Small bug in HUD3 version of Reinforcing Northern Flank

[erichswafford]

Sorry if this is the wrong way to report this. I'm just getting started with 3.9.4 (and loving it so far). And yes I posted this exact same comment in another thread. I just figgered it deserved its own thread, because I want this fixed so I can play the scenario! Sorry[;)]

I was playing "Reinforcing Northern Flank" using all 3 of the databases (just to see how they compare), and in the HUD3 version, you can't launch the Yak-38's from the Kiev. It spits out an error saying "Cannot launch from available runways".

Not that those Forger-B's are much use, but occasionally they get lucky and ambush an F-16 that I've suckered into chasing after one of my Bear-D's! Anyway. They can launch just fine using either the original or ANW 2.1 db's.

I guess maybe the Yak's aren't correctly flagged as STOL-capable in HUD3 maybe??

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: kondor999

I was playing "Reinforcing Northern Flank" using all 3 of the databases (just to see how they compare), and in the HUD3 version, you can't launch the Yak-38's from the Kiev. It spits out an error saying "Cannot launch from available runways".

Not that those Forger-B's are much use, but occasionally they get lucky and ambush an F-16 that I've suckered into chasing after one of my Bear-D's! Anyway. They can launch just fine using either the original or ANW 2.1 db's.

I guess maybe the Yak's aren't correctly flagged as STOL-capable in HUD3 maybe??

I don't think that it's a DB or scenario problem. I have checked your findings and can confirm their veracity. This bug has been posted to the list because that same scenario/DB combination works just fine in 3.9.3 but not in 3.9.4

[*]Forger cannot launch

Yak-38 Forger will show "UNABLE" under the ready status

1. Load [HUD] Forger cannot launch (3.9.4).scn in GE
2. Select Kiev group and hit Air Ops [F6]
3. Yak-38 Forger will show "UNABLE" under the ready status
4. Same scenario and database combination runs fine under 3.9.3

Congratulations on your first bug report. Keep them coming. [8D]

[erichswafford]

Yep, it's a DB or scenario problem because those Forgers work just fine on both the ANW and the Original databases.  I'm running ANW2.1.  Was 3.9.4 supposed to come with 2.2 maybe?

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: kondor999

Yep, it's a DB or scenario problem because those Forgers work just fine on both the ANW and the Original databases. I'm running ANW2.1. Was 3.9.4 supposed to come with 2.2 maybe?

I don't see how you arrived at the conclusion that it is either a DB or scenario problem. Can you elaborate?

This same scenario and same DB combination works when you run it in 3.9.3. If you re-build it with the 3.9.4 scenario editor and run it in 3.9.4, then you get the problem you reported. IMO, that makes it a problem created by 3.9.4 and not by the database or scenario writer.

[erichswafford]

Well, because the aforementioned problem does not occur, except under HUD3, in 3.9.4.  The only inconstant variable is the DB used.  Ergo - it's the database.  Or maybe that DB just predates 3.9.4 so much that something broke.  Either way, it works just fine with ANW2.1 or Original flavor under 3.9.4.

[hermanhum]

Looks like another case of "coming to different conclusions with the same data." 

(A pretty common occurrence in Harpoon, if you ask me [;)])

p.s. scenario seems to run okay in PlayersDB with 3.9.4, too.

[Mr.Sharkey]

kondor,

Darren asked me to reply to you, I can't help with the issues, non Harpoon player.

He's intending to start uploading some files to the website. Mr Hum's posting of the weblink etc is a little pre-emptive and unauthorised so I'm informed, not going there people.

Anyway Darren's informed me that you will be able to access new versions of both the HUD3 and the scenarios that ship with the game and shortly from his site. I'll announce that here when it happens. I believe he'll be free later today here, so Sunday your time US based folks.

The issue with the A/c not launching isn't an issue as the scenario has functioned perfectly during internal testing so I have been informed. Like I said I'm a non Harpoon player but mate of Bucks, and we used to play a lot of CS together. Try not to flood me with questions, but I'll get responses back to you guys as soon as possible. The new scens will be specifically rebuilt and modified for the 3.9.4 version of the game. And there will be some changes to the way the HUD3 sensor models deal with some basic modelling issues. Don't ask me what they are, You'll have to wait for Darren's ban to expire, most of this is beyond me.

Somebody tells me they ain't happy about this:

The bug report somebody listed a bug is because he's never seen it? The DB is by now well old and the scens were rebuild and packaged for 3.8.0, Bucks says this is like 3.9.4 now and once he has got the stuff ready people can "melt the server" if they want. Anything from a previous version of the game that's available may NOT be compatible 3.9.4. Unless it's officially released through the HUD3 site.

I'll be pasting an announcement once I get it.

Thanks in advance

Sean Leach (aka Mr. Sharkey)

[erichswafford]

Thanks so much for the quick reply.  I can't wait to see what Darren's done with HUD3 for 3.9.4!  Tell him Thanks from all of us out here patiently (OK, I'm lying) awaiting his next creation LOL. [&o]

And Yes, I think the prob with the scenario must be due to the current ver. of HUD3 being so old at this point. 3.80 was a while ago!

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[hermanhum]

So that I don't make the same mistake, what has changed in the manner of air facility parameters between 393 and 394? I can see nothing in the release notes to reflect this behaviour.

The HUD3 Forger (393) has the following codes:

Small Plane
VTOL Aircraft
Carrier Capable

The HUD3 Kiev (393) has the following aircraft facilities:

Runway (STOL Aircraft x 1)
Elevator (Large Helo & VTOL Aircraft x 0)
Elevator (Small Helo x 0)

These facility/aircraft combination worked in 393. What has changed between 393 and 394 so as to not make them work any longer?

(I've already tested changing the elevator capacities from 0 to 1 and that hasn't worked)

[erichswafford]

Maybe 394 corrected a bug that *allowed* Non-STOL A/C to take off from STOL runways or vice-versa?

I realize it's politically incorrect to assert that a higher-versioned build is actually *better*, but Hey.

LOL. [:D]

[hermanhum]

But the Forger is rated for VTOL.  That should mean that it can take off vertically and doesn't even need the Short Take Off/Land capability of STOL, no?

[erichswafford]

OK, VTOL then...

Isn't it the case that one of the big weaknesses of the Forger was that it couldn't do a STOL/"rolling" takeoff the way a Harrier can?

[hermanhum]

Be that as it may, I think that the game setting of VTOL means that it requires less landing runway (ability to launch from helo pad) than one that requires STOL.

[Mr.Sharkey]

kondor,

Somebody asked me to tell you,

"the Froger had lift and flight engines unlike the Harrier's single RR Pegasus. Not certain on take - off, but landing was vertical and he believes automatic. Poor pilot sits there and crosses his fingers, toes and whatever else he thinks will help."

Yak-38/38M Forger Attack
Man Rtng: 3/1.5 Damage Value: 20
Size/Signature: Small/Small Bombsight: Ballistic
Counterm: 2nd Gen J&D Inflight Refuel: N
Throttle Setting (Speed in knots)
Altitude Cruise Full Mil Reheat
V/Low: 520 562 --
Med: 520 554 --
High: 520 545 --
Ceiling: 12000 meters Engine Type: TJ
Cruise Range: 400 nm Int Fuel: 2268 kg
Drop Tank Desc. Fuel Wt. Range Add.
600 L drop tank 479 kg 42 nm
Ordnance Loadouts: Payload: 1700 kg
• 4 R-13M or R-60M
• 2 R-13M or R-60M, 2 UPK-23-250 gun pods (Gun Atk 5.5)
• 1 RN-28 nuclear bomb, 1 FAB-250 (for balance)
• 2 Kh-23 [AS-7 Kerry], Delta-NG guidance pod, 1 R-13M or R-60M
• 4 FAB-100 or FAB-250
• 2 UB-32-57 or FAB-500, 2 R-13M or R-60M
Remarks: In Service: 1976/85 - 93
V/STOL.• 1984: Rolling takeoff instead of vertical takeoff increases payload to 2000 kg.
• 1985: Yak-38M Forger B adds drop tank capability on inner wing HP. Can carry RBK-500 vice FAB-500, Kh-25 [AS-10 Karen] vice Kh-23.
{rev 20 Feb 04 - Kh-23 on -38, Kh-25 on -38M}

Sharkey

[erichswafford]

V/STOL.• 1984: Rolling takeoff instead of vertical takeoff increases payload to 2000 kg.

A-ha.  I thought it was a physical limitation, but perhaps it was only in "software".  I knew the Forger had that wonky automagic landing system, but perhaps takeoff as well?

Man, I'll never understand why they didn't continue development of the Yak-141 (anybody know?).  Talk about an export market.  Suddenly, all those crappy CVH's have a pretty damn good fixed-wing capability.  You ask me, the Freestyle had way more potential than the MiG and Sukhoi derivatives in terms of potential sales - if only because there is simply no other supersonic jump-jet in the world.  Rant /off!

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[erichswafford]

ORIGINAL: VCDH

I believe that the Yak-141 was a victim of Russian budget cuts at the end of the Cold War.

Later
D

It sure was. About the only thing they did continue were the Su-25 and Su-27 derivatives. I'm not saying those weren't smart choices - just that the Yak-141 seemed to have the market for a supersonic jump-jet cornered. I'll have to do a bit more research on its capabilities before I spout off any more about it, but it does seem like it could potentially add a lot of anti-air capability to all those CVH's out there.

[FransKoenz]

My personally thoughts are that the Yak-141 was also a kind of achievement in the cold war.
What the Western World can do, we can do as well would be the filosophy behind the plane.

As well as the Soviet answer to the aircraft carriers of the US Navy. They came with the Kuznetsov, but I'm sure that they would like to have a same kind of aircraft carrier as the USA, but simply didn't have the knowledgement to build such a complicated piece of equipment.

Don't underestimate the Flankers. They are multi-role aircraft and perform well.

Whitin Harpoon environment they perform very well. Dangerous oppenents.

Cheers,
Taitennek

[erichswafford]

Absolutely!  I find Russian/Soviet tech to be absolutely fascinating.  It might be the closest thing to examining an "Alien" technology base.  The Russians, isolated from Western ideas, came up with fascinating solutions to problems.  Notable achievements which debunk the notion of total Western superiority:   Titanium hulled subs (Alfa, Sierra), missile cooperative engagement (P-500 and P-700), 1st phased-array radar on an aircraft (MiG-31), 1st usable/effective IR tracker on a/c (MiG-29, Su-27) and, of course, the world's only supersonic VTOL (Yak-141).

If anything, I've learned that Soviet designers were more adventurous and far-sighted in many cases than their Western contemporaries.  Perhaps it was due to their more Academic-style research and engineering, with no regard for potential profits.

If their reach exceeded their grasp at times, there's no shame in that.