Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 2 1 2
#3813191 - 07/23/13 04:24 AM Re: GWUT modification [Re: SimonAlonso]  
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 89
Magitek Offline
Junior Member
Magitek  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 89
Originally Posted By: SimonAlonso
In both sides had been increased the ranges for SAMs and his intensity.
The Apache and the Hokum had been increased his radar ranges.

In few words you can't take out ground units as easy than before. With this gwut you need to fly very low altitude using cover, reading the topography so is much more difficult, realistic, fun and addictive ( for me ).
One mission you used to finish in few minutes now you need hours. You reality need to fly very well a helicopter.

With the current gwut 1140 you can fly high altitude and to take out all the ground units without any problem.
My 5 years old soon can do it.
I think you can't stay 3 or 4 km near of a chaparral and high altitude and he doesn't do nothing. Don't you?


The helos had a hard behavier ...a Mi-24 Hind launch at me several misiles or guided rockets more than 7 km.

Sorry but my English isn't good, for me is difficult to tell you all the things.
I think is more easy and fast to test this gwut. You don't need too much time to see the difference, it's worth it.

The problem is that isn't completely finished or have some little mistake. ( The rockets in the Mi-24 Hind doesn't run properly ) this is the only one mistake I found.

Than you very much for your time. I hope not to bother you.



Thanks for the explanation of the GWUT. While I can find time to give it a test run, I don't have the experience with this GWUT to tweak it correctly.

As for the chaparral example, it really depends what YEAR you want to simulate.. and I'm not really sure what year EECH is supposed to take place in anymore, but I believe it is somewhere in the eighties.

[Chapparel]
GWUT from gotchas editor (presumably quite old):

Max range 5km
Effective 3.5km
Airscan height 3km
Airscan range 5km
Airscan floor 10m

1.15 GWUT:

Max range 6.2km
Effective 3.5km
Airscan height 6km
Airscan range 6km
Airscan floor 10m

Civilians GWUT:

Max range 9km
Effective 5.5km
Airscan height 4km
Airscan range 9km
Airscan floor 25m

Civilians GWUT seems outside of historic ranges here, but I believe he was aiming for a more modern day conflict.

[Hind]

GWUT from gotchas editor:
Airscan range 3km
Surface scan range 4km

1.15 GWUT:
Airscan range 5km
Surface scan range 4km

Civilians GWUT:
Airscan range 5km
Surface scan range 4km
(are you sure it was a hind that hit you?)

[Alligator]

GWUT from gotchas editor:
Airscan range 3km
Surface scan range 4km

1.15 GWUT:
Airscan range 5km
Surface scan range 4km

Civilians GWUT:
Airscan range 5km
Surface scan range 12km!

I'm still at a loss as to what to do with the GWUT at this point.

#3813227 - 07/23/13 06:57 AM Re: GWUT modification [Re: Magitek]  
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,738
messyhead Offline
messyhead  Offline

Member

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,738
I think the problem is that as EECH can now be modded, we get a lot of modifications of people's own opinions on what should be there. So the era that game was originally set in has been lost. However, the Comanche and Hokum never actually entered service, so in that respect the era was wrong anyway.

There doesn't seem to be any control now over what gets into the game, if one person has put in a lot of effort on something, then it is taken into the next build. But in the 1.15 update, there were a lot of untested additions that caused defects.

In my view, I don't think the game should be brought up to date in terms of weapon ranges and weapons available (so no AH64E for example). The 'core' of the vehicles in the game should remain as they were, and only improvements added to make the game more realistic to play. If the ranges of the weapons and vehicles were inaccurate to start with, then they should be corrected.

#3813229 - 07/23/13 07:10 AM Re: GWUT modification [Re: Magitek]  
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 172
Doctor_Wibble Offline
Member
Doctor_Wibble  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 172
Originally Posted By: Magitek
... and I'm not really sure what year EECH is supposed to take place in anymore, but I believe it is somewhere in the eighties.

I had always been under the impression that it was a mix of eighties and nineties, though that isn't based on anything that might be mistaken for actual knowledge or expertise.

Quote:
I'm still at a loss as to what to do with the GWUT at this point.

I just had to remind myself what I had said about the version that civilian produced - on reflection, there was a mix of plus and minus points, and the right balance could have been reached if there hadn't been a flounce:
* a whole stack of fixes relating to weapon accuracy
* the 'difficulty' level needed to be taken into account
* extended radar ranges having a significant impact on how scenarios played out
* other stuff as per the thread but ignore that rant someone posted

I think the need for balance and playability does place particular (and sometimes indirect) limits on just how far the technical accuracy can go before we have to start redesigning all of the campaign maps.

#3813237 - 07/23/13 08:22 AM Re: GWUT modification [Re: ColJamesD]  
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 89
Magitek Offline
Junior Member
Magitek  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 89
Originally Posted By: ColJamesD
What did I say about V1.9?

I forgot.

You said front line forces would engage each other, and that artillery/ships were actually useful.

Can you confirm what GWUT 1.9 is using? is it GWUT190.csv?

#3813472 - 07/23/13 06:21 PM Re: GWUT modification [Re: Magitek]  
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,604
ColJamesD Offline
Senior Member
ColJamesD  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,604
USA
Originally Posted By: Magitek
Originally Posted By: ColJamesD
What did I say about V1.9?

I forgot.

You said front line forces would engage each other, and that artillery/ships were actually useful.

Can you confirm what GWUT 1.9 is using? is it GWUT190.csv?



I can't answer the question on the GWUT because I no longer have V1.9 on my PC.

When I got this new computer about 2 months ago, I only installed EECH with 1.15.

On my old Pentium 4, I actually had 4 copies of EECH on it: 1.4, 1.9, 1.14, 1.15.

But yes, the artillery (including ships) would actually fire on your target when you call in an artillery strike.

When you called in an airstrike, you will actually see air assets being diverted to your target.

Not like in 1.15 where 9/10 times is negative, no aircrafts available or all artillery committed somewhere else.

Also the ground units would actually engage each other:

I've seen tanks and IFV firing at other ground units and also ships firing at ground units.

I am currently uploading the entire V1.9 MOD (547 MB) and it will be ready for download in about 2 hrs.

#3813740 - 07/24/13 11:53 AM Re: GWUT modification [Re: Doctor_Wibble]  
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,801
Heretic Offline
Member
Heretic  Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,801
GER
Originally Posted By: Doctor_Wibble
I had always been under the impression that it was a mix of eighties and nineties, though that isn't based on anything that might be mistaken for actual knowledge or expertise.


Mid to late 90s. While lots of the military hardware in EECH might be even older (or simply timeless, like the AK-74 and SA-7 equipped infantry), the Comanche and Hokum wouldn't simply fit into a 1980s scenario.

The stock campaigns reflect this. They're limited in nature, just like any war you've had in the 90s (Chechnya, Jugoslavia, Iraq). In a 1980s sim, you just wouldn't be able to do without a "Fulda Gap" campaign or similar.

#3833123 - 09/07/13 01:03 AM Re: GWUT modification [Re: Magitek]  
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 5
super_seagull Offline
Junior Member
super_seagull  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 5
Hi everyone. I don't usually post on forums but I just had to create an account to post a comment on this because this issue has bothered me alot. It is the reason I stopped playing EECH.

I hope this issue gets fixed some time in the future, because EECH seems like a game with a lot of potential. I have yet to see a game that did the dynamic battlefield as well as EECH did before the ground vehicles and artillery broke. As it stands, however, the complete irrelevance of ground forces ruins the atmosphere too much for me.

It just doesn't feel right knowing that the only reason those tank columns and artillery pieces are driving out onto the "battlefield" is to be shot at by helicopters and aircraft, since they serve no other purpose at the moment. It makes CAS missions pointless, as it's not like those enemy tanks are capable of shooting anyways. It also affects the pace of the dynamic campaign as when ground forces encounter each other they just get stuck staring at each other until some aircraft or attack helicopter flight comes and blows them all up.

I've spent a lot of time fidding with the GWUT files. I've noticed that the projectile speeds have been greatly increased from the vanilla game, so I thought maybe that was preventing tanks from firing indirectly at each other (since they rarely have LOS to other ground forces, being confined to the roads). It had no effect though, so I think this may be a problem with the source code itself. I don't know if the GWUT could be responsible for aircraft/helos refusing to provide support either, so someone might have to look at how the source code has changed since 1.9 to figure this one out.

I guess I could go back to playing 1.9, in fact I'm kind of excited to see what a working dynamic campaign is like. The download link in the other thread is broken though. In fact someone might want to put a download link and instructions for 1.9 up on EECH Central so that new players don't go through the same disappointment I did.

Anyways, don't take this too harshly. I just wanted to point out that at least for some people like myself this is a big problem.

Last edited by super_seagull; 09/07/13 01:04 AM.
#3833226 - 09/07/13 09:21 AM Re: GWUT modification [Re: Magitek]  
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,604
ColJamesD Offline
Senior Member
ColJamesD  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,604
USA
@seagull:

I did post 1.9 here but the filehost HugeFiles has removed it:

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3813512/1/EECH_V1_9_0_EXE_here

Look to see if it's in here:

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/2279450/1


What's in the box? C'mon, what's in the boooox?
#3834949 - 09/10/13 08:29 PM Re: GWUT modification [Re: Magitek]  
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,604
ColJamesD Offline
Senior Member
ColJamesD  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,604
USA
Okay, I reposted V.1.9 again:

http://opxo3k.1fichier.com/en/


What's in the box? C'mon, what's in the boooox?
#3835241 - 09/11/13 07:37 AM Re: GWUT modification [Re: ColJamesD]  
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,738
messyhead Offline
messyhead  Offline

Member

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,738
Originally Posted By: ColJamesD
Okay, I reposted V.1.9 again:

http://opxo3k.1fichier.com/en/


I'll try and download this later, and see if GUOD can add it to the SimHQ downloads section.

#3835484 - 09/11/13 07:31 PM Re: GWUT modification [Re: Magitek]  
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 5
super_seagull Offline
Junior Member
super_seagull  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 5
Thanks ColJamesD, I appreciate it.

Edit:
Damnit, it seems like gog.com's version comes with 1.11 by default, and installing 1.9 over a fresh install breaks all of the graphics - when I start a mission or free flight all I see is a sky blue screen.

Last edited by super_seagull; 09/11/13 09:07 PM. Reason: Didn't work
#3835584 - 09/11/13 10:36 PM Re: GWUT modification [Re: Magitek]  
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 317
LazerPotatoe Offline
Member
LazerPotatoe  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 317
Toronto, Canada


Q I only see the blue sky and the HUD.
A Be sure to install the 1.4.1C patch. (readme).

EECH Central Troubleshooting FAQ

#4551356 - 01/08/21 02:31 PM Re: GWUT modification [Re: Magitek]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,014
Reticuli Online tunes
Member
Reticuli  Online Tunes
Member

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,014
Dayton, OH, USA
So how is the GWUT deciphered now?

Has the ship and artillery shots issue been resolved?

Why is the community supporting new mod versions that are dropping old mods, like the GWUT editor or any of Arneh's cockpits? Shouldn't continuity be preserved and new versions that don't do this be like non-canon or something?


The term "necroposting" was invented by a person with no social memory beyond a year. People with a similar hangup are those o.k. with the internet being transient vapor.

http://www.openfuelstandard.org/2011/12/methanol-wins-open-wager.html

Saitek X65 and X52, Glide, Winx3D, and GlovePIE Profiles http://library.avsim.net/search.php?SearchTerm=reticuli&CatID=miscmisc

http://library.avsim.net/register.php

X52 + Silicone Grease = JOY stick
#4551388 - 01/08/21 04:33 PM Re: GWUT modification [Re: Reticuli]  
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,738
messyhead Offline
messyhead  Offline

Member

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,738
Originally Posted by Reticuli
Why is the community supporting new mod versions that are dropping old mods, like the GWUT editor or any of Arneh's cockpits? Shouldn't continuity be preserved and new versions that don't do this be like non-canon or something?


There's no community of modders, just individual modders, who do and release what they want. There's no consensus on what's released. The GWUT editor wasn't dropped, it was never part of the source code. And Arneh's cockpits were never finished and released.

#4551390 - 01/08/21 04:40 PM Re: GWUT modification [Re: Magitek]  
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 289
Javelin Offline
Member
Javelin  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 289
Idaho Falls, Idaho USA
The old versions of GWUT have a header at the top that describes what each column contains. I just look at that.

#4551481 - 01/09/21 06:51 AM Re: GWUT modification [Re: Javelin]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,014
Reticuli Online tunes
Member
Reticuli  Online Tunes
Member

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,014
Dayton, OH, USA
Is there a legend or header or something for the new GWUT?


The term "necroposting" was invented by a person with no social memory beyond a year. People with a similar hangup are those o.k. with the internet being transient vapor.

http://www.openfuelstandard.org/2011/12/methanol-wins-open-wager.html

Saitek X65 and X52, Glide, Winx3D, and GlovePIE Profiles http://library.avsim.net/search.php?SearchTerm=reticuli&CatID=miscmisc

http://library.avsim.net/register.php

X52 + Silicone Grease = JOY stick
#4551545 - 01/09/21 07:31 PM Re: GWUT modification [Re: Magitek]  
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 289
Javelin Offline
Member
Javelin  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 289
Idaho Falls, Idaho USA
No, you have to get a really old version of GWUT and look at the headers on the pages in the spreadsheet. The columns are the same.

You can probably add the headers to a working version of the spreadsheet, save it, then save a separate version without the headers for use in the Game.

Last edited by Javelin; 01/09/21 07:32 PM.
Page 2 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  messyhead, RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
The bank robber
by Bill_Grant. 03/03/21 09:14 PM
Boca Chica Shiny Express...
by Nixer. 03/03/21 05:53 PM
Where are you from? test
by NoFlyBoy. 02/28/21 03:51 AM
British Army cooks 1960
by PanzerMeyer. 02/28/21 12:47 AM
Join me my brothers and sisters.
by NoFlyBoy. 02/26/21 02:34 PM
The Battle of Verdun Lego style
by PanzerMeyer. 02/25/21 07:53 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0