Status of 3.10 Please?

[planetbrain]

Just curious.
As far as I can tell it's been a long time since any thing has been mentioned of the next update, the beta for which can't now be downloaded (also a long time).
Any progress, please?
Full Steam ahead/dead in water/sunk?

[Anonymous]

That´s really an interesting question. When will 3.10 come out?

[fguerin35]

I suspect it will be around 14th of June, as it will be the 3rd birthday of 3.7. Just a guess, hope it's an educated one.

Cdr Sylvester

[hermanhum]

Once can only dare to hope that it appears in a better state than previous patch releases.

After 3.8.0 Patch: (080 Issues - 34 Fixed + 88 New) = 134 Issues
After 3.9.0 Patch: (134 Issues - 31 Fixed + 68 New) = 171 Issues
After 3.9.2 Patch: (171 Issues - 15 Fixed + 35 New) = 191 Issues
After 3.9.3 Patch: (191 Issues - 19 Fixed + 15 New) = 187 Issues
After 3.9.4 Patch: (187 Issues - 46 Fixed + 68 New) = 209 Issues

[Anonymous]

ORIGINAL: Cdr Sylvester

I suspect it will be around 14th of June, as it will be the 3rd birthday of 3.7. Just a guess, hope it's an educated one.

Cdr Sylvester

By all means, don´t remind me or anyone else on 3.7. [X(]

[hermanhum]

The fourth anniversary of ANW's release is approaching and all there is to show is:

AGSI's List of * Known Harpoon ANW Issues

[Anonymous]

I think there is far more than bugs. The current version, 3.9.4 is well playable and there are many new features incorporated since 3.7. After all, even this buggy 3.7 brought a major improvement: MP.

The latest 3.10 betas ran well and there a more really good new features in like boarding/takeover and chained missions.

If Harpoon can stand GCB2 with its brilliant GUI (I love it) or the upcoming Red Pill, which, based on the first screenshots, looks awesome - that´s another story.

But here and now there are two well playable Harpoon versions to beat. And tons of fantastic scens around.

That´s why so many guys still enjoy Harpoon, despite the buggy history of Harpoon 3 ANW, and despite the ugly incidents in the community which started back in 2005 or so.

[hermanhum]

Everyone has their own level of acceptance for bugginess.  If CTDs, frozen games, and the inability of the AI enemy to fire upon your forces is tolerable, then ANW is just fine.  To each, his own.  That is why AGSI's List of * Known Harpoon ANW Issues remains public; so that everyone can know and decide for themselves.  There are still fans of Windows 98, too.  (Probably the same ones who grab the 30,000+ PlayersDB scenario downloads every single week.)

[Anonymous]

Yes, it´s good that different points of view are possible, three cheers for democracy in the internet. Wasn´t it Voltaire who said something like "I dislike what you´re saying, but I´d give my life for your right to do so" ?

That is a point we agree I think. As long as there are no personal insults, controversial discussions are great.

...as to the status of ANW: I cannot remember having one single CTD or frozen game with 3.9.4 or the latest versions before. Maybe I was lucky. Maybe I use the wrong databases. Would be interesting to hear/read what the others, the "silent majority" has experienced.

...as to Windows 98: I have it on one old PC for running H2 AE; just like you if I remember correctly. Windows 98 ia great in its own way combining Windows and DOS abilities. Palying a DOS game in its original environment from time to time makes fun.

...as to guys grabbing your updates every week: Congratulations then; your work obviously has true followers. Hopefully that are no tests/checks for download rates, old wine in new bottles or something like that.

So let´s wait for 3.10 and see if it´s good.

[fguerin35]

ORIGINAL: koelbach
...as to the status of ANW: I cannot remember having one single CTD or frozen game with 3.9.4 or the latest versions before. Maybe I was lucky. Maybe I use the wrong databases.

I used 3 different DBs: ADB 2.0, Original DB and ANW DB for miniatures: never met any CTD or freezing.

Cdr Sylvester

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: koelbach

...as to the status of ANW: I cannot remember having one single CTD or frozen game with 3.9.4 or the latest versions before. Maybe I was lucky.

If you are really interested in replicating CTD and other bugs, just follow the instructions and test files attached to AGSI's List of * Known Harpoon ANW Issues. Because, if they cannot be replicated, they should not belong on the list in the first place. Errors have happened in the past and been corrected usually within 30 minutes of discovery.

Just because a bug does not happen to you does not mean that it does not affect others (whether covertly or overtly).

For example, sailing a sub into an AI formation and summarily decimating the enemy units might make a player feel good, but the fact that the AI was unable to fire on you due to a major bug does not mean that your game or the player was unaffected.

ORIGINAL: koelbach

...as to guys grabbing your updates every week: Congratulations then; your work obviously has true followers. Hopefully that are no tests/checks for download rates, old wine in new bottles or something like that.

Unlike some Harpoon users, PlayersDB supporters do not care to track the IP addresses of those who download. If one person wants to download our Library collections 300 times in a row, that is their problem and not ours. I think that I can safely speak for the other PlayersDB contributors when I say that we are just happy that others find our work helpful and useful.

ORIGINAL: koelbach

So let´s wait for 3.10 and see if it´s good.

Absolutely. Every ANW patch starts with a clean slate. ANW always gets the benefit of the doubt. Every bug report is re-tested for accuracy and persistence. Only those problematic behaviours that can be substantiated are re-posted on the list of issues. Unfortunately, far too many old bug reports re-appear on Patch reviews because their problems have not been solved.

[Anonymous]

IP-tracking of downloads? Is there any sense in this? Strange.

Regarding bugs:
As I mentioned it may be perfectly possible that those bugs happen to others, of course. But I´ve seen no others reporting those typ of bugs here. Have you ruled out the possibility that it could be your hardware?

Anyway, back to work; after a longer break I´ve just got some more time for wargaming.

[hermanhum]

Rest assured, none of the multiple websites hosting and supporting the PlayersDB practices this level of intrusion or paranoia.

The person reporting the bugs is irrelevant.  The only matter of significance is that these bugs can be replicated by anyone who cares to try.

All I see are generic claims of, "It doesn't happen to me" (supposedly as some kind of evidence that ANW actually works).&nbsp; Testimonials like that are about as useful as a life-long smoker proclaiming that, [ol]"Smoking doesn't cause cancer and I'm proof of that. <cough><hack><wheeze>"[/ol]

[Anonymous]

I found the original text:

Voltaire:
“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Thanks for the advice regarding the scientific approach. [;)]

The one with the smoker is nice. I had known a few of those; not all are still around, at least above ground level.

[hermanhum]

It will be entertaining to see the results of your efforts at re-confirmation of the reports already independently verified.

[FreekS]

Heres my point of view (from the not always silent minority).

ANW does work and is fun to play. There are bugs and I've replicated many of the ones Herman reports, usually with several databases. Many of those bugs are real problematic but ANW often is playable with scens that avoid the worst bugs (like you"ll notice Ive not made any submarine vs SAG scens in a long time due to that particular bug). 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. CTDs are rare in solitaire.

Cheers

Freek

[Anonymous]

Hi Freek,

ORIGINAL: FreekS

Heres my point of view (from the not always silent minority).

Which is in fact the overwhelming majority. [:)]

ORIGINAL: FreekS
ANW does work and is fun to play. There are bugs and I've replicated many of the ones Herman reports, usually with several databases.

Ok, several databases. That´s important.

ORIGINAL: FreekS
Many of those bugs are real problematic but ANW often is playable with scens that avoid the worst bugs (like you"ll notice Ive not made any submarine vs SAG scens in a long time due to that particular bug).

We three have discussed that bugs years ago if I remember correctly. We agreed that it is critical. IIRC Agsi pointed out that the situation, where a subs lurks/creeps exactly in the PIM is unlikely and if the subs manages to achieve that attack position - then its homerun is logiclal/realistic.

That was a point without consens since we players agreed that no sub can eliminate a whole carrier task force by creeping through all defense rings.

Thus I can follow you that you´ve avoided writing this type of scens.

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?

ORIGINAL: FreekS
CTDs are rare in solitaire.

Ok, that my explain why many/most players don´t experience CTDs - they do not play MP.

Cheers

Freek
[/quote]

A well balanced statement, I think
Regards,
Ralf

[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

[hermanhum]

Thanks for confirming all the bugs across different databases and hardware systems. It has always been known that the problems lie with the software and not individual computers.

The fact that someone actually avoids any scenario involving a submarine just emphasizes how badly the game currently runs since this is modern warfare and most scenarios have at least one submarine unit included. If one player avoids ASW for bugs and another avoids AAW for bugs, there really is not much left to play.

I, too, prefer H3 for much the same reasons. It would be nice if ANW worked well enough and was sufficiently stable to play and write scenarios, but the fact that scenarios written in one ANW version simply do not work in latter ANW versions will prevent many authors from spending time creating them. I remember one new designer enjoying himself as he used v3.9.3 to write a scenario ( fb.asp?m=1932190 ) only to find that once it was published, v3.9.4 was released and it no longer worked. I have not seen him try to write any more scenarios and I do not blame him in the least.

There certainly were bugs in H3, too. However, they were known and the game was stable enough so that users could work around them. That is just not the case with ANW.

[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 fully understand your approach in all aspects. You can see in the forum that I tried to get info regarding HUD 3 and its development. If there is none, HUD 3 has no perspective and offers none for a scen designer. No way declining that simple truth.

Regards,
Ralf