Matrix Games Forums

Thanks, Darren. Much appreciated.

ORIGINAL: FreekS

Luckily, the PlayersDB group has already found and implemented a work-around solution so that players can continue to enjoy Harpoon uninterrupted.

That's nice. Do you know what would be nicer? Making a detailed report of the workaround to the development team to help them isolate and fix the bug on the game engine level* so that all "players can continue to enjoy Harpoon uninterrupted".

Time for everybody to show what they value more, the game and the community as a whole or personal agendas and database wars.

____________
* For all I know the bug has already been identified and fixed, I don't speak for the dev team I am just expressing what course of action makes more sense to me as a user.

ORIGINAL: Taitennek

• AAA fire
  
  AAA guns are not limited by the altitude of the target and can even shoot down satellites.

Actually AAA is limited to Med Alt and below IF you've setup the DB correctly.

"Correctly" in this case means leaving Min and Max Launch Alt at zero for arty, and letting the game engine handle it. Not perfect but you can safely fly over AAA at High Alt (although AAA can still fire over Med Alt allowing for terrain height).

I've saved the page, and will be reporting back on other "bugs" which are in fact Herman not knowing how the game works.

ORIGINAL: Bucks

Herman has informed me he'd like to see the list dealt with on some of the other forums where it exists/originates and he can freely post. I understand his desire for that but I have an issue myself. Matrix is the home of the official Harpoon 3 ANW forum. AGSI and Matrix have a business relationship and one can understand that AGSI would only entertain discussion of the game "officially" here.

On what conditions? Free speech for all? I doubt that it takes long before moderation starts censoring articles/topics.
As long as Matrix and AGSI continue to practice it, open Bug discussion is only possible on other forums not censored by AGSI/Matrix.
It is a free world! Not the PRC or North Korea

Gentlemen, in our opinion bug-discussion is a technical matter. Keep it technical and there is no problem.

Let's welcome Herman as forum-member
Joh, it looks like Olympic Games......


Greetings,
snarF

ORIGINAL: Taitennek

On what conditions? Free speech for all? I doubt that it takes long before moderation starts censoring articles/topics.
As long as Matrix and AGSI continue to practice it, open Bug discussion is only possible on other forums not censored by AGSI/Matrix.
It is a free world! Not the PRC or North Korea
Gentlemen, in our opinion bug-discussion is a technical matter. Keep it technical and there is no problem.

Greetings,
snarF

I'm not even sure why I'm bothering with this rubbish.

I've got something for you "Doubting Thomas".

Even if you don't get the freedom of speech whatever the hell that is, the LIST is being reduced. I'm about to go and deal with these two issues that Russell has managed to fix TODAY.

09.> Sonobuoy battery endurance

Battery endurance for sonobuoys is irrelevant.

&

16.> Fly off the world CTD

It is possible to 'fly off of the world' and cause CTD.

So today we've managed to get a Crash fixed along with reinstating the ability to set the lifetime of sonobuoys. Now we could sit here and argue the semantics of free speech and what not, but I couldn't be bothered and I'm more concerned with destroying this list before it destroys the game I love so much.

It's starting to look like you guys want conditions on how I deal with this list and well that ain't going to happen. This is a once only, it's happening MY way or it's simply not happening. If you like I'll just leave the list and it can remain as a monument to stupidity. I'm the one spending my time of this project and if you don't like it Frans, you aren't being asked to, nobody is being asked to "like" this, but that's called life.

I've been technical about this, you think I get these things fixed by just telling Russell they don't work? I have to convert them to an accepted DB that AGSI will view as returning consistant results. (not the PDB) Enter them in Mantis if they show something worth investigating. The "show something worth investigating", bit requires me to run tests, and that means no DB work or scen reconstruction or testing of 3.10 while I deal with the bloody List...

I believe the majority of users will be more than happy the the List is dealt with regardless of where it's dealt with. As I have stated previously, I am not responsible for the reasons behind Herman not being able to take part in this discussion here and now. Also as far as I'm concerned it's not an open for discussion project. Issues that are "fixable" will be fixed if they are of sufficient importance. Some will have to wait, possibly a long time due to their trivial nature.

Here's something else that everyone should take note of. Partly because of the attempt to deal with the list and the direct monitoring of the Matrix ANW Support forum AGSI is looking at releasing an "interim" 3.9.1 patch. Most of you will be aware that's not something that has been a feature of the update process. So AGSI's becoming more flexible and responsive to it's customer's requirements and I believe everyone will be happy with where this is now heading. Sorry but it's pretty much take it or leave it...

Cheers

Darren

ORIGINAL: Bucks

I'm not even sure why I'm bothering with this rubbish.

Then don't Darren. The work you do is much more important that responing to the peanut gallery comments. Don't waste your time on that.

I don't doubt that a lot of work has gone into maintaining 'the list' and one would hope that it was done for the purpose of identifying and fixing bugs and not for the purpose of hurting the game and the community for personal gratification.

The last few days with Darren working on the list have proven two things:
1. Some of the bugs on the list are real
2. AGSI, with Darren's help, have both the will and the capability to fix them

Let me know if there is any way I can help the bug tracking process.

ORIGINAL: Shemar
Then don't Darren. The work you do is much more important that responing to the peanut gallery comments. Don't waste your time on that.

Agreed. I am sure the vast majority of ANW players very much appreciate your efforts, Darren. Carry on with what matters.

Shemar and Brad,

Thanks for the support. I'm going to work through the list, it's already generated some reward and hopefully will in its own way contribute to the game's development. I was just expressing a degree of frustration at being the target of complaints about "free speech" when I have no direct capability to influence the outcome being called for.

The list is important as it hangs over our collective heads as an automatic "turn off" to prospective customers. It's in everyone's interest to see it resolved as soon as possible to the best of the Dev team's ability.

Cheers

Darren

Darren, people who scream "free speech" often don't know what they're talking about. In the States, it simply means that government may not use prior restraint--and even that's not absolute--the shouting "fire" in a theater doctrine.

Private publications (or Web sites) may publish whatever they choose. It's called "editing," not "censorship."

Kip

It's also a matter of courtesy. Here we are all guests in Matrix Games/AGSI's house, and should behave accordingly. Over on the War in the Pacific forum I've never seen anybody banned for merely complaining, and so on. I give the benefit of the doubt to Matrix/AGSI.

Grateful for your work on this, Darren! [8D]

Darren, your work and comments are appreciated.[;)]

Darren I Second this, I'm pleased we have the backing of matrix and AGSI.

As people may be aware I have been A Harpoon player since it first came out 91 Amiga. I like to thank people like Darren, Herman and Ragner plus a lot of others for all their work.

I personally now just use the standard DB due to the stances of other groups in relation to this game.

This Harpoon community is the most divided form and so this my annual please work together. Without playground finger pointing.

Keep squashing those bugs Darren.

Thanks Gents,

Much of the credit really belongs to Russell Sharp. Due to Rusty putting in some "pro bono" work for us, we are looking at a 3.9.1 patch that will include solutions to some of these issues.

We are really only looking at the reported crashes first, although I'm sure most people will accept a more stable game before we start with any cosmetic surgery on the patient. Also the Iron Bomb issue is fixed and as a result the 3.9.1 patch will include a "bonus".

Cheers

Darren

Well I am hoping to get my family moved up this summer, I am actually making an offer on a house. When I do and I get internet at home, expect me back. I will help as I can. Meanwhile I attempt to keep up as best I can.
 
Build it and they will come.....

ORIGINAL: Shemar

ORIGINAL: FreekS

Luckily, the PlayersDB group has already found and implemented a work-around solution so that players can continue to enjoy Harpoon uninterrupted.

That's nice. Do you know what would be nicer? Making a detailed report of the workaround to the development team to help them isolate and fix the bug on the game engine level* so that all "players can continue to enjoy Harpoon uninterrupted".

If the weapon type is set to Rocket as opposed to Bomb, then the unguided weapon will work.

This is the inverse of a 3.6.3 bug, where rockets would not work and had to be modelled as bombs. Which makes me wonder if this was a deliberate ploy by AGSI to make sure 3.9 databases would never work with 3.6.3.

An alternative approach is to setup a new propulsion type, unguidedbomb or something, make it transonic (but never over mach 1.6 - should get faster lower to ground) and use that modelled as a missile with maybe 6 seconds (tops) of coast fuel. Snag with this approach is, bombs can then be shot down by SAMs and AA missiles, as well as arty.

I would have found this sooner, but I was damned if I was going to download an exe that I did not trust.

[Deleted by Admins]

[Deleted by Admins]

ORIGINAL: VCDH

Bombs use their own drop model. 

Bombs don't work. Period.

Rockets do.

Saying "oh, they work in a beta" is not useful to those who are relying on the current release.

AGSI chose to release 3.9 without bombs working. If you want to try and wriggle out of the responsibility of this you are wasting everyone's time.

There is a solution, it works, what is the problem?

ORIGINAL: VCDH]
For example, during the Falklands War, Argentine A-4s often dropped their bombs from very low level at ranges between 500 to 1000 meters. That's a quarter to one half mile and when the plane is flying at under 200 meters. Under the circumstances then it might as well be a death ray.

Very suspect example. Dropping an aerial weapon below it's fuse height was a waste of effort though. More than 3 quarters of 'em didn't explode (and the ones that did frequently exploded hours after the raid).

ANW can't model this example. Do not pretend it can.

Although I agree, using the rocket flag to model Directed Energy weapons is a viable option.

ORIGINAL: VCDH
Switching the bombs to rockets isn't practical due to the sheer number of weapons involved

Took me 45 minutes using the ingame editor. There are some things at which Reimer isn't as good as the ingame DB editor.

ORIGINAL: VCDH
Switching guided bombs to missiles using the glide engine is much more practical in terms of the number of weapons affected and is more realistic since they can now be engaged by air defenses.

I agree on this, but people should remember to use the Weapon Sigs if they want realistic engagements.

It's a pity that there's no drag factor for glide weapons but then I've never been afraid of working up a sweat calculating it by hand.

[Deleted by Admins]

ORIGINAL: VCDH

ORIGINAL: BurntFingers]
Bombs don't work. Period.

Rockets do.

Saying "oh, they work in a beta" is not useful to those who are relying on the current release.

And I didn't say that. I said that we have a fix in the pipeline. You've read the forums as have I.

Bearing in mind the last fix was eight months late... Why wait when db's can implement Iron bombs as rockets and have functional working on both across both versions?

I'm not talking about GBU-s here.

ORIGINAL: VCDH

ORIGINAL: BurntFingers]
AGSI chose to release 3.9 without bombs working. If you want to try and wriggle out of the responsibility of this you are wasting everyone's time.

You're a beta tester as well. How come you didn't pick it up?

GRRR.... OH NO YOU DON'T.

News as it seems to you, AGSI policy was NOT TO SUPPLY THE RELEASE TO ALL BETA TESTERS. DON'T BLAME ME!!!

Both Don and Darren have been quite open about this to me. Darren has actually posted the fact on this board. Seems to be news to you though.

NOTE: This is not a comment on AGSI beta procedures, it is a fact about AGSI beta POLICY. Nothing in the beta agreement about commenting on beta POLICY... especially when Darren Bucks has revealed exactly the same fact.

ORIGINAL: BurntFingers
There is a solution, it works, what is the problem?

ORIGINAL: VCDH

I've outlined it above. We aim for realism here and as a result we're not going to make everyone happy so we don't try. If we had done anything different then there'd be just as many howls of outrage.

So the problem is what? We can either rely on a non-functional iron bombs or implement non-guided weapons the same?

Dale, shooting at incoming iron bombs is just as likely to deflect them ONTO the target as AWAY from it. The mortar example is a non-starter - there is no comparison between a mortar round's momemtum and a free-falling bomb's momentum. Same for the 114mm - just because a 20mm could hit it does not mean it would nullify the damage.

(Never mind the issue about where the missed 20mm rounds land.)

ORIGINAL: BurntFingers]
Very suspect example. Dropping an aerial weapon below it's fuse height was a waste of effort though. More than 3 quarters of 'em didn't explode (and the ones that did frequently exploded hours after the raid).

ORIGINAL: VCDH
You're missing the point. I am aware of the fusing problem. The fact is, they dropped it. If you can come up with a better example then I'm all ears.

Later
D

OK. Unfortunately it breaks Harpoon paper rules so AGSI can't do this without breaching their license, but just as an exercise...

Have 2 extra fields for warheads. One is a simple percentage rating of chance to explode. The other is a flag giving malfunction if weapon used outside min/max altitude launch parameters.

That way, if a warhead doesn't go bang, just calculate kinetic and unburnt fuel damage. Simple, accurate, realistic (and totally impossible for AGSI to do for reasons I've just given).