Page 41 of 125
RE: metric system???
Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 3:23 pm
by Froonp
ORIGINAL: Sabre21
I'm gonna have to double check all the commas in any of the 4 digit numbers.
There is one easy way to spot them.
Load the writup file with MS Word, and use the Search function.
This search function have advanced features, one that allows to search for "any number" (^#). So if you put this 4 tumes (^#^#^#^#), you will find all writings that are made of 4 numbers.
RE: metric system???
Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 3:38 pm
by Sabre21
Yep..just corrected all of them..probably well over a hundred missing commas. I'm just gonna have to train my eyeballs to catch 4 digit numbers without commas.
RE: metric system???
Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 3:50 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: Sabre21
I'm gonna have to double check all the commas in any of the 4 digit numbers..those are 2 I didn't catch. The 2 typos I initially spotted included the missing space between mounted and .50 cal, and the small "t" on the ten at the beginning of the 3rd bullet. So really there are 4 typos with the 2 missing commas. All are now fixed. The lack of a comma thing in numbers is a habit from my army days, we never used them for brevity reasons.
As for the name kittyhawk and tomahawk..I know they are british designations..but it was only the P-40 that I refered to the original name of Warhawk. I didn't think it was necessary to explain it in every one of the series. I also wasn't too sure how much room I had for write-ups, but it appears there's plenty of room. Adding another line won't hurt these. I think I will go back and tweak the P-40's a bit.
Oh the space between numbers and hp/kW, etc., on the lines of bullets. Originally there were no spaces but I added one the first time I did all this. Then I started to run into the problem that the bullet line was too long. Not wanting it to spill over to another line, I had to shorten things, and that space was a result. But if I did it to a few, I had to do it to all.
It's surprising what you can catch when it's displayed as it would look in the game and not just plain text all crammed together.
Sabre
Warspite1
Sabre - re your last sentence - I couldn`t agree more. I read the write ups through before submitting to Steve but as soon as I see them "in the counter", errors seem to jump out at me where they don`t just looking at plain text...........[:@]
Re your second sentence, I think its important to add approriate detail on all counters in a series as of course players won`t look at these in any particular order and the danger then is that the narrative on a later version won`t make sense. This struck me when you wrote of a plane being an improved version - but without the background you can`t know what its an improved version of.
By the way I like the way you have sought to standardise the aircraft write ups - they are looking good.
RE: metric system???
Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 4:24 pm
by Sabre21
Ok..I just added a generic line in the P-40 write-ups that kind of explain the tomahawk and kittyhawk names but not getting into the I, IA, II, III, etc, variants. I agree with ya on placing data on each write-up to explain anomalies.
Thanks warspite..I'm gonna need some serious band-aids for my eyeballs after all this[X(]
I wanted to keep as much of Graham's original write-ups as possible, but in many cases I re-phrased them to fit into a standarized format. For instance any historical anecdotes or similar type data all went into the second paragraph. Like for instance references to the Flying Tiger's or Doolittle's raid.
I also would write in the 1st line..manufacturer (Curtiss), designation (P-40), name (Tomahawk), # seats (1), # engines if more than 1, unique data..like carrier-based or jet, type (fighter), date of service and primary user. This is pretty much the format I am using. There were a few variations to the format when I had to explain a unique aircraft type or model that had a name change due to a different manufaturer picking up the contract.
Oh and in case you catch it above in the P-40 write-up..I already added the missing manufacturer name[:)]
Sabre
RE: metric system???
Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 4:54 pm
by Shannon V. OKeets
ORIGINAL: Sabre21
I'm gonna have to double check all the commas in any of the 4 digit numbers..those are 2 I didn't catch. The 2 typos I initially spotted included the missing space between mounted and .50 cal, and the small "t" on the ten at the beginning of the 3rd bullet. So really there are 4 typos with the 2 missing commas. All are now fixed. The lack of a comma thing in numbers is a habit from my army days, we never used them for brevity reasons.
As for the name kittyhawk and tomahawk..I know they are british designations..but it was only the P-40 that I refered to the original name of Warhawk. I didn't think it was necessary to explain it in every one of the series. I also wasn't too sure how much room I had for write-ups, but it appears there's plenty of room. Adding another line won't hurt these. I think I will go back and tweak the P-40's a bit.
Oh the space between numbers and hp/kW, etc., on the lines of bullets. Originally there were no spaces but I added one the first time I did all this. Then I started to run into the problem that the bullet line was too long. Not wanting it to spill over to another line, I had to shorten things, and that space was a result. But if I did it to a few, I had to do it to all.
It's surprising what you can catch when it's displayed as it would look in the game and not just plain text all crammed together.
Sabre
One thing that I did when I added the bullet points for these (yes, I put in most of the bullet formating in the air unit writeups) was to simply make two bullet points instead of 1. For instance, The P-47D has ",or ten 5-inch (127MM) rockets." Originally that had all been on one line.
Oh, and
it's is a contraction of "
it is";
its is the possessive for an impersonal pronoun.
RE: metric system???
Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 5:43 pm
by Sabre21
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
One thing that I did when I added the bullet points for these (yes, I put in most of the bullet formating in the air unit writeups) was to simply make two bullet points instead of 1. For instance, The P-47D has ",or ten 5-inch (127MM) rockets." Originally that had all been on one line.
Oh, and it's is a contraction of "it is"; its is the possessive for an impersonal pronoun.
Yep..I caught onto that with the double bullets and was doing that if needed.
I missed the apostrophe in the it's..those are fixed too as well as all the commas.
RE: metric system???
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:11 am
by Shannon V. OKeets
I just updated my records on unit writeups for the air and naval units.
Andy tells me he is 23% done standardizing and otherwise tidying up the 1345 air units.
As of today, for the 1112 naval units I have:
45% - done
6% - done but needing formatting for MWIF
8% - assigned
11% - unassigned named units
30% - unassigned anonymous units (subs, naval trasnports, amphibious, etc.)
RE: metric system???
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:25 am
by warspite1
Steve
I am happy to take the Commonwealth Submarines on board.
Rgds
Rob
RE: metric system???
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:16 am
by Shannon V. OKeets
ORIGINAL: warspite1
Steve
I am happy to take the Commonwealth Submarines on board.
Rgds
Rob
Thanks! [&o] Done.
RE: metric system???
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:43 am
by SemperAugustus
Please let me know if you need help with Japanese units
RE: metric system???
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:12 am
by Shannon V. OKeets
ORIGINAL: SemperAugustus
Please let me know if you need help with Japanese units
Would you be interested in writing up something about the Japanese submarines and/or merchant marine?
RE: metric system???
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:28 am
by SemperAugustus
Sure no problem. I can read Japanese so I can use Japanese sources as well.
RE: metric system???
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:22 pm
by Shannon V. OKeets
ORIGINAL: SemperAugustus
Sure no problem. I can read Japanese so I can use Japanese sources as well.
Lovely. I'll email you material to get started.
RE: metric system???
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:20 am
by Shannon V. OKeets
I keep getting a steady stream of writeups. Here are 3 I received this week.
From Mark:
EDIT: I was a little too agressive with the cropping. The missing text at the bottom is "planes during the engagement."
RE: metric system???
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:21 am
by Shannon V. OKeets
Here is one from Andy. He keeps muttering about "no copilot!" for this one.
RE: metric system???
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:23 am
by Shannon V. OKeets
A special request from Rob (Warspite21).
RE: metric system???
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:25 am
by Shannon V. OKeets
4th and last in the series. Rob did have a lot to say about the Warspite.
RE: metric system???
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:23 am
by wosung
Wow, interesting stuff to read. I like large write-ups.
A minor correction for the Warspite:
It should read "Fliegerkorps" instead of "Fleigerkorps".
Regards
RE: metric system???
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:55 am
by marcuswatney
I enjoyed the Warspite write-up very much, but while it is correct to refer to a ship as 'she', I have never heard anyone refer to the Royal Navy itself as 'she' (second paragraph). I am sure the Senior Service, having been founded by King Alfred in the ninth century, thinks of itself unsentimentally as 'it'.
RE: metric system???
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:41 pm
by Sabre21
And I thought I was getting a bit verbose on the aircraft write-ups..I'll never think that again after reading about the warspite..lol.