Matrix Games Forums

G'day All,

I've just been doing some work in 3.10 B20 and hit an issue. So before I list it as a bug and get Russell to take care of it I wanted to see if players had an opinion or at least a preference for the default values for sensor intermittance when creating Missions.

So when you say, create an AAW Patrol and set radar to "intermittant" what sort of values would people prefer to see for both sensor and mission type.

Example: - not current default values
ASuW Patrol Missions
- Radar Act -> 5 %Var -> 50 _ Pass -> 15 %Var -> 50
- Sonar Act -> 2 %Var -> 25 _ Pass -> 8 %Var -> 50
- ECM Act -> 8 %Var -> 25 _ Pass -> 2 %Var -> 50

So you list mission type and your preferred numbers. We'll either look at an average if there's enough responses, or simply take the most multiples. So scen designers, and players using missions, anyone with an idea/opinion now's a good time to speak up before Russell clears the issue I've found.

I don't think this is a list item, just my way of hopefully extending a cooperative hand to the community and including everyone in the current development process.

Cheers

Darren

Hi,

Here are my preferences

1. Currently there is a limitation on the length of the passive period; it cannot be longer than 30 minutes. I'd like that limitation lifted so that passive period up to say 99 minutes can be given. That allows me as the scen designer to control better an MPA lifting off an aibase and switching on radar once a certain distance from the airbase.

2. Typically I use 2 min active for radar, and passive depending on platform speed and radar range. Variations are typically 10%

3. for Sonar similarly I tend to use 2 min active, and passive depending on speed and sanar range of the platform.

Freek

I am not quite certain exactly what problem you are describing. A few Sensor Intermittance value problems are already on the List of Known ANW Issues.

[*]Intermittent values rejected
Some intermittent values for EmCon window rejected[*]Sensor default values are zero
When Sensor menu [F9] is activated for individual units or groups, all default values are Zero. Previously, the default values were 1 min Active followed by 5 minutes Passive for all types of sensors. Proper default values of 1min/5min appear if a group of separate units are "drag-selected" and then the F9 hotkey is depressed.[/ol]

The attached image is from the Mission Editor. Are you suggesting that when you select the Intermittent setting for any given mission that the default numbers offered by the Mission editor are deficient in some way?

If your concern is over the default settings, I use all kinds of numbers dependant upon the type of unit assigned to the mission. For example, missions with aircraft might have a different setting than one with ships because planes move faster and clear the datum point.

I don't know how the game decides which default settings to offer for each mission type. I use the settings a lot, but think that the current defaults are fine since they are easily changed. If I am not seeing the problem, please elaborate.

ORIGINAL: Bucks

G'day All,

I've just been doing some work in 3.10 B20 and hit an issue. So before I list it as a bug and get Russell to take care of it I wanted to see if players had an opinion or at least a preference for the default values for sensor intermittance when creating Missions.

<<edit>>

I don't think this is a list item, just my way of hopefully extending a cooperative hand to the community and including everyone in the current development process.

Cheers

Darren

Herman,

Freek understood it, and English is his second language. Please read what I said carefully. Note ref to ANW 3.10 B20. I found an issue, I'll get Russell to fix it, while he's looking at it we have a chance to add your suggestions.

If you have no interest please ignore.

Thanks in advance

Right.&nbsp; And I'm saying that I do not understand the issue.&nbsp; And asking for clarification.&nbsp; I'm still not seeing the problem.&nbsp; Not saying that it isn't there.&nbsp; I'm not seeing what is broken.

Throwing more aspersions on linguistic skills is simply non-productive.&nbsp; Drop this nonsense, already.

Nothing is broken, if you're happy just ignore it PLEASE

My concern is that I am understanding the wrong thing.&nbsp; What is this issue you speak of?&nbsp;

If it appears in B20, does it also appear in 3.9.4?&nbsp; With all this evasion, I'm really getting worried that something that isn't broken is going to be changed in a way that really is going to make it broken like the two examples already provided from the List of Known ANW Issues.

To add, I like Freek's idea, but I believe that it is a feature request since that capability is not currently available within the game.

Your concern is uncalled for and irrelevant.

I found an issue, you're not testing and its NEW.

If it existed prior to this you would have noticed it.

If I'm going to have Russell look at that section of code, I wanted to ask for ideas while he's there. It's about making effective use of our time Herman, nothing more. When 3.10 comes out you can make your bloody list as big as you like for all I care.

If this reaction is going to be typical of you, I doubt I'll be asking for any further feedback I put forth a simple request for suggestions and now we're here again because you seemingly have some urge to piss me off.

Now Herman why don't you grab 3.10 and instead of building a list after the event, you help identify the issues BEFORE RELEASE... Otherwise this is not related to your list it was asking for FEEDBACK. If you have none goodbye, thanks for wasting my time.

Cheers

Darren

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

Right.  And I'm saying that I do not understand the issue.  And asking for clarification.  I'm still not seeing the problem.  Not saying that it isn't there.  I'm not seeing what is broken.

Throwing more aspersions on linguistic skills is simply non-productive.  Drop this nonsense, already.

You don't see a problem where none exists, that screen doesn't show anything wrong it's what I want people to think over. This forum is not the sole domain of List discussion, it's about Harpoon. We haven't forgotten your list Herm, this is something you don't have to be concerned with though.

Would you like me to post my bug reports here so you can add a new category, "Yet to be released bugs"?

Once again, you're not AGSI.&nbsp;

If AGSI wants their list of bugs reduced, they'll have to make the process open and publicly accessible to everyone.&nbsp; Of course, if they want to continue adding new features that only serve to add more bugs, that's their prerogative, too.&nbsp; Without a freeze on the bug-making process, it's simply pointless to do any testing until a public release is made since bug creation is mathematically infinite.

It's not 'all about you'.&nbsp; You're just another user.&nbsp; Regardless of how you see yourself, it's all just an illusion.

ORIGINAL: Bucks

You don't see a problem where none exists, that screen doesn't show anything wrong it's what I want people to think over.

So, what is wrong with the numbers as they are currently presented?

When a user selects the Intermittent setting in the Mission Window, the game fills out the window blanks with some suggested default values.

How are those default values calculated in the first place?

It seems like you are suggesting that those default values should be changed to other default values. If that is the case, why change something that doesn't seem to be dysfunctional in the first place?

It might be a simply change of default values. However, it could also lead to severe complications in other areas. Because these types of unforeseen problems happen often in ANW, it is a valid concern, IMO.

So, I'll ask, again. Is there something so wrong with the current default values that they need changing?

ORIGINAL: hermanhum
So, what is wrong with the numbers as they are currently presented?

NOTHING - NO THING, NOT A THING WRONG, RIEN, NICHTS, NIETS, NIENTE, NIEKAS, I NEVER SAID "THEY WERE WRONG" YOU DID

ORIGINAL: hermanhum
When a user selects the Intermittent setting in the Mission Window, the game fills out the window blanks with some suggested default values.

How are those default values calculated in the first place?

THEY ARE HARD CODED BY MISSION TYPE - HENCE THE REASON I ASKED IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM CHANGED OR HAD SUGGESTIONS FOR NEW DEFAULTS...

ORIGINAL: hermanhum
It seems like you are suggesting that those default values should be changed to other default values. If that is the case, why change something that doesn't seem to be dysfunctional in the first place?

FREEK UNDERSTOOD WHY CAN'T YOU?

NOTHING "NEEDS" TO BE CHANGED, I ASKED IF PEOPLE HAD SUGGESTIONS FOR VALUES BECAUSE CHANGING THEM NOW WOULD SAVE TIME (TIME = MONEY)

ORIGINAL: hermanhum
It might be a simply change of default values. However, it could also lead to severe complications in other areas. Because these types of unforeseen problems happen often in ANW, it is a valid concern, IMO.

So, I'll ask, again. Is there something so wrong with the current default values that they need changing?

WHATEVER WE DO IT'LL BE WRONG, I'M SORRY FOR TRYING TO INCLUDE PEOPLE IN THE PROCESS.

I'LL GET THE ISSUE FIXED, FORGET I EVER BOTHERED, SORRY FOLKS

Darren - soon to be suffering from a Cerebral Haemorrhage

ORIGINAL: Bucks

ORIGINAL: hermanhum
When a user selects the Intermittent setting in the Mission Window, the game fills out the window blanks with some suggested default values.

How are those default values calculated in the first place?

THEY ARE HARD CODED BY MISSION TYPE - HENCE THE REASON I ASKED IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM CHANGED OR HAD SUGGESTIONS FOR NEW DEFAULTS...

ORIGINAL: hermanhum
It seems like you are suggesting that those default values should be changed to other default values. If that is the case, why change something that doesn't seem to be dysfunctional in the first place?

FREEK UNDERSTOOD WHY CAN'T YOU?

NOTHING "NEEDS" TO BE CHANGED, I ASKED IF PEOPLE HAD SUGGESTIONS FOR VALUES BECAUSE CHANGING THEM NOW WOULD SAVE TIME (TIME = MONEY)

Ah, okay then. I understand it, now. Since Freek has made his suggestions, I'll make mine.

I recommend that the default values are okay as they are currently set. Therefore, no change required, IMO.

Primum non nocere

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

Primum non nocere

That Latin translates as "sit on your hands" Well the Christian Brothers who taught me used to say that anyway...

[8|]

Sure it does.&nbsp; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_non_nocere
[blockquote]Primum non nocere is a Latin phrase that means "First, not to harm." The phrase is sometimes recorded as primum nil nocere.
[/blockquote]And, it seems, totally unintelligible to AGSI and fanbois even when is properly translated.

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

Sure it does.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_non_nocere
[blockquote]Primum non nocere is a Latin phrase that means "First, not to harm." The phrase is sometimes recorded as primum nil nocere.
[/blockquote]And, it seems, totally unintelligible to AGSI and fanbois even when is properly translated.

Herman I went to the oldest Christian Brother's school in Australia, it's joke, yeah doctor's use it yada yada... The men that taught me would joke it really means "sit on your hands" i.e. Do nothing...

or make an omlette and don't break the eggs...

Sorry I needed to explain...

Darren

Guess everyone can read for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

Guess everyone can read for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

Yeah I learnt the language at school and you hit wikipedia. People can think what they want, I would NEVER attempt to knowingly mislead you, like the PDB corrections I've sent you in relation to the list. It's all a figment of my imagination...

If you didn't get the joke fine, that's a sense of humour issue, nothing to get defensive about.

Cheers

Darren

ORIGINAL: Bucks

Yeah I learnt the language at school and you hit wikipedia.

Which just means that you learnt the wrong definition. Pointing out that your definition was wrong over, and over, again, is fine with me.

First, do no harm.

Or DO NOTHING - Doing nothing by default Does No Harm, may not do anyone any good either...

-- Herman I suppose you weren't in the class that day. It's not the correct definition, it's What Br Kevin Duckworth said when he explained it. I went to a school where that concept was considered BS. Sitting back and watching is about as likely to make things change as only getting out of bed on Sundays or cloudy days. If you want to live by a concept of never changing anything because you might break it, let's all move back to caves and become Hunter/Gatherers. The human race would have been as successful following that as just staying in the cave anyway.

You stick to your definition and I'll stick to the things I was taught. Get involved, make things happen, be prepared to sacrifice yourself to achieve better things and don't be scared to question things.

Apply the DO NO HARM to your list and possible effects on AGSI and get back to me ok?

I'm glad I know Dale, otherwise you're giving Canucks a bad name...

Cheers

Darren