With the added 5 gun calibres came the need to display their tracers differently and this is how they look now:





VonBeerhofen

Looks good to me VB..I never fly night missions I can't see anything,,, So how do they look at noon time ??

In these shots blue tracers are machineguns and green are canons:





VBH

Can't miss those maybe I can hit something with them

VBH , are there two or three colors per shot/tracer?

Is it white, yellow and caliber color?

Yes, the fixed tip colors fade into the actual tracer color. It helps in determining the bullet's path.

VBH

Interesting discussion.
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=12320

Thx Spitty, I also couldn't find the exact color descriptions used by each country, most forums I visited agreed on these differences but also noted that each calibre came with it's own color. One forum came up with a WWII document about the pyrotechnics in mixing chemicals to obtain certain colors and I think they'd be very simmilar to fireworks colors. Not going to try to mix those compounds myself to find out though,

VBH

Is that smoke out of the barrels? It looks like it. But its dark. I'll have to take EAWPRO for a spin and see if I see it.
I'll have to add that to my notes.

Yes, they're different for various aircraft as in v1.2. Can't remember if I added the fireball or if it was there already, I'm pretty sure I changed something.
Ofcourse the plane overtakes the fumes when it's flying as you can see in the last shot.

VBH

Some nice bit of film..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niJ82YCiuYU

Didn't have to turn up my volume to hear those guns, geez. Yeah, pretty big puffs of smoke too, Microprose got that right for sure.

VonBeerhofen

The different colors for different calibers makes great tactical sense, as far as the AA crews are concerned. Makes it easier to see where one's rounds are going in a welter of confusing AA fire. I suspect this is why such different colors were initially used.

That said, this advancement brings up a question I've always wondered about.
Is there some sort of forum or, perhaps depository of information, which game designers can consult for information pertinent to their various sims?

For example, and in a perfect world, VBH could have consulted such a site, obtained the correct caliber tracer colors for the various combatants in EAW, and factored that historically accurate info into his rendition right from the start? No doubt VBH will modify the colors to be historically correct, if possible. Might have saved him some valuable time had he been easily able to obtain such info at the beginning.

Another instance of where such an InfoBank would be useful is in MrJelly's depiction of a vehicle convoy. With the understanding that the depiction was an experiment, wouldn't it be very useful for a sim designer to have readily at hand pertinent info as to vehicle intervals under different environmental/tactical conditions? I'm sure that if MrJelly was to incorporate such a scenario into a version of his V1.60, he would modify the vehicle interval to be historically accurate, if at all possible.

It seems to me that such an INFO bank would have many uses, almost all of which would serve to greatly reduce the need for sim designers to constantly re-invent the wheel, so to speak. With historically accurate info readily to hand, all sorts of things in flight sims might be made far simpler. Or any historically-based sim, for that matter.

I don't insist on 100% historical accuracy. That is a goal that almost certainly cannot be achieved, for many reasons. However, I firmly believe it is an eminently worthwhile goal towards which to strive. I believe that progress towards this goal can best be achieved by ensuring the fundamentals--the small details, so to speak-- are investigated, and incorporated into the sims.

Imagine if some sim designer blundered when constructing his Flight Model (FM), and did not incorporate the Brit Spitfire's carburetor-induced cutting-out of the engine during neg-G maneuvers? Would change the entire game due to lack of historical accuracy. Simple mistake, but a far-reaching one.

Nothing in tis post should be construed as malevolent criticism of the abovementioned efforts. Quite the contrary, I applaud them. Just saying that ready access to correct, historically-based info would serve to both to inform and guide sim designers, to everyone's benefit.

Submitted for consideration.

In an ideal world it would be ideal.Unfortunately wading through the millions of bits of reference needed and making sure its correct.Ive found multiple stories for data on some "historical" points.A lot of German and Japanese stuff is still unknown.Even some P51 and Spitfire knowledge has been lost over the years..

The historical correctness regarding some of the finer points does not bother me at all. EAW is a game, and games are played for fun. Having different coloured tracers adds to the enjoyment.

In the old days I used to save scads of info on my HD but there's simply no point. There is a treasure trove of information out there on the 'net pertaining to WWII aircraft data.

For instance.

I just upgraded the He 177 to the 1.6 standard. There was some discussion about the configuration of the cockpit glass. The thing is, the Germans' were famous for not sticking with good designs that worked but instead fiddled around with relatively inconsequential design changes, much to the detriment of their manufacturing output. I found six or seven different designs and ended up picking the one that I though would be easiest to replicate.

I was able to do this by searching the 'net using the term "He 177 cockpit" and limiting the results to images only. Simply impossible without the internet.

I then had to fashion a flight model. A simple search of "He 177 flight data" turned up more info than I could ever use on this aircraft. Made setting up the flight model a 1 hour effort rather than pouring over books looking for the info..

Lastly I had to make new hangar screens for the three variants I built.. Again, a search for images using the term "He 177 A-1", "He 177 A3/R5", and "He 177 B" gave me a number of possibilities.

So my opinion is there's no need to centralize aircraft data for modders.

OTOH, a central repository of EAW info is an excellent idea.

I thought we already had one in Launchpad?

With all due respect, I believe your outlook on historical correctness is misguided. There is a right way to do things, and all other ways. If one knows the right way, and does not do so, then that is doing things incorrectly.

Again, not said as adverse criticism. I have the utmost respect for what you do, and create.

Granted, EAW is a mere Sim, but I would think adhering as closely as possible to known historical accuracy would be of benefit to all.

I would not like to think of some future person repairing a vintage car that I worked on, and cussing me out for not doing my work properly, and without my giving a thought to folks working on "my" cars decades later. Heaven knows I have cussed out people who mis-repaired "my" vintage cars and used wrong parts/methods whilst doing so. Many headaches needlessly caused when doing things the right way at the outset would have been so much simpler, and completely correct.

Half-measures, and willfully, knowingly, doing incorrect work are not how it is properly done in my field. I don't think it's proper in any field.

Perhaps I am being a bit harsh. After all, EAW is a Sim, and my doing a bad brake job on a vintage car could get someone killed,

I believe that one should do the best job possible, given current knowledge, materials, and tools. Is there any good reason for not doing so?

Again, not a slam. Just speaking my mind. And definitely no offense intended.

Sounds like Mark's EAW Help Site

I fully understand the bewildering nature of aircraft variants, especially with German aircraft, which were built in more-or-less :Batch mode, as opposed to true serial, mass-production mode. Probably one of the primary reasons they lost the race to build gear for their military, and so lost the war. Speer tried to rationalize German armaments production, but his efforts, while Herculean, were too late, and in many instances, bitterly contested.

RiBob,
You are a rivet counter. it can be a good thing.

Yes, there are many. EAW is a game and not a scientific simulation. This takes a long time for a rivet counter to lean. Man hours is the primary factor.
An opinion from a known rivet counter.

You have to weigh the cost and use of the vehicle in question. If the owner needs there 69 jag as a daily driver, time spent adding factory inspection paint is wasted time and cost.

VBH,
I am not sure about sub caliber but shells have the luminescent in the base of the shell. This prevents the tracing being seen for other directions but the rear.

One of the great strengths of EAW is that there are enough scenarios and aircraft available that it can be played as a full on historical sim OR in a myriad of "what-if" settings.

Very true.

I admit to a tendency to "rivet-count" as you put it, but I don't think I am as fanatical as some. I realize 100% true historical accuracy is a goal, but an almost impossible one to achieve.

That said, if getting it "right" involves a few hours of research, as opposed to dozens of hours, or more, then I seems to me that putting the little extra effort would be worthwhile. Opinions vary, naturally.

As far as bullet tracers go, and depending on the type of tracer and the ambient light, they can, indeed, be seen by the enemy (target), especially in dim light. The old saying is "Tracers work both ways".

This article on tracers might prove to be of interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracer_ammunition. Cannon shells found on aircraft may or may not exhibit the same properties as bullet tracers exhibit.

Note the section of the article where it discussed the deliberate non-use of tracers by Night-Fighters. This is an instance where the playability of the game would presumably be affected by the Night-Fighter pilot/gunner using/not using tracer bullets. I reckon the hit ratio would drop quite a bit without tracers, and most would want to use them.

Perhaps, for historical accuracy, the user might be able to toggle on/off tracer bullets when flying a Night fighter. To make it even more realistic--and fair--, the AI for the gunners in the target aircraft could have their aiming improved, or otherwise have their hit ratio increased if the night fighter uses tracers.

I will vouch that tracers can be seen from more than the rear. You can see them coming at you especially in low-light.

For sure OG I'll back that up from experience especially the green ones

An experience we share.

That's good to hear and exactly how the new tracers behave. They're less visible when they're coming headon but the bullets themselves were programmed to be illuminated by default in stock EAW and I kept that behaviour. It can easily be changed though. The tracers can be programmed to be behind a none luminous bullet, which means that you will not see the tracers at all when coming headon. Still the bullets have always been illuminated and my deteriorating eyesight needs them or I won't even hit a B17.

VonBeerhofen

An opinion from a known rivet counter.
If it did not read clearly, I was referring to myself.

I agree.

My comment was not about bullet (sub-caliber) tracers. Most of us have all seen video of AA and MG ammunition glowing, if not lived the experience..

Keep counting the rivets, but temper your expectations.

The effects detail setting has some interesting variations of rocket flare and tracer display, as well as being an essential bodge to fix contrail problems in some versions of the exe.

Hardly as much of a problem as the many bodged 3DZ models I've seen, and long solved and further improved,



VonBeerhofen

Well I must disagree. It appears to be a problem with your own exe and one of your own sprites when the special effects detail is set to "high" in your own public release.



The problem with the bodge is that by setting the special effects detail to a lower level may cut out other special effects such as rocket smoke, in the same way that the bodge cuts out contrails.
I can live with a slightly dodgy 3dz, (if I cannot find a replacement skin or TMod) but I could not live with contrails like that.

Yep such things happen when one's working hard to improve things, but as I said it was solved for Russ Watson long ago, since he's an important beta tester of EAWPRO. Without his help I might not even have been aware of the problem, which only happens in Glide mode..
The fix will be in the next release of EAWPRO but if you can't wait for it you can betatest what's been done sofar, at your own risk ofcourse.

VonBeerhofen

Happy to
I am away in Lyon with my laptop which has a nvidia card so, like Russ, I have to run in Glide to get horizon fog.
Turning the "effects detail" setting to "medium" or "low" simply stops the contrail from being displayed, which is not a complete solution.
Turning it to "low" also stops the rocket trail smoke from appearing.
My original post was made because I have been noting the effect of the different settings on tracer colour display in 160.

It's not the latest version as it's very likely incompattible with your version and the new release isn't finished yet, so instead I patched the version at Mark's website and gave it a test run. It'll have to do untill the next release.

The EXE is available here:

https://rabartel.home.xs4all.nl/EAWPRO_FIX.zip

just overwrite the old EXE and it should be fine,

VonBeerhofen

Comment about tracers. They have too long of a tail. Can the tail be reduced by about 75% ?

Much better

OG I will have a look at the code when we get back home mid-November. I might be able to do a variable length using an external file.

Anything is possible Old Grognard but this also depends on finding the right parameters to modify the tracer length and what the Launchpad group thinks about it. Possibly it can become a user selection by changing some value in the EAW.INI but I can't promise anything, it's just a hobby and consumes a lot of time already. I'll make a note of it and see what I can do.

VonBeerhofen

It is a small matter. I certainly put no demand on it, was just making an observation.

You all do marvelous work and I’m sorry if I sounded demanding.

Another look

Not every bullet is a tracer,



VonBeerhofen

It looks good VBH

Should be every 5 th round

Opinions on the number of tracers seem to be somewhat divided. Some mention 50%, others 20% and yet more others 10% average but pilots were free to deviate from these values. What you see are all weapons blazing with the Fw190A so in that respect it's pretty close. I think it's best to testdrive these bullets first and then if necessary adjust the count later. Ingame the tracers are more usefull for warning pilots that they're under fire then using tracers as a guide to hit the target.

It was described that because of an optical illusion tracers seemed to hit the target but in effect missed the target completely, hence more weight was put on using the gunsight instead of relying on tracer visibillity. A script can easily manipulate the count anyway.

VonBeerhofen

Ive heard pilots of loading full tracer for their last 30 rounds so they know they are getting ready to run out of ammo.

Same here. Have also heard of opposing pilots noticing this, and using "announced" ammo shortage of opponent to advantage. Seems to me would require a keen eye, but fighter pilots are supposed to have such. As said before, "Tracers work both ways".

An interesting point but at the moment I can't see a way to slip it in somewhere, maybe later.

VonBeerhofen

From a B17 Ball turret..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Po-cYCZ8KM

Just watched this vid concerning tracers, and it brings up some allied topics. First, the vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T97e7KlCK6Y

While visually pleasing, I'm not at all sure that tracers actually changed hue during flight, except perhaps during the last few seconds of their burning. In my personal experience, they burn with a single, constant hue and intensity until burn-out.
There are some other aspects of tracers to perhaps consider. For example, the above-linked vid shows what appear to be "Smoke Tracers", as well as the later, more conventional to us moderns, "Visible Tracers".

Note the "corkscrewing" of the bullets clearly visible in some of the smoke emitted by the bullet. This is a commonplace occurrence with most bullets, The "corkscrewing" is referred-to as the point in time before the bullet "goes to sleep", and assumes a linear path, subject to the laws of ballistics. Every rifle-shooter is familiar with this effect. The smoke effect would be relatively easy to reproduce compared to the constantly diminishing-at-distance "corkscrew" effect.

It's worth noting that the smoke seen in the videos is definitely emitted by the bullet itself, since smoke from the muzzle of the gun would be instantly blown backwards by the airstream; So, the smoke seen is emitted from the bullet itself, and not from the gun's muzzle. Bullets without deliberate provision for emitting smoke do not do so, so it is fair to claim that such bullets are examples of "Smoke Tracers", whose existence has been confirmed.

I believe the "Smoke Tracer" bullets were used in early war until replaced by what we call conventional, Visible Tracers. With that said, perhaps "Smoke Tracers" would be more historically correct for some aircraft during the early part of the war, with diminishing use after a certain point, that being when the improved Visible Tracers became available.

Note also that with no information as to gun camera lens focal length being available, no reliable information can be drawn from the images as to distance between aircraft. Ideally, the gun-camera footage would closely mimic what was seen by the pilot, and so gauging distance would be straightforward during review of the footage. There is no guarantee (as yet) that this practice was followed.

It is my belief (not definitive) that the types of .50 cal bullets available during WW II were: Ball (lead core, metallic clad), AP (Armor Piercing) , Tracer, API (Armor-Piercing, Incendiary), and APIT (Armor-Piercing, Incendiary, Tracer). Of course, there were blanks, dummy rounds, and so forth. The flashes seen when .50 cal bullets impact some hard surfaces, such as locomotives, might be due to API bullets, but that is simply a guess. Certainly the number of flashes seen hitting a single locomotive suggest that a lot of bullets in succession were displaying impact flashes, which argues against the billets being 1-in-5 tracers; rather it argues the bullets were all either APIs, or APITs. Common sense suggests that aircraft devoted to Rhubarbs (ground attack roles) would be armed with different ammo than high-altitude fighters, although plenty of fighters were ordered to expend unused ammo on ground targets on their way back to base. I understand that most fighter pilots hated this duty, as it exposed them to great risk from ground AA fire, in aircraft Ill-suited to withstand such.

While certainly appreciating the expertise devoted to creating this effect, I remain quite unsure of the historical accuracy of the "changing-hue" effect. OTOH, if most people like it, then who am I to argue? I understand there are times when historical accuracy can safely ride in the back seat, or even be cast overboard.

Allow me to assure all, that as resident newbie and rivet-counter, I do not insist on historical accuracy; I simply point out things as they happen to differ from historical accuracy. I mean no ill-intent toward VBH or anyone else, certainly.

There is nothing wrong with expressing an opinion.

I might add that if we're ever going to get back to normal exchanges around here we need to stop apologizing in advance for hurting anyone's feelings.

It's annoying and when repeated over and over again it makes the apology less sincere.

Rotton,
Is it curtisy to bow in some cultures, or extend a handshake before making conversation?

well said, but I think most are walking on egg shells when it comes to posting.
Joke:
Sorry that I offend you.

I'm sorry but I don't find it annoying in the least. People can say what they want without censory input, it's called freedom of speech. Some people just realise that they do not fully understand what's needed to make changes but are trying hard to give modders some worthwhile ideas. Appologising in advance for understanding their own lack of knowledge is perhaps not obligatory but not an uncommon thing to do. Some civilisations just do it more then others. It is far worse to step on other people's toes.

VonBeerhofen

A person showing Civility isn't a bad trait and asking questions at least starts a conversation that hopefully doesn't lead to an argument

I think everyone is trying to ensure that past issues aren’t resurrected in current posts. Everyone is sensitive to how easily a comment can be construed as an unintended slight. It may be a bit overdone but is preferable to being underdone. It is an overt attempt to avoid things going squirrelly. I expect it will throttle back a bit as we go along.

But I am heartened by the efforts everyone are making at keeping things kind and cooperative.

As someone who is not in a position to add valuable creative content to this forum, I find many of my comments to be of a questioning and often critical nature.

That being the case, it might be possible for someone to find my occasional comments offensive in some way, particularly after they have spent hours/days creating something. Few people enjoy having their painstaking work criticized, but some deal with it better than others, particularly when it is made explicit that the criticism(s) are not ill-intended, and historical info is added supporting my criticism(s).

I think it better to forestall such offense, rather to deal with it afterwards. YMMV, naturally.

Somewhat ironic that my attempt to prevent offense being taken at some of my remarks in itself gives offense. Damned if one does; damned if one doesn't comes to mind.

We've taken some baby steps towards repairing the damage done in here so I understand where you all are coming from but really, the preemptive apology thing is tiring and loses effectiveness the more it's used.

Our next step is to commit to the following:

- NO ONE should take offense at constructive criticism.

- NO ONE should make denigrating comments about other people's contributions.

- NO ONE should have ill will towards other members.

I agree to conform to the EAW forum Code of Conduct, explained here: http://SimHQ.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3183103/eaw-forum-members-please-read#Post3183103.

Really, that covers almost all of the problems that I've observed here.

As far as "preemptive apologizing" goes, I reserve the right to post in the manner in which I am most comfortable, as long as doing so falls within the limits prescribed by the CoC, linked above.

Submitted with best intentions.

Of course you have the right to post as you see fit. Contrary to the tone of your response, no one is advocating anything other than total freedom to say what you are thinking.

It's not unlike the 1st amendment to the US Constitution guaranteeing free speech. You are free to say what you will but you are not free from the consequences of saying it.

So, I have the right to point out that preemptive apologizing is counter productive to normal discourse and over time loses effectiveness.

And there you have it.

All three new rules hold up to their first challenge.

Let this thread be an example for all future threads.

I am somewhat surprised by the mention of the "...tone of your response..." quoted above. My response was stated in a respectful manner, and no "tone" was implied, let alone overtly stated.

While acknowledging the good-intent of your above-stated suggestions, I do not believe that anyone who is neither Site Admin nor Moderator has the right to proclaim new rules of conduct binding on us all. Any changes in the longstanding CoC should be debated amongst Site Admin and Mods, with, hopefully, some degree of Member input. The existing CoC would seem to cover almost all of the necessary points, and was available for the review of prospective Members before they joined this Forum. As such, the CoC can be considered a Official "public document" for this Forum, and as such, enforceable by Site Admin and/or Mods.

I will, as stated, adhere to the Official and Public CoC unless and until it is changed in such a way that I can no longer do so. The suggestions made above are, IMHO, well-intended, but superfluous.

Please no not impute any "tone" to my remarks, nor any ill-intent. Posted with all good intentions.

ETA: the Forum Code of Conduct was last updated on 19 JAN 2011, and is available here: http://SimHQ.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3183103/eaw-forum-members-please-read#Post3183103.

I have no idea what, if anything, existed as forum CoC prior to that point in time. May I suggest that all Members of this forum take a moment to read the EAW forum Code of Conduct? Some Members who joined the Forum prior to 19 JAN 2011 may not have read it all, since they were here prior to the CoC being published.

ETA 2: It appears that many veteran members here have signed the SEAWC Charter, which has some points within it pertaining directly to this thread, and CoC discussions in general. See the Charter, and signers here: http://www.thatoneplease.co/Tally-Ho/seawccharter.html. It would be fair to say that the SEAWC Charter includes language that holds the signatories thereto to a higher standard than that of the EAW forum Code of Conduct. May I suggest that all EAW forum members take a moment to read the SEAWC Charter, and also read the list of signatories?

ETA3: Site's overarching CoC: http://SimHQ.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/boardrules/v/1

Since the Charter, and the signatories thereto are public knowledge, including this information in this thread is reasonable, fair, and entirely relevant when discussing this Forum's Code of Conduct.

Submitted with no ill-intent.

Your "tone" is looking for an argument.

You will not get one.

I sincerely beg your pardon if I have made offense. Posting my opinions, bolstered by facts, was intended to be a basis for discussion, and definitely not intended to cause rancor.

Ok, let’s not argue about not arguing.

Rules will not be the cure-all. If everybody just endeavors to be kind and cooperative then things will be fine.

Generally rules are for those who want to argue about the exact wording and want to walk the line of being rude without breaking the exact wording of the rules.

Good behavior is self-evident and is what we should be trying for.



Let’s not argue about arguing.

Despite my best efforts to keep this conversation in an elevated, non-personal plane, I must say that the above-quoted remark by Mr Otten, immediately following my previous posts, cannot be construed as anything other than a personal attack. An indirect attack, but an attack nevertheless. Ray Charles can see that.

Given the context of the remarks, I believe I'm reasonable in my take on Mr Otten's latest comments. I think most reasonable people would agree.

I say this with regret, as I have nothing but respect for Mr Otten's contributions to this forum, and EAW, in general.

Never made a remark against him, personally, but I've disagreed with him on occasion. Always politely, and respectfully, on my part.

I believe the Forum's CoC should be observed, regardless of any member's status, be it high or low.

I'm sorry that this thread has descended to this level. Such was not my intent,.

ETA: I've asked the Forum Mod to intervene in this matter.

I refuse to be even indirectly insulted. There's no call for that. Despite my being a very junior member here, I, along with other new members, deserve a reasonable amount of respect for our comments, as long as such comments are respectfully made, and constructively made.

As for myself, I've seldom made a comment about other Member's contributions that was not a compliment. In the event that I felt comment was necessary, I have always provided historical information to buttress my occasionally critical comments. This was done in the hopes that such additional historical information would be of value to the Modders. Whether or not such info is useful is not the point. It is always up to the Modder whether or not to include such info, and no argument from me. Their creation; their call.

All this said--and my past remarks are easily searchable-- I have asked mod intervention, and with considerable regret.

Let me make this very clear: If I, a mere User can be attacked, it is only a matter of time until anyone can be attacked. First me, then you.

I await the Mod's decision.

I have sent another IM to the Forum Mod, asking for his further consideration.

Two pages of interesting technical details,two pages of squabbling.

Like oldgrognard, I applaud efforts to keep things civil.

It appears some things need to be pointed out...

Members control the content of their own posts. They do not get to control the content of posts made by other members. (If someone chooses to add explanations about their good intent, at the risk of eventually being perceived as [ fill in the blank], that is their business.) A member who is annoyed by the posting is free to skip the message, skip the thread, or even put the member whose posts annoy them on "ignore". [ and no, we don't need to have public announcements about who got put on "ignore".]

All of the threads are open to all of the SimHQ members. The member who made the original post in the thread does not get to exclude any other members from posting in it.

Both of the above are based, of course, on members keeping the content of their posts in accordance with SimHQ rules. Comity is preferred, and appreciated.

The EAW community has accomplished a remarkable thing in keeping the old sim alive and appreciated. Treasure that.

In my signature file below, you will see a green and a blue link. The tips in the blue link work for non-contentious threads, too.

Fair enough, and well-said.

Now, how would you respond if YOU were personally insulted?

It's not about me, it's about all of us that might be insulted.

It received moderator attention and Rotton50 was given notice that it wasn’t acceptable. Why not let it go at that. Continuing to pick at a wound delays it healing.

Since you publicly ask, and as I have previously said in private Messages to you, Mr Otten has, so far, gotten away with personally insulting another Member, with scant consequences.

I don't think that's just. I don't think that's fair. I don't think that's right.

I don't envy you, being a new Mod and all. This is a difficult decision only for your decision if you don't do what your innate sense of justice tells you to do.

Believe me, having been a Mod on Arfcom for the last 18 years, I know all about tough decisions, and some decisions ruffled the feathers of Site Admin.

I'm still there, because I was correct in my decisions. My fellow Mods helped a bit, I admit.

Your call on how you respond, and how you are respected for your decisions.

You do what you think is right, and never do anything else.

It isn’t good form to talk about content from PM’s.

Did not reveal contents of IMs to you, simply that such were sent. “... as I have previously said in private Messages to you, Mr Otten has, so far, gotten away with personally insulting another Member, with scant consequences.“


In my opinion, no boundaries crossed.

That IMs were sent was revealed in text of this thread a long time ago. It's no secret now.

Point is, how are YOU going to deal with the problem?

Ignoring it is the easy way out. Dealing with it directly and in accord with stated Site/Forum CoC might be a problem.

My suggestion: Do what you think is "Right", and stick up for yourself during internal discussions. Once again you are openly discussing PM’s. You confuse my not responding as weakness. You are wrong. And with that you can take a month vacation.

I know exactly how you feel, If you want to have self respect, and the respect of your peers, as well as others, do the right thing, and the consequences be damned.

I was going to tell you about my internet exploits. Wrong. You'll have to learn for yourself, cowboy. “Your whole point was that your were insulted. Do you see your hypocrisy ? I've made plenty of mistakes, but I've never hade a problem with admitting such. Perhaps my saving grace, so to speak.

I suggest sleeping on it, and making a decision in the morning.


1 month suspension and I’ll sleep on giving you a second month.

Didn’t need to sleep on it. You get a second month and now I’ll sleep on a third.

I regret that the whole membership had to see that.

And things were going so well.

Please continue.

Play the ball.not the player And yes many times..

LOL! thought there was more fun to read in PWEC.

Mod, do as you will with this.

RiBob,
Most of the problems in this forum were created by defending "friends". You are new to this forum or a shadow. Your user name has done nothing for EAW and we do not care what you have done on the internet..

OK, you did give honest opinion of mods. That should be respected and encouraged.

Ray and BVH have had a mod war (on going?). I wonder if you know both sides of that forum war? I am not the expert, but your name seems too new to be calling out a new admin in public.

wish you only good.

"it's a game"

VBH, Ray, tell me if I am wrong with my opinion.

Just to clear something up... oldgrognard is not a new moderator. He has been on staff here longer than I have, and I'm not new either.

Most of the problems usually arise when a single person can't get past his own ruthlessness....others they just want to "play games" in a conversation while another poster is being serous with the issues.
I apologize in advance if these statements shock you, because it is you.

RIBob has helped tremendously here for newbie EAW users in open forum and PM's (what nots) more than anyone else (except VBH) in a short order. He has provided me with valuable feedback for my EAW Help Site and I have re written tremendous amount of info on his thoughts. I have even partial on his comments re written and re organized the site with new pages and a main menu and search application. This and Russ and VBH. I may have forgot someone else that recently posted too.

Either way, out of the several times I asked for help and feedback about info on my site, I get nothing. Jel has provided some text that I was able to incorporate. The rest of the independent CodeGroup Versions info and details come from research and exhausting all available posts and bits of text and files etc I was able to receive. I still have much more work to do, again I don't expect to see CodeGroup to help (I will keep asking though for others sake, to help them).

No offense intended. I'm not defending my friends as I hardly know anyone... but I'm defiantly not a CodeGroup groupie. Two people set my "side" (as the codegroup members called it)

Anyway I like to point out how quickly some of you guys derail forum topics here at SimHQ EAW Forum.

Enjoy.

Responding to rwatson's post, that was deleted



I wrote this:
Yeah, maybe I didn't understand he attacked a moderator by the posts I've read above. Not sure what that was all about.
I guess that he got banned for it. Was there warning I don't know, I don't really see any.

Aw well. I been waiting to get banned a few times for speaking my mind too.
Maybe I did most of that at the member only Zeus forum,

Yeah EAW I have several versions and types of the game installed currently. Do I play, No, I test things out though now only. Because no joystick and the forum zapped my energy.
I been sick for a few months. (not looking for sympathy) . But hopefully in a few months I'll be better.

EDIT:
oh , have a Happy Thanksgiving Russ and VBH and you others that have this holiday.

Thanks Mark,,don'y believe they have that Holiday in Holland and all the best to you and yours..And hope you have a sppedy recovery and return to a healthy life..And also to all my friends here at HQ overeat over drink and enjoy the day and if you aren't in the U.S, use the day as an excuse to pig out,,and enjoy a good day

Get well soon, Mark.

Two members got cautioned. One stopped doing what he was cautioned over, the other one chose unwisely.

If you are referring to me, then I would like to apologize. I know I gave EAWMark a hard time when he first started his project.
I am sorry, I will try to keep my nose out of EAW.

No need to stay out of EAW. The past is just that; the past. Continued involvement is a good thing.

+1

I wouldn't want you out of EAW, not my wish at all.

only if if is constructive.

You ARE wrong.

There's no "mod war" between VBH and me.

I've never made a single comment about VBH's contributions.

That's not how I roll.

If I don't like something that another member presents, I keep my mouth shut.

OTOH, as you have pointed out, I am brutally honest when it comes to forum behavior and I stand by that. ( I apologize in advance for any angst this post might cause.)

Back to the real subject EAWPRO's multicolored tracers. These shots show the new routine in action with the moving ground targets:




Happy Thanksgiving to you all.

VonBeerhofen

That is very good effects. Looks right.

Is it poss to change what colour tracers are allocated to each calibre?

Cos there are some that are really hard to see???

Yes there is but it only works in the 1.6 exec line and we've all agreed to stay out of each other's sub-folders so you'll have to ask the question in either the main forum or the 1.6 sub-forum.

See you over there with instructions.

I'm responding in the 1.6 sub-forum.

This thread should go back to the EAWpro sub-forum.

Thanx😎👍

Don't know how he did it, but If you look closely, the "Multi" color effect is that the tracers use 3 colors each (rather than one)!

I'm not sure if the code groups Tracer effects use that many colors, I'm thinking they use one based on screen shots that I can remember seeing. I’ve been informed that they do.

In EAWPRO there's a color for the bullet, the ignition flare and the actual tracer, all seamlessly transitioning and anyone can edit the tracer colors without any .MPF's or any other program.
Here they're set to bright yellow,

VBH

Nice effect, VBH!

Can you tell me how to get this fx??? 😎😎

It's standard in the EAWPRO version at Mark EAW's helpsite:

https://eaw.neocities.org/fxexe-patches.html

VBH

Thanx will get over there cheers😎👌

Cheers for that but what I realy need to find out is how do I change
Tracer colours bullit etc, any info would be great cheers😎