CHS version 3.0

[JSBoomer]

Can one expect a CHS update soon?

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: JWE

Steal away. I would be pleased.

I will steal it too, and add it to the CHS upgrade I have started but not yet completed. The upgrade mainly includes fault fixes reported by CHS users. This will give me a "prod" to try to wrap up that upgrade and release it sometime soon.

Andrew

PS: The reason that CHS appears to be splintering is that nobody took up my requests to take over as a coordinator to continue combining the upgrade efforts, and I have not had the time to continue doing that myself, unfortunately.

AB,
You've got more important things to work on. I officially absolve you from any guilt over not updating CHS.

Now, get to work [;)]

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: JWE

Steal away. I would be pleased.

I will steal it too, and add it to the CHS upgrade I have started but not yet completed. The upgrade mainly includes fault fixes reported by CHS users. This will give me a "prod" to try to wrap up that upgrade and release it sometime soon.

Andrew

PS: The reason that CHS appears to be splintering is that nobody took up my requests to take over as a coordinator to continue combining the upgrade efforts, and I have not had the time to continue doing that myself, unfortunately.

It is a shame no one will step up and take over the reins on such a great project. But I am very much looking forward to the new CHS upgrade you are working on! Thanks for all your efforts to improve this great game Andrew!

[DD696]

Reference the discussion I tried to bring up on this late last August entitled CHS: The End of the Line? I got shot down faster than a duck flying over Wisconsin. There appeared to be only three of us interested in keeping this gem updated and alive. Since then, I play it, but sure as heck never mention it. I just find other things to do with my spare time.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: DD696

Reference the discussion I tried to bring up on this late last August entitled CHS: The End of the Line? I got shot down faster than a duck flying over Wisconsin. There appeared to be only three of us interested in keeping this gem updated and alive. Since then, I play it, but sure as heck never mention it. I just find other things to do with my spare time.

Please post a link to the thread. Got shot down by who? For what reason? Did you want to try and lead a revival? What happened?

[Edit] Ok I see it now...but it does not seem like you were shot down at all by anyone unless you are talking about spawn vs no spawn? Why did you give up?

tm.asp?m=1237661&mpage=1&key=

[Sardaukar]

What I'd like to be included is BigB mod Air-to-Air model (where weapon accuracies and ranges were cut down). While CHS Experimental Air model works well, IMHO BigB-model works even better..and doesn't include any juggling with DUR etc.

I'd do that myself if I could just have energy and bit more time.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

What I'd like to be included is BigB mod Air-to-Air model (where weapon accuracies and ranges were cut down). While CHS Experimental Air model works well, IMHO BigB-model works even better..and doesn't include any juggling with DUR etc.

I'd do that myself if I could just have energy and bit more time.

Yeah, me too.

I'm just working on the ships and classes databases, for a project of my own. It won't be a stand-alone release (too little interest); it is designed to be combined with BigB's air model, or spider's base redefinitions, or Andrew's projected revision, if any of them want to use it.

I know BigB did some sets for the different maps, but I think they were all based on the stock scenario databases. I don't think he has a model based on a regular CHS scenario (Help me out here Brian).

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

What I'd like to be included is BigB mod Air-to-Air model (where weapon accuracies and ranges were cut down). While CHS Experimental Air model works well, IMHO BigB-model works even better..and doesn't include any juggling with DUR etc.

I'd do that myself if I could just have energy and bit more time.

Yeah, me too.

I'm just working on the ships and classes databases, for a project of my own. It won't be a stand-alone release (too little interest); it is designed to be combined with BigB's air model, or spider's base redefinitions, or Andrew's projected revision, if any of them want to use it.

I know BigB did some sets for the different maps, but I think they were all based on the stock scenario databases. I don't think he has a model based on a regular CHS scenario (Help me out here Brian).

I know Andrew told me he had thought about doing a BigB version...

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka
I know Andrew told me he had thought about doing a BigB version...

Yes, I would like to do that. The problem, as always, is time.

The next thing I hope to complete, which has been "on the shelf" in a partially complete state for ages now, is a revision of my map.

Andrew

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

I know Andrew told me he had thought about doing a BigB version...

Yes, and as Andrew says, his question is time.

Standing back, I see certain individuals with certain proclivities; Andrew's particular interest is topographical, mine is naval/logistical, BigB's is A2A (and some naval capability), treespider's is infrastructural.

God bless Andrew for doing what he did, that's what the USMC plays. Going forward, however, it seems that there are groups, out there, with specific skews off the nominal.

Can we find (flying fickle finger of fate points to) a CinCCHS who just collates the various db inputs and issues the revs?

Takers?

[wdolson]

Maybe Andrew can answer this one, how much time does it take? I could do the job, and I'd like to, but at the moment, I don't even have any time to play the game. I'm self employed and extremely busy right now. I'm hoping things will begin to improve by mid to late summer.

A few months back I did do some work with the DB, starting with the most recent CHS. I fixed the errors in the pilot DB, which I passed on to Andrew. I also went through the OOB for Marine air, RAF, Navy patrol squadrons, and to some extent FAA. Additionally, I found a lot of errors in the late war RN fleet. Dixie got inspired and found a lot more.

I also made some changes to the aircraft stats. I didn't focus on the air to air model. I was focused on speed, range, and load out. I added drop tanks to many aircraft that routinely carried them. From the bit of playing I've done, I see I need to tweak that a little further. I also added a 1000 lb AP and made that the standard armament of the SBD and SB2C. The default load was the 1000 lb for those two in the real world. The SB2C sometimes carried 2X 500 lb on some missions, but it regularly carried 1000 lbs. I also freed up 4 slots by combining artwork for the recon and fighter versions of some US aircraft and added some missing aircraft.

Some of my changes were experimental. I tried adding naval HQs to Pearl Harbor and the West Coast ports with repair facilities. I definitely think Pearl should have a naval HQ. That had a siginificant affect on repairs there in the real world. Not sure about the other HQs, though I'm seeing fewer cases where ships hang up repairing with 1 Sys damage.

Bill

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: DD696

Referencing the thread your post , I tried to bring up on this late last August entitled CHS: The End of the Line? I got shot down faster than a duck flying over Wisconsin. There appeared to be only three of us interested in keeping this gem updated and alive. Since then, I play it, but sure as heck never mention it. I just find other things to do with my spare time.

I have read the original thread and I must say that there looked to be a positive attitude for your probe (aside from the off topic issues). Like Tanaka said or questioned, it did not appear that anybody shot you down.

You appear to know what you are talking about (from an ignorant persons view point), so please continue to follow with the others to resurrect CHS. I like your thoughts on being able to tweak the game to be able to have on going changes without so many restarts.

Please don't get offended and give up. Take an example from El Cid. There are so many negative attitudes toward his endeavorers, without the slightest thought some may be very good issues. But, he continues, and if I might add bring, some very good concepts to the table.

Go for it DD696.

[tanjman]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Maybe Andrew can answer this one, how much time does it take? I could do the job, and I'd like to, but at the moment, I don't even have any time to play the game. I'm self employed and extremely busy right now. I'm hoping things will begin to improve by mid to late summer.

A few months back I did do some work with the DB, starting with the most recent CHS. I fixed the errors in the pilot DB, which I passed on to Andrew. I also went through the OOB for Marine air, RAF, Navy patrol squadrons, and to some extent FAA. Additionally, I found a lot of errors in the late war RN fleet. Dixie got inspired and found a lot more.

I also made some changes to the aircraft stats. I didn't focus on the air to air model. I was focused on speed, range, and load out. I added drop tanks to many aircraft that routinely carried them. From the bit of playing I've done, I see I need to tweak that a little further. I also added a 1000 lb AP and made that the standard armament of the SBD and SB2C. The default load was the 1000 lb for those two in the real world. The SB2C sometimes carried 2X 500 lb on some missions, but it regularly carried 1000 lbs. I also freed up 4 slots by combining artwork for the recon and fighter versions of some US aircraft and added some missing aircraft.

Some of my changes were experimental. I tried adding naval HQs to Pearl Harbor and the West Coast ports with repair facilities. I definitely think Pearl should have a naval HQ. That had a siginificant affect on repairs there in the real world. Not sure about the other HQs, though I'm seeing fewer cases where ships hang up repairing with 1 Sys damage.

Bill

Bill,

I was thinking about placing the following Naval Districts in the game (for a mod I've been sort of working on since WitP came out) for the same reason.

11th Naval District - San Diego, California
12th Naval District - San Francisco, California
13th Naval District - Seattle, Washington
14th Naval District - Pearl Harbor, Territory of Hawaii

[DD696]

Hi,

Since there does seem to be growing interest in continuing the growth of CHS, I suggest someone start a new thread appropriately titled for discussion on this subject. To clarify a couple points, by getting "shot down" I meant that I could raise virtually no interest in a discussion of the subject and was also told in that thread by a mod that another person had agreed to take over the CHS job, so I let it go. Now, obiviously, that other person has not stepped forward and CHS has stagnated and is splintering in all directions.

To clarify a second point that was brought up, yes, I do think I have a lot of good ideas (but then so do a lot of other people). A lot of my ideas that I was bringing up simply cannot be implemented by anyone other than the guys programming this game. I was just stating that changes "could" be made IF those changes were something they (or whoever controls what they do) deemed it worth doing. Again, no one wanted to discuss anything about this. As it stands, restrictions in the size of data base and hard-coded programming restrictions are becoming a major stumbling block in expanding the various scenerios. Frankly, I do not think that anything will be done along these lines as it would not be deemed profitable. I am also of the opinion that the code updates are probably going to come to an end in the very near future. It has been around eight months since the last update and one of the programmers brought on board to keep this game alive pretty much disappeared around that time.

On another point, which always raises the hackles of the PBEM'ers, I feel the greatest drawback to this game is the lack of an editor that allows the game to be edited while the game is in progress. Having to require a restart in a game of this immense size and commitment just because the data on a plane needs updating (to put it simply) is a very absurd notion. But then, whenever ideas like this are put forth the Mutt and Jeff team go to work attempting to pooh-pooh the ideas of the author and the author himself. I think anything that has been on this forum for any lenght of time can figure out who the Mutt and Jeff team is composed of.

So, if any of you fellows want to start a serious discussion of the future of CHS, I would be happy to join in. We do have to persuade Andrew to join in also. It's still his baby apparently and he is still slowly rocking it.

[treespider]

Part of the "problem" with CHS is that it is/was a group effort and required the consent of the group for various "radical/experimental" changes...
 
It sounds to me like DD696 has volunteered to undertake the role of CHS coordinator...I'm sure Andrew wouldn't mind as he is busy with other things[;)]

[DuckofTindalos]

Yeah... Good luck with that...[:D]

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: DD696
We do have to persuade Andrew to join in also. It's still his baby apparently and he is still slowly rocking it.

I am happy to continue with some sort of involvement with CHS. I have had very little time to devote to it of late, but I do have a partially updated copy, that I tentatively call version 2.09, which contains a lot of bug fixes (including the pilot updates that wdolson provided). I also have a list of things I would like to add to it, such as the ship changes that JWE has worked on, and some of Treespider's recent work.

I am currently trying to complete a map update I started AGES ago, and when that finally sees the light of day I may be able to spend a little bit of time on a CHS update. But if there are others readly and willing to help out now then I am more than happy for them to do so.

The biggest problem with any sort of collaborative effort is arriving to some sort of consensus on which changes should be added to the scenario. The more changes that get proposed, and the broader they are, the less likely that agreement will be reached for their inclusion.

Andrew

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: DD696
We do have to persuade Andrew to join in also. It's still his baby apparently and he is still slowly rocking it.

I am happy to continue with some sort of involvement with CHS. I have had very little time to devote to it of late, but I do have a partially updated copy, that I tentatively call version 2.09, which contains a lot of bug fixes (including the pilot updates that wdolson provided). I also have a list of things I would like to add to it, such as the ship changes that JWE has worked on, and some of Treespider's recent work.

I am currently trying to complete a map update I started AGES ago, and when that finally sees the light of day I may be able to spend a little bit of time on a CHS update. But if there are others readly and willing to help out now then I am more than happy for them to do so.

The biggest problem with any sort of collaborative effort is arriving to some sort of consensus on which changes should be added to the scenario. The more changes that get proposed, and the broader they are, the less likely that agreement will be reached for their inclusion.

Andrew

So why does everyone keep winking at Andrew? [;)]

Andrew, maybe someone or someones would at least agree to helping complete the changes you dont have the time to finish right now?

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: DD696
We do have to persuade Andrew to join in also. It's still his baby apparently and he is still slowly rocking it.

I am happy to continue with some sort of involvement with CHS. I have had very little time to devote to it of late, but I do have a partially updated copy, that I tentatively call version 2.09, which contains a lot of bug fixes (including the pilot updates that wdolson provided). I also have a list of things I would like to add to it, such as the ship changes that JWE has worked on, and some of Treespider's recent work.

I am currently trying to complete a map update I started AGES ago, and when that finally sees the light of day I may be able to spend a little bit of time on a CHS update. But if there are others readly and willing to help out now then I am more than happy for them to do so.

The biggest problem with any sort of collaborative effort is arriving to some sort of consensus on which changes should be added to the scenario. The more changes that get proposed, and the broader they are, the less likely that agreement will be reached for their inclusion.

Andrew

If CHS is going to continue to live - it needs a head coordinator / gate keeper. I think this was Don at the beginning and then after a bit of musical chairs in the late summer of '05 Andrew wound up with the role, which he has had ever since. And it is a tough role to pass on. But maybe Andrew would be open to some "volunteers" for taking the role. I know we've asked a number of folks who have been "smart enough" [:D] to turn us down. But if someone wants the job, Andrew might be listening! But you need to think about a commitment in terms of 1-2 years. And you'll have to find your own replacement - if this thing is still alive then!!!

[DD696]

Nope....a long time ago in the Marine Corps I learned never to volunteer for anything, but it would really be nice to get moving on this again. It was a team effort and still should be. I'm just glad a few people starting poking at the hive again to see what life this had left in it.

If it is going to get done other people besides me are going to have to get seriously involved. Andrew is willing. There are lots of other good ideas out there that could be rolled up into a finished product along with the bugs that Andrew has already stomped on. There ought to be several slots to be filled. Someone needs to twist Andrew's arm to finish up his great map work. There needs to be an aircraft czar, or perhaps two: one taking allies and the other japanese. Same with ships. Might need a weapons expert. Probably more than I can think of just offhand. Or perhaps divy it up along the lines of two teams, allied and axis.

It is true that all requested changes won't be liked by all. You just have to go with a consensus and get the product out. Everyone needs to remember that it is just data that anyone can modify, unless, of course, the game is already in progress. If someone is adament about a change, you, I repeat, you have the ability to change the data to your heart's content, just as I and other people have.

What I don't want to see is the base CHS getting shuffled by the wayside as the splintering continues. Keep CHS going, but as I said, anyone can then take that version and mod in their favorite have-to-be's.

What do you think? Who's willing to grab this tiger and take it for a ride?