#3801656 - 06/26/13 05:49 AM
GWUT modification
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 89
Magitek
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 89
|
It has been bought to my attention that the current GWUT file provided with 1.15 suffers from several defects and I'm now trying to investigate. Feel free to add to the list, if it is related to unit/weapon/etc statistics! in the original one, V1.4 (I think, the first factory update) and then V1.9, you called in artillery support and if the map had any surface frigates, they will fire at the ground targets from a long way off.
V.1.14 and V1.15 hardly ever does that anymore.
Furthermore, EVERY TIME I have requested artillery support in both versions, Ground Control tell me negative, not available or negative, shifting position.
Those frigates are sitting there off the coast doing nothing (and by the way, they'd hardly react now when enemy choppers and fixed wings are attacking them - even after being hit by the first missile/rocket, they remain passive).
Then there are the cluster of armor sitting on the map.
Once again, in in the previous versions up to V.1.9, I will see the tanks and even the BDRMs and IFV firing at other ground targets near their position.
Now they don't do that anymore.
Maybe if someone has the time, can these be fixed?
To my understanding, the following were not issues in earlier versions of EECH: Ground forces in EECH could fire at each other on regular basis. Are they still able to do this? Nearby artillery was often able to provide support. Does anyone have success with this? Warships were able to provide long range fire support and defend themselves from attack better. Does anyone have success with these? Can anyone positively identify that versions 1.9 or below had more active ground forces, and more successful requests? My belief is that these are GWUT issues related to weapon/scan ranges. When exactly they started happening I don't know, if you have any experiences with these issues, or have issues similar to the above, post in the thread. Is there an official way to edit the GWUT at this time? OpenOffice just makes a mess of delimiters on empty categories. The GWUT 1.40 editor is out of date and fills categories incorrectly. I've also been sent the source code for Gotcha's GWUT editor, so I'm just working on getting it working with the newer GWUT files so that it's easier to edit them. Did you make any progress on this, messyhead? If you are working with it I'll leave the GWUT files alone for awhile longer, since I don't enjoy manual text entry! http://eechcentral.simhq.com/index.php?title=List_of_WUT_filesDoes anyone know if there a list of actual GWUT changes somewhere? This is horribly outdated and incomplete. I'm not sure the repository will help as it looks mismatched anyway. I'm not sure I even want to edit the GWUT if I just end up re-introducing problems from older GWUTs.
|
|
#3801661 - 06/26/13 06:07 AM
Re: GWUT modification
[Re: Magitek]
|
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,604
ColJamesD
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,604
USA
|
Ground forces in EECH could fire at each other on regular basis. Are they still able to do this?
NO, Not since V1.9 from what I am able to gather.
Nearby artillery was often able to provide support. Does anyone have success with this?
NO, Not since V1.9 from what I am able to gather.
Warships were able to provide long range fire support and defend themselves from attack better. Does anyone have success with these?
NO, Not since V1.9 from what I am able to gather. I have attacked an entire carrier group and only after they are burning and a few more hits from sinking do I get the "Warship! 12 O'clock", etc etc and one of the gun on a carrier or frigate will take a few shots at me.
Can anyone positively identify that versions 1.9 or below had more active ground forces, and more successful requests?
I can.
I still play 1.9 and sure 1.14 and 1.15 has graphical improvements and other tweaks, but 1.9 has more artillery and airstrike and warship support and ground units engaging each others.
I kind of miss the days I would be hovering NOE at 3-4 KM from an enemy airbase and I request an airstrike and I sit there and watch A-10 or SU-25 fly in and take out the SAMS and other armors.
Now it seems that fixed aircraft go after passive ground targets first: aircraft and choppers sitting on the tarmac and single aircraft tarmacs.
One thing I didn't like about V.15 is the ground radar and air radar range has been extended yet the range of a Hellfire, Stinger, Vikhr, Igla, Schturm, etc are the same or just a tad longer.
By having the ground and air radar seeing farther, you are just announcing your presence to the enemy sooner.
Another thing I found in V1.14 and V1.15:
choppers attacking targets from a hidden position but there rockets and missiles keep hitting the building or ground (usually a raised part of the ground or a slope) or structure (like a bridge) in front of them and not hitting their targets.
They fire rapidly, one rocket/missile after another - then they run out of ordnance and spent the rest of the time in an infinite loop of circling the targets and saying "Eight Ball 1-1 Seeking Firing Position".
They fly around aimlessly going from one position to another to another.
The only way to stop it is to take control of the lead flight and lead the entire flight away from the target area so when you exit the mission, they won't go back and re-target those units.
(or you can use the cheat code to re-arm in mid air and take control and attack those targets).
What's in the box? C'mon, what's in the boooox?
|
|
#3801665 - 06/26/13 06:27 AM
Re: GWUT modification
[Re: ColJamesD]
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 89
Magitek
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 89
|
I kind of miss the days I would be hovering NOE at 3-4 KM from an enemy airbase and I request an airstrike and I sit there and watch A-10 or SU-25 fly in and take out the SAMS and other armors.
Now it seems that fixed aircraft go after passive ground targets first: aircraft and choppers sitting on the tarmac and single aircraft tarmacs.
Wonder how this change came about? At this rate I'm going to have to install V1.9 to investigate myself.. but I'm really trying to avoid it. edit: A guess on this one, perhaps the air/ground threat ratios have changed to favor planes attacking helicopters, rather than ground units. One thing I didn't like about V.15 is the ground radar and air radar range has been extended yet the range of a Hellfire, Stinger, Vikhr, Igla, Schturm, etc are the same or just a tad longer. By having the ground and air radar seeing farther, you are just announcing your presence to the enemy sooner.
In regards to this change, I'm sure it was realism related, to which someone here might be able to testify. Isn't the ground radar capable of having their cones pointed downward so as to avoid early detection? It's possible the cone angle is too large/or pointed up, exposing you where it shouldn't. With that all said, I had already counted your input and was looking for other opinions.. but it sounds like you are pretty sure of the differences between 1.9 and 1.1x. The problem is, identifying what exactly changes to cause these effects after 1.9, and if there were any reasons for them?
Last edited by Magitek; 06/26/13 07:08 AM.
|
|
#3801667 - 06/26/13 06:37 AM
Re: GWUT modification
[Re: ColJamesD]
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 89
Magitek
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 89
|
Another thing I found in V1.14 and V1.15:
choppers attacking targets from a hidden position but there rockets and missiles keep hitting the building or ground (usually a raised part of the ground or a slope) or structure (like a bridge) in front of them and not hitting their targets.
They fire rapidly, one rocket/missile after another - then they run out of ordnance and spent the rest of the time in an infinite loop of circling the targets and saying "Eight Ball 1-1 Seeking Firing Position".
They fly around aimlessly going from one position to another to another.
The only way to stop it is to take control of the lead flight and lead the entire flight away from the target area so when you exit the mission, they won't go back and re-target those units.
(or you can use the cheat code to re-arm in mid air and take control and attack those targets). This one is not related to the GWUT I don't think, but a trajectory prediction issue I guess, possibly followed by them failing to get cannon line of sight, or just not caring about ammo levels and failing to shoot. It is most likely a complicated issue, and I am not willing to tackle it yet. Unless you are saying it is 1.15 specific and can never occur in 1.9, then fixing it may be possible to some degree.. if I can identify what has changed that is.
|
|
#3801695 - 06/26/13 08:50 AM
Re: GWUT modification
[Re: Magitek]
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,883
messyhead
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,883
|
Did you make any progress on this, messyhead? If you are working with it I'll leave the GWUT files alone for awhile longer, since I don't enjoy manual text entry! In a word, No. I tried getting it to compile, but Gotcha used some csv plugin that was part of the tool he used, which wasn't free and is outdated now. So I couldn't get it fixed. I did plan on re-making a new one in Ruby as I'm learning it, and making it online. But I've not had time to start on it. I've got the code that gotcha sent me, which included some of the older GWUT files so you can see what was changed. If you send me your email, I'll forward it to you. On a related note, IntejjiJ has a nice editor for CSV. I'm using it for some Ruby, and when you open a csv, there's a tab that sorts the data into a nice grid for you. As far as old changes go, if you use Google to do a site search of this forum, you can dig up old threads that have been archived. I found quite a few old threads about previous builds and bugs. Also, if you look at Arneh's or Firebird's posts (through their profile view) from a while back, you can find old posts that they participated in on changes made to the code.
|
|
#3801697 - 06/26/13 09:09 AM
Re: GWUT modification
[Re: ColJamesD]
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 89
Magitek
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 89
|
By having the ground and air radar seeing farther, you are just announcing your presence to the enemy sooner.
Just a quick note on this, do you specifically mean the AI here? because by using the numpad you can reduce the range of your radars, which I assume lessens the range you announce.
|
|
#3801700 - 06/26/13 09:19 AM
Re: GWUT modification
[Re: Magitek]
|
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,604
ColJamesD
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,604
USA
|
By having the ground and air radar seeing farther, you are just announcing your presence to the enemy sooner.
Just a quick note on this, do you specifically mean the AI here? because by using the numpad you can reduce the range of your radars, which I assume lessens the range you announce. Yes, I mean the enemy A.I. on the ground and in the air. Why announce your presence from so far away when your weapons are still beyond max range?
|
|
#3801707 - 06/26/13 09:40 AM
Re: GWUT modification
[Re: ColJamesD]
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 89
Magitek
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 89
|
By having the ground and air radar seeing farther, you are just announcing your presence to the enemy sooner.
Just a quick note on this, do you specifically mean the AI here? because by using the numpad you can reduce the range of your radars, which I assume lessens the range you announce. Yes, I mean the enemy A.I. on the ground and in the air. Why announce your presence from so far away when your weapons are still beyond max range? Are you proposing radar ranges be reduced for everyone, or that the AI should avoid over-extending its radar when unnecessary?
|
|
#3801713 - 06/26/13 09:53 AM
Re: GWUT modification
[Re: Magitek]
|
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,604
ColJamesD
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,604
USA
|
I am not really proposing anything.
I am just saying that extending the ground and air radar range in V1.15 was unrealistic since your missiles and rockets can't hit that far.
What's in the box? C'mon, what's in the boooox?
|
|
#3802094 - 06/27/13 06:51 AM
Re: GWUT modification
[Re: Magitek]
|
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,604
ColJamesD
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,604
USA
|
The supply planes were on supply missions and the jets were on different missions: CAS, SEAD, OCA Sweep, etc etc
That doesn't make sense to me because by the time the escort flight is half way to the target area, the jets are already on their way back.
How can something flying slower escort something flying faster than they are?
I think choppers should only escort other choppers on Supply, Insertion, Repair and Combat missions.
Of course, I have never served in the Air Force or in the U.S. Army Air Cavalry so I don't know how things really work.
Do choppers really get escort missions to escort jets and supply planes?
What's in the box? C'mon, what's in the boooox?
|
|
#3802097 - 06/27/13 06:57 AM
Re: GWUT modification
[Re: ColJamesD]
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,883
messyhead
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,883
|
The supply planes were on supply missions and the jets were on different missions: CAS, SEAD, OCA Sweep, etc etc
That doesn't make sense to me because by the time the escort flight is half way to the target area, the jets are already on their way back.
How can something flying slower escort something flying faster than they are?
I think choppers should only escort other choppers on Supply, Insertion, Repair and Combat missions.
Of course, I have never served in the Air Force or in the U.S. Army Air Cavalry so I don't know how things really work.
Do choppers really get escort missions to escort jets and supply planes? What if there were air defences on the supply planes route. The helos could be tasked with clearing those so that the supply doesn't get attacked. It might make more sense for a helo flying NOE to take out air defences.
|
|
#3802101 - 06/27/13 07:10 AM
Re: GWUT modification
[Re: messyhead]
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 89
Magitek
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 89
|
What if there were air defences on the supply planes route. The helos could be tasked with clearing those so that the supply doesn't get attacked. It might make more sense for a helo flying NOE to take out air defences.
While I agree this might be tasked in real life, I don't think EECH works properly for this kind of task.
|
|
#3812609 - 07/21/13 11:35 PM
Re: GWUT modification
[Re: Magitek]
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 150
SimonAlonso
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 150
spain
|
Magitec, did you test de gwut who Civilian made a litle time ago? I think is very interesting, but is not completly finished. Here have you got a link: http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3734814/REL_GWUT_file_final_version_17#Post3734814I want to thank your job and your direction job. There are some people working on very good cockpits and graphical improvements so is very important you work in this way increasing the difficulty level and the interactivity between ground, air, and see units. You make this game explosive. Thank you very much. ColJamesD, how can I to test V1.9? It sounds very good. Thank you.
|
|
#3812675 - 07/22/13 05:34 AM
Re: GWUT modification
[Re: SimonAlonso]
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 89
Magitek
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 89
|
Magitec, did you test de gwut who Civilian made a litle time ago? I think is very interesting, but is not completly finished. Here have you got a link: http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3734814/REL_GWUT_file_final_version_17#Post3734814I want to thank your job and your direction job. There are some people working on very good cockpits and graphical improvements so is very important you work in this way increasing the difficulty level and the interactivity between ground, air, and see units. You make this game explosive. Thank you very much. Thank you. I haven't had time to tackle the huge task of rebalancing the GWUT file, I am factoring in his changes, but honestly haven't managed to find time to even fly with his GWUT.. It seems like you had quite a bit of experience with this GWUT, could explain everything that was right and wrong with it? I or someone else may be able to get it fully functional. I have to express I am more interested in what ColJamesD mentioned about V1.9 however; but we could possibly splice these two GWUT files for the best result.
|
|
#3812789 - 07/22/13 01:40 PM
Re: GWUT modification
[Re: Magitek]
|
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,604
ColJamesD
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,604
USA
|
What did I say about V1.9?
I forgot.
What's in the box? C'mon, what's in the boooox?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exodus
by RedOneAlpha. 04/18/24 05:46 PM
|
|