Status of 3.10 Please?

[hermanhum]

Unfortunately, many similar claims were made for v3.9.4 that simply did not survive public testing.

Such as:

    * 0002711: [GE] Altitude/depth not properly calculated
    * 0002703: [GE] Units jammed after ECM source is dead
    * 0002678: [GE] Assigned units and plane records in limbo state with missing mission
    * 0002661: [GE] Ready times not propagated when plane records split twice
    * 0002652: [GE] Torpedoes ignore cruise depth
    * 0002626: [GE] Weapons allocated will sometimes not release against plane targets
    * 0002653: [Mission] Protect ViCond from older saves may not evaluate properly
    * 0002660: [MultiPlayer] Unable to pause game
    * 0000136: CTD while drawing new map
    * 0002657: [GE] Unarmed units will now be attacked



http://www.computerharpoon.com/wiki/mai ... =H3ANW:394

[Bucks]

I apologise I was only reporting what I've tested on my PC here in Melbourne, Australia. Obviously I have an advantage living the the Southern Hemisphere where my copy of ANW seems to work almost faultlessly. I see people mention crashes etc. last one I had was mid February and it was my fault. I didn't realise Russell had added some active Database fields and I hadn't updated the DB to include these using the Game's database editor. When the GE tried to load the new data fields and the HUD3 didn't contain them she crashed.

Actually identifying crashes caused by the DB you're using is relatively easy. The game will generate an error log when it crashes. If the DB killed the program, 9 out of every 10 times there'll be a comment regarding a "Divide by Zero" error having occurred. The crash report will be named crash_Scenedit_.txt for example if you were using scenedit at the time.


I also forgot to add my disclaimer so you can all yell at me when it doesn't work on your PC even if it has here. Can't get a better offer surely? [8D] safety glasses on...

PS: THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL AGSI/Matrix release of information, simply an expression of my own knowledge of the development team's progress through working with them.

I'll edit my post, (#40). It was foolish of me to omit that information, I'll add it to my Signature so it Doesn't slip my mind again.

Sorry Folks

Darren

PS: THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL AGSI/Matrix release of information, simply an expression of my own knowledge of the development team's progress through working with them.

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Bucks

Actually identifying crashes caused by the DB you're using is relatively easy. The game will generate an error log when it crashes. If the DB killed the program, 9 out of every 10 times there'll be a comment regarding a "Divide by Zero" error having occurred. The crash report will be named crash_Scenedit_.txt for example if you were using scenedit at the time.

Actually, in my experience, all the bugs can be recreated for any database and have easily been replicated on other machines. All the pertinent crash logs, screen shots, de-bug logs, saved games, and test files are already attached to each and every bug report. Anyone serious about fixing bugs can replicate them at leisure.

If you do not want to load the test files and run them, that is your prerogative. However, you will not likely experience the same problems. You can continue to try and shift blame for game bugs to anyone and everyone else. From my perspective, this appears to have been the corporate strategy for years. Like they say on CSI, "People lie. The evidence can't."

[Bucks]

?

[hermanhum]

Please explain your query further. 

What part of the previous message was not understood?

The short re-cap is:  All bugs and reports on AGSI's List of * Known Harpoon ANW Issues can be replicated by anyone expending the effort to do so.

Hopefully, that is sufficiently clear.  If that misses the target, please elaborate on what you believe is insufficient clarity.

[Bucks]

Herman please grind your axe elsewhere.

I was passing on my observations from experience and what I shared with the forum was nothing more than that. I didn't refer to you, the list or the PDB did I?

I didn't, did I?

Is my English expression simply that poor?

I've had the issue I discussed, several times due to the addition of extra database fields. When this occurs, you'll get the divide by zero crash and error report.

QED

I'm not going further on this topic so post the reply you're waiting to; you have the last word and I'll get busy on the HUD-2525.

Sorry everyone

Darren <-- Who must have been that Austrian dude with the moustache/mustache in a recently past life... (It's a joke, have a laugh [:)]) Sounds strange I know, but see the sick humour in it. The world's full of S H # T, no need for more of it here.

Btw: Has everyone looked at the "more smileys.." pop-up? There's some serious carnage going on there...

- "Everyone knows you run faster with a knife"

- "Berettas Akimbo!"

- "Keep watching the scope sucker, then your flank is mine!" Notice the beads of sweat? He ain't workin hard, he knows me and my '90 Pwn him...

- "Medieval I"

- "Medieval II"

- "Matrix sell Guiness? Where do I order and why wasn't I informed earlier?"

- "The FN Herstal P90 submachine gun and SS 190 ball round, will defeat the target at up to 200m whenever needed..."

- "The ultimate solution to your traffic woes. Comin' thru!!"

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Bucks

I've had the issue I discussed, several times due to the addition of extra database fields. When this occurs, you'll get the divide by zero crash and error report.

Sorry to hear that you encountered that error regarding the empty database fields. Personally, I have not encountered it but, if you care to publicly post the details, I will be certain to keep an eye out for it when the 3.10 patch is released and re-test for it to ensure that it does not afflict any unsuspecting users.

[Bucks]

Herman,

It's basically when Russell "switches on" one of the DB fields that the manuals over the years all the way back to Harpoon2 noted as being (NS) not supported. I'm working in an older version of the RE so I can export a 3.9 series DB and 3.10. With my initial use of 3.10 I couldn't get the game to run. Rusty wasn't around and I hand itchy feet...

I don't normally use the ANW DB Editor but just happened to load it up in case. It opened and then I looked through the editing menu and found the changes in the sonars. The Single Player version had crashed and scenedit, same error divide by zero... The game was looking for the information it now needs while loading the database into memory, nothing there = value 0 divide by oh it's a bad day - CRASH.

I tracked it down by saving each database file in turn and bingo (sensors) - looked at each type --> sonar's the issue. In effect it will still happen as I need to save the sensor annex after every export from my RE to the 3.10 database file. It's a reasonably specific issue mainly DB editors but I expect that players should be aware if they miss updating a database to the 3.10 format they might see this.

Ok scrub the lot, I've just tried to grab the error and Russell's taken care of it. He's getting too good at this. Now you just get an error report:

&nbsp;Loading: C:\Matrix Games\Harpoon 3 Advanced Naval Warfare\3.10-Beta\DATABASES\TEST_HUD3\comm.dat
A Nonfatal Error ocurred:

**** Error ****
Annex version older than Program version.

I suppose that simply means you'd have a working DB with the 3.10 activated fields missing. Lol no wonder I hadn't had a crash for so long.

[&o] Hail Rusty

You would have seen this in the 3.10 Betas, now you don't even get a crack at it Herman. Now you get the warning when I first starting on the Betas it would crash the game. Now the game is telling you that, you've screwed up!

Darren

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Bucks

You would have seen this in the 3.10 Betas, now you don't even get a crack at it Herman. Now you get the warning when I first starting on the Betas it would crash the game. Now the game is telling you that, you've screwed up!

Interesting details (even with the editorial). I will be certain to double-check for this phenomenon once the 3.10 patch is officially and publicly released.

I thank the Almighty every day that I was not afflicted with any Beta.

[Anonymous]

Freek,

ORIGINAL: FreekS

ORIGINAL: koelbach

ORIGINAL: FreekS
I still prefer 3.6, which also has major bugs (notably the "visual sighting" bug and the 'forced RTB' behaviour). The big advantage of 3.6 is that it is MUCH faster and scens made with 3.6 have generally worked in all later versions, while scens made in ANW have not.

But where is the future of this approach? Sticking to 3.6 is riding a dead horse, isn´t it?

Ralf,

All my recent scenarios are written in 3.6. All have been tested in ANW and work in ANW. Thez may work different in ANW: for example, airstrikes use different speeds and altitudes in ANW than in 3.6 and result in less effective attacks (no STOT).
I would love to use ANW SE, as it has several features that are great. However, as my experience is that scene built with ANW are not always forward compatible to newer versions of ANW, can never be played in 3.6 (which is MUCH faster and allows large scens to be played well), and the fact that I do not believe the SE has been properly tested, I build in 3.6.

Try out Mid-Atlantic in ANW and you'll see it works well even though it was built in 3.6.

I have very bad experience building for other databases than PDB; I started with DB2K (lets not rediscuss that episode) and recently I was asked by HUD3/AGSI to rebuild my Pirates scens in HUD3 using the ANW SE. I got no support to make the special platforms those scens require, and thus had to give up due to lack of support from AGSI/HUD3. This cost about a week of building, begging, mailing etc. Compare that to the support behind PDB and the decision what database to use for me was easy to make. Each his own though.

Freek

I can follow your approach regarding the scenario editor. But how do you incorporate ANWs new features, then?

An example: You write a scenario wit SE 3.6. It runs fine under 3.6 and under ANW. Now you want to add ship-to-ship UnRep or another ANW-feature. Do you now re-edit the scen with ANW´s SE in order to implement the new features?

Or do you simply not use any ANW-features like UnRep or the upcoming ones like chained missions and boarding/takeover?

Regards,
Ralf

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: koelbach

I can follow your approach regarding the scenario editor. But how do you incorporate ANWs new features, then?

An example: You write a scenario wit SE 3.6. It runs fine under 3.6 and under ANW. Now you want to add ship-to-ship UnRep or another ANW-feature. Do you now re-edit the scen with ANW´s SE in order to implement the new features?

Or do you simply not use any ANW-features like UnRep or the upcoming ones like chained missions and boarding/takeover?

Every PlayersDB H3 scenario that is offered for ANW is first re-built with the ANW ScenEditor in order to put it into ANW format. This is necessary to fulfill silly ANW requirements such as the debilitating Signature function (see My crazy database idea) and the new land damage rules introduced in the 3.9.0 patch.

Assuming, of course, that the ANW-specific features actually work, this allows users to employ functions such as UnRep when they play. Unfortunately, UnRep is only 60% functional, IMO.

• UnRep not possible in MP

Other ANW-specific functions such as linked missions will only be available to scenario designers who employ the ANW ScenEdit. Players, though will be able to use the new functions so long as they run the 3.10 game engine.

Not everyone has ownership of the more stable H3 version of the game. Thus, some are forced by circumstance to use ANW ScenEditor to write their scenarios and the PlayersDB supports and accommodates their endeavours, regardless of ScenEdit version used. Several scenarios and battlesets are published for ANW-only and are not included within the Complete Harpoon 3.6.3 Library.

[FreekS]

Ralph,

Unrep is a player feature anyway, it cannot be executed by the AI. So the player can perform Unrep in ANW (though only in solitaire) even if the scen was made with 3.6.

So sure I might give up on some new features (though lets remember there were virtually none in 3.9.x and 3.10 is not released yet).

Giving up those features so far has been a small price to pay vs the maintenance time saved by not having to worry about the lack of forward compatibility of any SE made after 3.6.

And anyhow, with the number of players, designers and actively maintained databases dropped to the low single digit numbers over the past years, I doubt even the learning curve of the new SE features is worth it.

Freek