homepage

GWUT modification

Posted By: Magitek

GWUT modification - 06/26/13 05:49 AM

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!

Originally Posted By: ColJamesD

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 The GWUT 1.40 editor is out of date and fills categories incorrectly.
Originally Posted By: messyhead
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_files
Does 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.
Posted By: ColJamesD

Re: GWUT modification - 06/26/13 06:07 AM

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).
Posted By: Magitek

Re: GWUT modification - 06/26/13 06:27 AM

Originally Posted By: ColJamesD

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.

Originally Posted By: ColJamesD

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?


Posted By: Magitek

Re: GWUT modification - 06/26/13 06:37 AM

Originally Posted By: ColJamesD
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.
Posted By: messyhead

Re: GWUT modification - 06/26/13 08:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Magitek
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.
Posted By: Magitek

Re: GWUT modification - 06/26/13 09:09 AM

Originally Posted By: ColJamesD

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.
Posted By: ColJamesD

Re: GWUT modification - 06/26/13 09:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Magitek
Originally Posted By: ColJamesD

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?
Posted By: Magitek

Re: GWUT modification - 06/26/13 09:40 AM

Originally Posted By: ColJamesD
Originally Posted By: Magitek
Originally Posted By: ColJamesD

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?
Posted By: ColJamesD

Re: GWUT modification - 06/26/13 09:53 AM

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.
Posted By: kaboom

Re: GWUT modification - 06/26/13 06:17 PM

IRL your RADAR always has more range than your weapons so you can plan your attack. IRL your RADAR is picked up by RWR VERY far beyond the range you see on your scope, once that pulse goes out it keeps going till it hits something or disperses and becomes too weak to pick-up and that is a LONG LONG ways off.
Posted By: Magitek

Re: GWUT modification - 06/27/13 06:24 AM

ColJamesD, earlier you reported that there were helicopters assigned to escort supply planes and jets.
Do you recall more specifics about this?
i.e what mission the jet craft were on?

I believe changing the GWUT supply escort speed will rectify the issue, but this would mean absolutely no helicopter escort missions for supply, including escorting helicopter supply missions.
Posted By: Magitek

Re: GWUT modification - 06/27/13 06:35 AM

Okay, rather than changing the GWUT, I have modified task escort logic to never pick a slower escort than the group requesting said escort. Effectively this means helicopters can no longer escort any planes, even the slower variety, heavy-lifters.

Can anyone think of a situation where a slower escort is required for a faster unit?
Was it mission-worthy to escort a Heavy-Lift transport plane in the comanche or similar? or was the comanche too slow still?
If it was viable, then it is an exception I can make in the logic for it.
Posted By: ColJamesD

Re: GWUT modification - 06/27/13 06:51 AM

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?
Posted By: messyhead

Re: GWUT modification - 06/27/13 06:57 AM

Originally Posted By: ColJamesD
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.
Posted By: Magitek

Re: GWUT modification - 06/27/13 07:10 AM

Originally Posted By: messyhead

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.
Posted By: Magitek

Re: GWUT modification - 06/28/13 12:24 PM

Been working on a 1.15 compatible editor, unfortunately so far it's pretty terrible, so I'm not sure I will release it.

Posted By: SimonAlonso

Re: GWUT modification - 07/21/13 11:35 PM

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#Post3734814

I 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.
Posted By: Magitek

Re: GWUT modification - 07/22/13 05:34 AM

Originally Posted By: SimonAlonso
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#Post3734814

I 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.
Posted By: ColJamesD

Re: GWUT modification - 07/22/13 01:40 PM

What did I say about V1.9?

I forgot.
Posted By: SimonAlonso

Re: GWUT modification - 07/23/13 12:09 AM

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.
Posted By: Magitek

Re: GWUT modification - 07/23/13 04:24 AM

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.
Posted By: messyhead

Re: GWUT modification - 07/23/13 06:57 AM

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.
Posted By: Doctor_Wibble

Re: GWUT modification - 07/23/13 07:10 AM

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.
Posted By: Magitek

Re: GWUT modification - 07/23/13 08:22 AM

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?
Posted By: ColJamesD

Re: GWUT modification - 07/23/13 06:21 PM

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.
Posted By: Heretic

Re: GWUT modification - 07/24/13 11:53 AM

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.
Posted By: super_seagull

Re: GWUT modification - 09/07/13 01:03 AM

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.
Posted By: ColJamesD

Re: GWUT modification - 09/07/13 09:21 AM

@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
Posted By: ColJamesD

Re: GWUT modification - 09/10/13 08:29 PM

Okay, I reposted V.1.9 again:

http://opxo3k.1fichier.com/en/
Posted By: messyhead

Re: GWUT modification - 09/11/13 07:37 AM

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.
Posted By: super_seagull

Re: GWUT modification - 09/11/13 07:31 PM

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.
Posted By: LazerPotatoe

Re: GWUT modification - 09/11/13 10:36 PM



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
Posted By: Reticuli

Re: GWUT modification - 01/08/21 02:31 PM

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?
Posted By: messyhead

Re: GWUT modification - 01/08/21 04:33 PM

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.
Posted By: Javelin

Re: GWUT modification - 01/08/21 04:40 PM

The old versions of GWUT have a header at the top that describes what each column contains. I just look at that.
Posted By: Reticuli

Re: GWUT modification - 01/09/21 06:51 AM

Is there a legend or header or something for the new GWUT?
Posted By: Javelin

Re: GWUT modification - 01/09/21 07:31 PM

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.
© 2024 SimHQ Forums