Harpoon 3: Advanced Naval Warfare Updated

[hermanhum]

Be careful, Frans.  He's on a sewing-mission.  Run for your life!  [:D]

[Bucks]

Any update as to the removal of my work from the PDB?

Cheers

Darren

[hermanhum]

1) You believe that you have certain 'rights'.
2) You believe that your 'rights' have been transgressed.
3) I do not believe in either of your claims.

You will do what you will do and complaining about it over an internet forum is pretty much a waste of time for everyone involved.  As I said before, ready when you are.

[Bucks]

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

By all means.  Any time you're ready.  Bring it on since you obviously aren't able to fix or identify bugs (the entire point of this thread).

0002339: Max launch range for non-interecepting weapons (i.e. guns) was not enforced

Description:

While conducting some testing of units from the HUD3, I have found what I think is an issue in regard to the resolution of gunfire. I was testing a version of the AC-130 Spectre, and I've noticed that the aircraft's "Task" status remains set at "Awaiting Engagement Outcome" for several minutes at a time.

When the aircraft approach their target, they reach effective range, fire and then proceed AWAY from the target they have just fired on while under the control of the "Awaiting Engagement Outcome" tasking. This tasking persists until the status of the unit's weapons has finally cleared from "Engaged" to "Ready", when viewed in the Unit Status - Report window. While the aircraft fly away from the target, multiple hits can be observed via the "explosion stars" appearing on these targets, well after the Spectre has moved out of range.

Steps To Reproduce

1.> Open QUEUED GUNS.SCN, testing here was conducted in MP mode. I'm assuming the underlying issue will present in other execs.

2.> There are 2 x AC-130 Gunships assigned to 2 separate missions. These missions are strikes on both the Opfor base grouping and individual facilities. The targets are identical, except that one 5 facility target group has been grouped as a base.

3.> Run the scenario and observe how the attacks pan out. In some of my testing here, the AC-130 would fly all the way back to its airfield awaiting the engagement resolution to take place after attacking the enemy facilities. It would then fly back and attack fly away and return until its ammunition is expended. Note it wouldn't land, just circle its own base before attacking again.

Additional Information

I've set the range values, ammunition carried and rate of fire to the same values for each of the three gun systems in place on the aircraft. The Gun weapons have also been flagged as "limited to mount arc" and "primary aircraft AS gun".

I may be misguided, but I would have assumed that by limiting the mount's arc and making all guns fire every 15 secs that, the AC-130 would circle each of the targets in its mission target list until destroyed and then adjust course slightly to move to the next listed target in the mission list until it had either expended all of its weapons, or the targets were destroyed.


That's from Mantis, and that's how you write up a bug report bad luck you can't provide the same courtesy to AGSI. I'll list everything I've had fixed if you like.

I can prove I get stuff fixed, you're saying otherwise. Are you calling me a liar?

Darren Buckley

[Bucks]

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

1) You believe that you have certain 'rights'.
2) You believe that your 'rights' have been transgressed.
3) I do not believe in either of your claims.

You will do what you will do and complaining about it over an internet forum is pretty much a waste of time for everyone involved.  As I said before, ready when you are.

Is this an admission you're a plagiarist?

[hermanhum]

And here's the way it was written up by others:

AAA firing past Max Range
[blockquote]Guns continue to fire long after targets pass out of range.[/blockquote]1. Order each mount to fire all available ammo (72 rounds) at a different plane.
2. As planes pass out of range, ammo levels will continue to drop even when the plane is no longer localized.
3. Ammo continues to drop until contact is completely lost.

http://www.forums.gamesquad.com/showpos ... tcount=105

You are certainly operating under the completely misguided belief that your way is the only way or the 'right way'.

So long as the results are the same, who cares who writes more words to get the same result?

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Bucks

Is this an admission you're a plagiarist?

It is an admission that you think that you have rights that only exist in your head. Of course, if you think that your believed 'rights' are enforceable by law, you are welcome to explore that avenue. Of course, this should not be construed as legal advice in any way, shape, or form. [:D]

[Bucks]

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

1) You believe that you have certain 'rights'.
2) You believe that your 'rights' have been transgressed.
3) I do not believe in either of your claims.

You will do what you will do and complaining about it over an internet forum is pretty much a waste of time for everyone involved.  As I said before, ready when you are.

It doesn't matter what you believe, you can worship a golden calf for all I care (Moses may have something to say about that). The facts are you continuously defame both AGSI, its employees and those associated with this project. Your point about "wasting time" is only relevant if you can prove what you say.

I have requested you remove MY work from "your" database. You are obviously refusing. Regardless of taking legal action or not I wanted to make it publically known exactly what I have requested of you and your refusal to comply. As such you are now as far as I and anyone with any legal knowledge is concerned plagiarising my work. I just wanted to make sure that was on the public record and people were aware of exactly what you were doing.

I'd asked you to comply with this very same request over six months ago and still you refuse?

In a nutshell Mr Hum you've copied my work, renamed it and passed it off as your own. When I ask you to remove that very same work you refuse. You believe you have some God given right to exploit people and their efforts?

Your list is not such a great effort, you don't maintain it, many bugs were fixed by simply rebuilding the test scenarios with the latest version of the game. That simply indicates you were not maintaining anything, simply adding to it and not much else.

Your database is a work of copy and paste, maybe you could explain to everyone how you calculate sonar, radar and visual cross sections in your database? Do you have your fire control sensors configured correctly? Do you work in close coperation with Larry Bond and Chris Carlson? Do you contribute to the ongoing development of the game, appear in Naval Sitrep or any other Official publication associated with Harpoon?

You've always got something to say, I'll wait for the reply to this one it'll be another Herman classic. I can't believe Matrix let you on here, you're totally negative and trying to figure out how many people you've turned away from this gaming system would be a task of monumental proportions.

Darren Buckley

[Bucks]

The result is one way gets things fixed and even though you could get things fixed by COOPERATION you don't. Word count aside.

BTW that header of yours is coloured to indicate it's not fixed, best update that list of yours...

Darren Buckley

[Bucks]

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

ORIGINAL: Bucks

Is this an admission you're a plagiarist?

It is an admission that you think that you have rights that only exist in your head. Of course, if you think that your believed 'rights' are enforceable by law, you are welcome to explore that avenue. Of course, this should not be construed as legal advice in any way, shape, or form. [:D]

In other words Herman you believe copying others work and publishing it as your own is ok so long as nobody can do anything about it. What a big man you are...

You're a parasite, a leach and this simply proves it.

Darren Buckley

[hermanhum]

Sorry, you're wrong.  This is your own license and has been followed to the letter.

You are free to copy, distribute and transmit the HUD3 and all or parts of it's underlying models. You may also edit or adapt the HUD3 database to your own needs. By doing so you are agreeing to fully attribute Darren Buckley as the Editor of the HUD-II and HUD3 databases and you agree to include this information with your own Database's XML file as used in the Harpoon 3 ANW Launcher. This Database may not be used for any commercial purpose without the express permission and agreement of Darren Buckley.

Make sure your attorney gets a copy.

[Bucks]

Summary 0002335: Present loadout adds to available loadouts, but not other applicable loadouts.

Description

While using the Edit->Units->Edit Aircraft function and checking available loadout quantities I've come across this issue.

It seems as though the current loadout carried by the aircraft at a base is "added" to the total available loadouts of that type for that aircraft. Unfortunately even if the weapons carried in the current loadout are capable of being used in other different loadouts, those other loadouts will not have their quantity increased inline with the current loadout's behaviour.

Steps To Reproduce

1.> Open Chaperon-3.9.0.SCN

2.> Select the Manila air base, and use Edit->Units->Edit Aircraft.

3.> Select the 16 F-15Cs available and then click "ready"

4. Note available loadouts
- ATA #018 (4 AIM-7M/4 AIM-9M) x96 (Default loadout in scenario. 16 of the 96 available loads are made up of the 16 already loaded aircraft.) Default avaialble from ammo dump is 80.
- ATA #086 (4 AIM-7M/3 600 USG) x 80 (Based on available weapons in ammo dump at base.)
- ATA #159 (4 AIM-7M/4 AIM-9M/1 600 USG) x 80 (Based on available weapons in ammo dump at base.)

It seems like the Engine is counting the individual loadout in this case rather than the weapons which could be used on the other two loadouts. In other words it's counting the loadout reference, rather the weapons that make up that loadout.

In the above example the only "counted" weapons are the totals for the AIM-7 & AIM-9 respectively. Drop tanks aren't part of the Logistics system so all loadouts should logically read "96" if we are basing this on available weapons and not simply currently carried loadout.


(0006069)
ddearing
11-30-07 18:10

Changed loadout counting process to use carried weapons instead of just the loadout ID in Launch Aircraft dialogs. Does not apply to Edit Unit Aircraft, as that functionality no longer interacts with the magazines (the magazine loadout numbers are still displayed for informational purposes).

Did you get that one???

Darren Buckley

[Bucks]

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

Sorry, you're wrong.  This is your own license and has been followed to the letter.

You are free to copy, distribute and transmit the HUD3 and all or parts of it's underlying models. You may also edit or adapt the HUD3 database to your own needs. By doing so you are agreeing to fully attribute Darren Buckley as the Editor of the HUD-II and HUD3 databases and you agree to include this information with your own Database's XML file as used in the Harpoon 3 ANW Launcher. This Database may not be used for any commercial purpose without the express permission and agreement of Darren Buckley.

Make sure your attorney gets a copy.

Thanks I'll have to change that and include an exclusion - Herman Hum

This is Australia, we speak English, no Attorneys here.

Cheers

Darren Buckley

[Bucks]

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

Sorry, you're wrong.  This is your own license and has been followed to the letter.

You are free to copy, distribute and transmit the HUD3 and all or parts of it's underlying models. You may also edit or adapt the HUD3 database to your own needs. By doing so you are agreeing to fully attribute Darren Buckley as the Editor of the HUD-II and HUD3 databases and you agree to include this information with your own Database's XML file as used in the Harpoon 3 ANW Launcher. This Database may not be used for any commercial purpose without the express permission and agreement of Darren Buckley.

Make sure your attorney gets a copy.

I'll have to add a caveat, I can also at any time refuse anyone these rights and revoke all past rights to use and modify my work. Thanks for catching that. Keep pushing my buttons Herman, it'll only get better for you

Darren Buckley

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Bucks

Thanks I'll have to change that and include an exclusion - Herman Hum

This is Australia, we speak English, no Attorneys here.

You see how simple that was? Just speak with civility and you get results. If you decide to change it at this point in time, I will certainly respect it. However, you can't do it retro-actively. I wish you the best of luck with HUD3.

[Bucks]

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

ORIGINAL: Bucks

Thanks I'll have to change that and include an exclusion - Herman Hum

This is Australia, we speak English, no Attorneys here.

You see how simple that was? Just speak with civility and you get results. If you decide to change it at this point in time, I will certainly respect it. However, you can't do it retro-actively. I wish you the best of luck with HUD3.

The word is retrospectively

[Bucks]

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

ORIGINAL: Bucks

Thanks I'll have to change that and include an exclusion - Herman Hum

This is Australia, we speak English, no Attorneys here.

You see how simple that was? Just speak with civility and you get results. If you decide to change it at this point in time, I will certainly respect it. However, you can't do it retro-actively. I wish you the best of luck with HUD3.

It's my work, I can do whatever I please with allowing whomever I please to use my work. This does not include you. And if you believe I have no legal rights, why would you be concerned about how I implement my agreement. I will implement, edit, and change the rules to my heart's content if you don't think I have rights, wont bother you anyway, you'll do what you always do and just stick your finger up at anyone who doesn't follow the Holy Gospel according to Hum.

[Bucks]

ORIGINAL: Bucks

I can prove I get stuff fixed, you're saying otherwise. Are you calling me a liar?

Darren Buckley

I'm waiting for a response, you suggested I wasn't able to fix things and you have claimed otherwise. Again, I ask you are you calling me a liar?

It's a one word answer Herman, yes or no. Shouldn't be hard for the king of forum posting to get back to me with an answer...

[Bucks]

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

By all means.  Any time you're ready.  Bring it on since you obviously aren't able to fix or identify bugs (the entire point of this thread).

Well Herman am I a LIAR???

Come on let's hear it. You said it, just re-admit it for everybody to take a good hard look at.

Cheers

Darren

[Anonymous]

Pooners,

3.9.4 is by far the best ANW version so far. Forget about that "list". 3.9.4 has eliminated most critical behaviours of its predecessors.

Enjoy your Harpoon, use original stuff and you´ll have a great time.

Or go out for new challenges and try Global Conflicts Blue 2, which is most promising and where my focus nowadays is.

Regards,

Ralf Koelbach, Pooner 2007