search arcs

[Pascal_slith]

BTW does this problem also occur for ASW arcs?

[witpqs]

Yes, Michael confirmed that in another thread.

[Alpha77]

Quick question reg.search: I often get reports saying "6 ship near pearl harbout" or " 5 ships near san franzisco". Can I assume that these are false reports ? The plane saw some mistery ships and thought them to be enemy ? The Japs should not have these masses of surface ships in these areas.......

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Quick question reg.search: I often get reports saying "6 ship near pearl harbout" or " 5 ships near san franzisco". Can I assume that these are false reports ? The plane saw some mistery ships and thought them to be enemy ? The Japs should not have these masses of surface ships in these areas.......

FOW due to low air crew skills. As their Search skill improves, the number, composition, direction, and speed will all improve. With low skill, I just assume that they saw SOMETHING. Sub, bikini clad lovely, or CV? You have no idea.

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Quick question reg.search: I often get reports saying "6 ship near pearl harbout" or " 5 ships near san franzisco". Can I assume that these are false reports ? The plane saw some mistery ships and thought them to be enemy ? The Japs should not have these masses of surface ships in these areas.......

FOW due to low air crew skills. As their Search skill improves, the number, composition, direction, and speed will all improve. With low skill, I just assume that they saw SOMETHING. Sub, bikini clad lovely, or CV? You have no idea.

[:'(] Thanks [&o]

[Amoral]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

A suggestion, may not matter to most people, but I have a very color-intensive memory and real-time perception. It's far weaker for text and numbers, but very strong for visuals, especially color and polygons...

+1 to this suggestion. I think yellow is a sunrisey, AM colour and red is a sunset-y, PM colour. With orange showing overlapping patrols.

[cantona2]

So do they work or not?

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: cantona2

So do they work or not?

They do not work. Nor does setting them in reverse. You must use (call it) no arcs, meaning set them to Start 000 End 000. That uses basically the old style code.

[cantona2]

Thanks witpqs

as I love these arcs. Will the issue be addressed in the next patch?

[witpqs]

My understanding is yes, MichaelM put quite an effort into troubleshooting them.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: cantona2

Thanks witpqs

as I love these arcs. Will the issue be addressed in the next patch?

Michaelm is into it..and he usually seems to deliver. [8D]

[Reg]

Michael,

I know this issue is done and dusted and you probably already have a code fix but is the current interface really the most appropriate mechanism for this function??

Another method would to be specify the center direction for the search arc and then specify the width of the search pattern.

For Example: Direction 180 of degrees and Width of 90 degrees.

Aircraft could be allocated to the search arcs in the following sequence, first 0 deg, then +10 deg, -10 deg, +20 deg, -20 deg, +30 deg, etc

I believe this would completely sidestep the whole issue of the direction of the search arcs. It also has the advantage having the number of aircraft needed to cover the search pattern being obvious (ie 90 deg search pattern width = 9 search planes).

Probably most importantly, if the number of available search planes is less than you anticipate, then the arc of most interest is searched first, rather than the extreme edge of the search pattern which is currently the case.

What would you other guys think of this proposal??

[hunchback77]

ORIGINAL: Reg

Michael,

I know this issue is done and dusted and you probably already have a code fix but is the current interface really the most appropriate mechanism for this function??

Another method would to be specify the center direction for the search arc and then specify the width of the search pattern.

For Example: Direction 180 of degrees and Width of 90 degrees.

Aircraft could be allocated to the search arcs in the following sequence, first 0 deg, then +10 deg, -10 deg, +20 deg, -20 deg, +30 deg, etc

I believe this would completely sidestep the whole issue of the direction of the search arcs. It also has the advantage having the number of aircraft needed to cover the search pattern being obvious (ie 90 deg search pattern width = 9 search planes).

Probably most importantly, if the number of available search planes is less than you anticipate, then the arc of most interest is searched first, rather than the extreme edge of the search pattern which is currently the case.

What would you other guys think of this proposal??

I like it Reg, but can the devs fit it in the program. Much simpler as you would only have to click once on the map instead of setting the start and end which can cause confusion for players when you throw in the clockwise counter clockwise thing.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Michael, the HotFix for the "Search Arcs" is not in the latest "Version 1.01.06i" from 26 November 2010...

Is this bigger problem than it appeared at first?


Thanks for info in advance!


Leo "Apollo11"

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Michael, the HotFix for the "Search Arcs" is not in the latest "Version 1.01.06i" from 26 November 2010...

Is this bigger problem than it appeared at first?

Nope, not a bigger problem, already fixed in patch 06. But deemed not to be a "show stopper" since there is a work around (don't use it). We could not release all 90-odd changes we've accumulated for patch 06 with patch 05 (we discussed it) because of the additional amount of testing that will be required for these code changes, so we opted to get the data changes and the critical code fixes out first.

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

Michael, the HotFix for the "Search Arcs" is not in the latest "Version 1.01.06i" from 26 November 2010...

Is this bigger problem than it appeared at first?


Thanks for info in advance!


Leo "Apollo11"

Fixing the arcs involved more than just a few lines of code. Originally, I thought I had just reversed the logic but it was more complicated than that; the new code ended up being same as the code from one of the earlier patches, which was changed for the same reason. Therefore it was not a simple case of reversed logic.

This meant that it was not legible for a quick hotfix fix and was slated for the bigger EXE patch that is next on the agenda.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: michaelm

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Michael, the HotFix for the "Search Arcs" is not in the latest "Version 1.01.06i" from 26 November 2010...

Is this bigger problem than it appeared at first?


Thanks for info in advance!

Fixing the arcs involved more than just a few lines of code. Originally, I thought I had just reversed the logic but it was more complicated than that; the new code ended up being same as the code from one of the earlier patches, which was changed for the same reason. Therefore it was not a simple case of reversed logic.

This meant that it was not legible for a quick hotfix fix and was slated for the bigger EXE patch that is next on the agenda.

Thanks for info Michael! [:)]

We will all keep our collective fingers crossed for this one...


Leo "Apollo11"

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Michael, the HotFix for the "Search Arcs" is not in the latest "Version 1.01.06i" from 26 November 2010...

Is this bigger problem than it appeared at first?

Nope, not a bigger problem, already fixed in patch 06. But deemed not to be a "show stopper" since there is a work around (don't use it). We could not release all 90-odd changes we've accumulated for patch 06 with patch 05 (we discussed it) because of the additional amount of testing that will be required for these code changes, so we opted to get the data changes and the critical code fixes out first.

Thanks for info Joe! [:)]


Leo "Apollo11"