Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta - 1126b updated 17 Sept 2016

[michaelm75au]

Torpedo can be used in a port attack, but can be replaced by 800kg randomly. That is how it is normally without filters.
For the profiling, the randomness wasn't present. Is now (1118d) though.
Also made allowance for someone giving torpedo a Port Attack filter just to be safe.

[PaxMondo]

Michael, using today's beta, still getting results that are not what we are looking for unless I'm pooching the filters:
 
I've got my B5N2's set with
torp filter = 18
800kg filter = 04
 
It shouldn't be carrying both ...
 

Code: Select all

      24 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
                Port Attack:  1 x 45cm T91 Mod 2 Torp,  1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
        4 x A6M2-2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet
       16 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
                Port Attack:  1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
       18 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet
                Port Attack:  1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
        4 x A6M2-2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet
        5 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
                Port Attack:  1 x 250 kg SAP Bomb
       17 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
                Port Attack:  1 x 45cm T91 Mod 2 Torp,  1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
 

 
When I remove the 800kg from the aircraft, I get this:
 

Code: Select all

       27 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet
                Port Attack:  1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
       26 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
                Port Attack:  1 x 45cm T91 Mod 2 Torp
        4 x A6M2-2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet
       18 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet
                Port Attack:  1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
 
  
 

 
which looks ok ... but why would the 04 filter be involved with a port attack?

[michaelm75au]

Port attack is a special case and you should not have a 800kg defined as an alternate for the torpedo. The code automatically controls that replacement based on random factors.
The alternate naval for torpedo is suppose to be the 'normal' replacement bomb load (usually 250kg or smaller).

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Port attack is a special case and you should not have a 800kg defined as an alternate for the torpedo. The code automatically controls that replacement based on random factors.
The alternate naval for torpedo is suppose to be the 'normal' replacement bomb load (usually 250kg or smaller).

Ahhh!!!


THANKS for clarifying this. Makes perfect sense now. <rushes off to adjust mod>

Michael, as always, thanks for the superlative support.

[&o][&o][&o]

[JuanG]

Michael,

In light of all these incredible new options for weapon loadouts, is there any chance of the device slots for aircraft (1-10 for normal range, 11-20 for extended) being extended? Giving a plane with a moderate amount of defensive weapons like the G4M or a B25 a full range of loadouts is not possible at the moment, especially since 1 slot on each page is reserved for engines anyway.

[Shark7]

That's the problem with the limited weapons slots.

Of course, since you can combine filters, you might just have to use the multiple filter option and only define 2 or 3 different bombloads (which honestly should be enough for the 4Es).

IE, use the the filter 50 to define a load for primary Naval, Port and Airfield attacks. Then use the filter 76 to define your load for Alt Naval, Ground and ASW.

Obviously its not ideal, but it does at least give you some variety.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Michael,

In light of all these incredible new options for weapon loadouts, is there any chance of the device slots for aircraft (1-10 for normal range, 11-20 for extended) being extended? Giving a plane with a moderate amount of defensive weapons like the G4M or a B25 a full range of loadouts is not possible at the moment, especially since 1 slot on each page is reserved for engines anyway.

That would mean altering the editor, too.

[US87891]

ORIGINAL: JuanG
Michael,

In light of all these incredible new options for weapon loadouts, is there any chance of the device slots for aircraft (1-10 for normal range, 11-20 for extended) being extended? Giving a plane with a moderate amount of defensive weapons like the G4M or a B25 a full range of loadouts is not possible at the moment, especially since 1 slot on each page is reserved for engines anyway.

Hi Juan. You can still finagle stuff with Alt-Dev/Alt-Use on bombs (hopefully). Just takes being judicious. The Pendleton guys have been doing that for a long time; using the editor filter for FBs and A-D/A-U for bombers. Been working fine since 2010, but that was before the recent spate of player interest and the resulting code improvements. Hopefully the basic system hasn't changed.

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
That would mean altering the editor, too.

Not necessarily; as long as the code to support it is there, changes can be done via the csv's from witploadae without changing the editor. This was only witploadae has to be updated to support these new fields.

I was thinking something like slots 1-10 and 21-30 for normal ranges, and 11-20 and 31-40 for extended. Only the first pair (1-10, 11-20) would be visible in the editor, but the others would be available for editing via csv's.

This same situation already exists for submarine diving depth and weapon device secondary role statistics.

ORIGINAL: US87891

Hi Juan. You can still finagle stuff with Alt-Dev/Alt-Use on bombs (hopefully). Just takes being judicious. The Pendleton guys have been doing that for a long time; using the editor filter for FBs and A-D/A-U for bombers. Been working fine since 2010, but that was before the recent spate of player interest and the resulting code improvements. Hopefully the basic system hasn't changed.

I suppose this is one solution, though it does have some limits when it comes to something like a flying boat that already has 6-7 slots used up by defensive guns.

Thank you for the tip though; Ill have to experiment with it and see what I can get working and how.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Update 1118d
Added In port and TF filters to forming new TFs

Finally [;)] - see fb.asp?m=2867814

[CyrusSpitama]

Thanks for the response and awesome support michaelm.

The behavior I described in my previous post was a clear change from previous and I don't consider it a real problem. The reason I posted it was to ensure the behavior was not tied to something else that 'broke loose' in the coding for the betas. I will explain in further detail what I used to do and what now happens. You can decide if this behavior requires attention or not. Also, new behavior is occurring which I will comment on below.

What I do in my games is keep pretty tight controls of the TF # assigned to certain fleets. This makes for a large stack of single ship fleets in a certain port. Previously I would click on the ships (main map screen) to go directly to the fleets, bypassing form fleet on the base screen. From the list of fleets there, select one, choose form new fleet, sort the ships, scroll down, and choose a ship to transfer to this 'saved number' fleet. By doing it this way, the new fleet formed emulates the destination and home ports, but nothing else is copied. Because of the large number of ships ported here, I have to scroll down my list when I am choosing my ship for the fleet. Due to the amount of 'saved TF numbers', I am then making more fleets until I go above the range of numbers I am saving. Things are a little different now:

Previous behavior: Position in the scrolled down list of ships was saved as long as I close no windows and do nothing more than modify a few minor things on the newly formed fleet (reaction and retirement for example... simple click changes). Click form new fleet and no need to scroll down the ship list. Just click the ship on list already sorted and in the scrolled position I need.

Recent behavior: I have to scroll down the ship list each time I form a fleet, even though I am forming fleets the exact same way I used to previously. Again, this is no game breaker, I just want you aware of it in case it causes other problems with other coding.

NEW behavior: With the change to 118d, not only do I have to scroll down the list of ships, but the ship sorting does not save either. This means I must click the sort by column(troop, cargo, etc) and scroll down as well. I am pretty sure you didn't intend to add more clicks for us to do, did you?


Michaelm, again, do with this as you wish. This behavior is an obvious change in the way I was playing/organizing things. I just want to be sure you did not unintentionally break something else by giving us these changes. Banzai!

Edited to add this one detail: I am making the same type of fleet, transport, when I am 'spam' creating these new fleets.

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Update 1118d
Added In port and TF filters to forming new TFs

Finally [;)] - see fb.asp?m=2867814

Didn't see that request for patch 6[&:]. Too much data.[:o]

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Michael,

In light of all these incredible new options for weapon loadouts, is there any chance of the device slots for aircraft (1-10 for normal range, 11-20 for extended) being extended? Giving a plane with a moderate amount of defensive weapons like the G4M or a B25 a full range of loadouts is not possible at the moment, especially since 1 slot on each page is reserved for engines anyway.

Altering the space reserved for weapons to cater for this would be too massive a change for the 'housekeeping' tasks I am performing. Most likely break too many things already defined for the existing slot structure.

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Michael,

In light of all these incredible new options for weapon loadouts, is there any chance of the device slots for aircraft (1-10 for normal range, 11-20 for extended) being extended? Giving a plane with a moderate amount of defensive weapons like the G4M or a B25 a full range of loadouts is not possible at the moment, especially since 1 slot on each page is reserved for engines anyway.

Altering the space reserved for weapons to cater for this would be too massive a change for the 'housekeeping' tasks I am performing. Most likely break too many things already defined for the existing slot structure.

Alright, thank you for the response. [:)]

One more that's been bothering me for a while if I may; is there are chance of getting the device name fields ingame to support a few more characters than they currently do (I believe its 19 or 20)? Just 3-4 more would make a lot of difference, and at least on the Ship Info page there appears to be room for them too.

Thank you.

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: JuanG

ORIGINAL: michaelm

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Michael,

In light of all these incredible new options for weapon loadouts, is there any chance of the device slots for aircraft (1-10 for normal range, 11-20 for extended) being extended? Giving a plane with a moderate amount of defensive weapons like the G4M or a B25 a full range of loadouts is not possible at the moment, especially since 1 slot on each page is reserved for engines anyway.

Altering the space reserved for weapons to cater for this would be too massive a change for the 'housekeeping' tasks I am performing. Most likely break too many things already defined for the existing slot structure.

If "housekeeping" includes revealing the economic multipliers for hardcoded things like Arm / Veh / Nav / Merchant _ I think modders would really appreciate it. Obviously if it is a big thing then ... we'll live.

Thanks again.

[Chris21wen]

Interface problem when forming TF.&nbsp; Everytime I form a new TF and click done it selects some other&nbsp;TF in the base or if no TF, selects the base.&nbsp; Because of this I've sending AMc out on air/surface/bombard is not a good idea.

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: Chris H

Interface problem when forming TF.  Everytime I form a new TF and click done it selects some other TF in the base or if no TF, selects the base.  Because of this I've sending AMc out on air/surface/bombard is not a good idea.

Fixed in 1118e. Creating in base not opening the correct TF. Forming from another TF should work.

[Sardaukar]

Errr...latest installer only contains PDF file, nothing else...

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: n01487477


If "housekeeping" includes revealing the economic multipliers for hardcoded things like Arm / Veh / Nav / Merchant _ I think modders would really appreciate it. Obviously if it is a big thing then ... we'll live.

Thanks again.

+1

[michaelm75au]

I've uploaded it again. I did have trouble updating the thread, so it might have been corrupted.