancedgamin]

I'm able to create the nav zone in the attached image by grabbing a line between vertices. A new vertex will be created from the point drag-n-dropped. I remember the anchor point being changed somewhere in 3.7 but I'm not sure when. However, it seems to me that you can still accomplish the same result with an insignifcant change in user behavior. Do you have the same result on your end?

[hermanhum]

I just tried it and found that it is possible. The problem is, you can't grab any point between vertices. You have to grab almost exactly at the mid-point for this to occur. It's almost as if there is a 'invisible' mid-point (waypoint) there, but the little triangular symbol normally found on plotted paths is simply missing.

This is definitely possible. I would not have mentioned it had I seen it in any documentation. If I've missed it somewhere, please direct me to where this new feature is described.

If the mid-point is somehow displayed, then it would be an obvious clue to any user and, probably, no documentation would even be required.

[Erik Rutins]

Thanks for posting that preview, Russell.

Herman, the new public Mantis system is not censored in any way. There is always room for error in bug reports and clarifications definitely help us track things down. If we can't reproduce something then additional info is always helpful.

Regards,

- Erik

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

the new public Mantis system is not censored in any way. There is always room for error in bug reports and clarifications definitely help us track things down. If we can't reproduce something then additional info is always helpful.

That's good to hear, but actions speak louder than words. Only Matrix has been willing to lift their ban from me. AGSI remains intransigent. Therefore, I will continue my participation with any issues that appear publicly on Matrix.

I've read a few entries on that Mantis system and the standard practice seems to be, "Deny, deny, deny..." It's almost like dealing with an HMO. Here's the latest case in point Torps inoperative in shallow water. This issue appeared on Matrix and was resolved within 90 mins.

I've held one beta tester's hand via online chat through a bug replication procedure and shown him exactly how to create a CTD and still it gets entered as, "Cannot reproduce". I wish AGSI all the best with their Mantis system, but it will always be an internal AGSI tool.

I also wish them luck with their OTHER Mantis system. Yes, there is more than one, believe it or not. ( http://mantis.computerharpoon.com ) If the public one holds 180+ issues, one can only imagine what the uber-secret, burn after reading, "official" system must contain.

And then there's the Special Compartmented Intelligence Facility [SCIF] eyes-only bug reporting forum on AGSI that's only open to beta testers. It certainly seems as though AGSI goes through great pains to keep bug problems a secret. The only reason there is even a public Mantis is due to the fact that The List has always been public. There's no chance to hide it.

And wait, there's more. [:(] There's also bug/feature discussion on the Skulls-like cabal called the Content Creator's Channel. This is quite odd and inefficient since the best discussion seems to coming from everyone NOT involved with one of these mechanism right here on Matrix.

I'll re-iterate. Every problem that has ever appeared on Matrix has been answered fully and completely without exception.

[rsharp@advancedgamin]

Herman,

To put the issue with torpedos not working in depths of 10m into another light: I asked users for their input on what to fix next. Freek listed three (include the issue with torpedos) and all three have been fixed pending confirmation. I even admitted error on one that was marked as resolved.

If we are unable to reproduce the bugs, it is because I or someone else attempted the steps as described with whatever test material. If you want to bring up each issue then go ahead. The issues marked 'Unable To Reproduce' are linked in that summary by resolution. Simply click the number. We can reopen and resolve any issue.

This is why the Mantis system is a great tool and not a pissing contest.

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: rsharp@advancedgamin

To put the issue with torpedos not working in depths of 10m into another light: I asked users for their input on what to fix next. Freek listed three (include the issue with torpedos) and all three have been fixed pending confirmation. I even admitted error on one that was marked as resolved.

Exactly. I'll wait until an issue actually shows up in public, like on Matrix forum, before I will get involved with it. It doesn't matter who wants to raise it on Matrix (AGSI, Freek, or someone else). I'm not going to get into arguments on a third-party site with Mantis participants who's only ability seems to be claiming that "it doesn't happen" without any testing whatsoever.

If it appears on Matrix, you'll get the cold, hard, unvarnished truth.

[rsharp@advancedgamin]

So that's a point I will have to call you on. There are 9 issues marked as unable to reproduce and most of them have explanations. Honestly, given the percentage marked so, I believe that to be a result of good instructions given with the issues. But the marked issues are not a simple denial. We're not here to disprove anyone but to fix issues users find with the game. Move beyond this adversarial mindset you have with AGSI and you'll find we can make a lot more progress.

First issue in the set I want to consider is the CTD on ordering altitude change

http://hud3.harpoon5.com/mantis/view.php?id=116

I tried this several times with variations but I was unable to reproduce it. What could I be doing wrong here?

[hermanhum]

Come to online chat at HG chat and I'll show you, since I'm still banned from AGSI chat.

newnet.irc #harpgamer

[hermanhum]

RSharp and I are going to meet up in the HG IRC Chat room tomorrow 30 Aug, 2008 at 1400 CST (GMT -6).  Anyone interested in seeing how this is done can meet up with us at that time.

newnet.irc #harpgamer