A Different ME 262 Scenario Suggestion

[rotton50 19]

1 hour ago, VonBeerhofen said:

I wouldn't advice anyone to use Jel's target editor, it has a steep learning curve not only to learn how to edit the targets and place objects but also because of the relation between various files like tardata.dat, targets.dat and airfield.dat etc. We both know it would require at least several months to even start grasping how things work. Ofcourse anyone is welcome to give it a try but I've seen many give up.

Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff?

The latest version of the target editor is a piece of cake to use and the learning curve is one day, NOT a couple of months,

Plus, the relationship between the files you mention are automatically dealt with by the editor, the user doesn't have to do a thing.

The REALITY, is that it's a lot of fun to use your imagination and come up with new configurations for the targets. And as I mentioned, you can share your efforts with other players.

Surely you can agree, sharing things among EAW players is the best way to keep the game alive.

 

Quote

 

 

Quote

The hitbubble table is a much easier thing to edit and easily explained too. With a few notes it would probably take a week or so to understand how to edit it in a hexeditor or with one of Jel's tools. The question is wether it would result in interesting improvements as much time was already invested into getting the most out of it in EAWPRO.

Personally I believe that various theatres will have enough diversity to keep people interested without saddling them up with learning what you and I learned. To RiBob I can only say that there's nothing easy in EAW except perhaps loading a complete addon/theatre and you don't want to spend years of your life to figure it all out if you're not totally committed to doing so.

VBH 

C'mon, a week? Well, maybe for hexediting but not with the TMOD editor utility.

The hit bubble editor is built into the individual TMOD.dat editor along with a number of other data points. One look at the way it displays data and even a newbie could be making changes inside of an hour.

I don't think you realize your comments are elitist in nature and could very well discourage new players from attempting to add something new to the game.

Personally, I think it does the community more service to encourage people to explore the world of modding and NOT make it sound like such a daunting task.

 

Edited February 18, 2019 by rotton50

[RIBob 39]

On ‎2‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 11:42 AM, VonBeerhofen said:

I wouldn't advice anyone to use Jel's target editor, it has a steep learning curve not only to learn how to edit the targets and place objects but also because of the relation between various files like tardata.dat, targets.dat and airfield.dat etc. We both know it would require at least several months to even start grasping how things work. Ofcourse anyone is welcome to give it a try but I've seen many give up.

The hitbubble table is a much easier thing to edit and easily explained too. With a few notes it would probably take a week or so to understand how to edit it in a hexeditor or with one of Jel's tools. The question is wether it would result in interesting improvements as much time was already invested into getting the most out of it in EAWPRO.

Personally I believe that various theatres will have enough diversity to keep people interested without saddling them up with learning what you and I learned. To RiBob I can only say that there's nothing easy in EAW except perhaps loading a complete addon/theatre and you don't want to spend years of your life to figure it all out if you're not totally committed to doing so.

VBH 

I have no doubt whatsoever that actually modifying the game itself is a very painstaking and lengthy task.  However, I speak as a user who is (mostly) uninvolved with that end of things.  I certainly do appreciate the labor that you, and others, have put into their products.  If it means anything, I know a little about computer programming, Assembly language being my personal favorite.  I can make an educated guess at the amount of time and effort that goes into even what appears to be a simple change.

That said (and this has been mentioned before) despite my ignorance of modifying the game itself, I occasionally propose suggestions for changing or possibly improving the game.  This is done not to create difficulties or dissention, but in an attempt to stimulate discussion, and to see, perhaps, if the suggestion is actually workable, possibly without a tremendous amount of time and effort.  After all, discussion of reasonable suggestions might provoke some thought amongst those capable of implementing the suggestions.  An solution to a particular suggestion might not be immediately apparent, but over time, an answer might become visible.  In some cases, the suggestion may seem to not be worth the effort.  In some cases, it may well be possible to implement the suggestion relatively simply.  In any event, the unasked question is never answered. 

Please allow me to reiterate my sincere thanks (and I'm certain that I speak for many others) for the work that you, and others, have done-- and are doing-- to improve EAW. 

[Jel 37]

As you have quoted VBH"s comment I must re-iterate how ill-informed and misguiding they are in terms of the current software that we use.

Quote

Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff?

The latest version of the target editor is a piece of cake to use and the learning curve is one day, NOT a couple of months,

Plus, the relationship between the files you mention are automatically dealt with by the editor, the user doesn't have to do a thing.

You should ask the modders who use it, but I would add that it needs a good understanding of what the files involved actually do in EAW.

With the hit-bubble system locked into EAWPro I would doubt that the eaw.exe could be hex-edited to achieve the result that you would like.
In terms of the damage model the bomb-bay is effectively just a part of the fuselage, and there is no code relating to whether or not it contains bombs.

[rotton50 19]

20 hours ago, RIBob said:

I have no doubt whatsoever that actually modifying the game itself is a very painstaking and lengthy task.  However, I speak as a user who is (mostly) uninvolved with that end of things.  I certainly do appreciate the labor that you, and others, have put into their products.  If it means anything, I know a little about computer programming, Assembly language being my personal favorite.  I can make an educated guess at the amount of time and effort that goes into even what appears to be a simple change.

 

A solution to a particular suggestion might not be immediately apparent, but over time, an answer might become visible.  In some cases, the suggestion may seem to not be worth the effort.  In some cases, it may well be possible to implement the suggestion relatively simply.  In any event, the unasked question is never answered. 

 

Second part first.

It was your suggestion to look at the gauges that led me to reworking them for greater visibility. The feedback from a couple of BETA users has been overwhelmingly positive. Pretty soon the entire aircraft package will be released to the general public.

So don't discount your contributions.

Now on to the first part.

The assumption that modding EAW is difficult to understand has been perpetrated by one guy. NOTHING could be further from the truth.

The various editors that Mr. Jelly produced plus a couple of older ones by unknown contributors ( to me anyhow ) are pretty well polished.

The flight, loadout, weapons and string editors are flawless in operation. True, early on some of them were rough around the edges but intrepid souls like me were willing to help smooth off the rough edges. The programmers are to be commended for their ability to take constructive criticism and work with the modders to improve their tools.

Any time you or any other member wants to get involved in basic modding just say the word. Jel and I would be thrilled to have another worker bee.

=============================================================================================

FWIW, it is irksome to have to constantly come in here and clear up the misconceptions scattered about by one member. Been going on for close to two decade now, to the detriment of the entire community.

[VonBeerhofen 63]

Observations are based on 20 years of modding experience and merely my opinion. However when it's as easy as you describe then I wish you good luck with teaching RiBob the ropes of installing and using those programs. For editing the hitbubble table I personally only need a few minutes with a hexeditor, teaching inexperienced people how to use a hexeditor and explain the hitbubble table will need significantly more time.

FWIW I find it just as annoying to point out everytime that things aren't as easy as some people think they are. I would like nothing better then seeing RiBob edit the EAW world and create an addon of his own making. He can then give his own opinion on how easy it was, :).

VBH

[rotton50 19]

In your haste to argue you completely missed my point and you continue to do a disservice to the community by making things sound harder than they are.

There's no doubt that hexediting is not for the faint of heart. I would not dispute that point. However if you've tried the editors you have first hand knowledge that they take most of the effort out of modding EAW. In fact, they add to the fun factor. Nothing better than trying something in the game that you've done yourself.

So that leaves us with two possibilities:

1 - You haven't used the editors, in which case you should bow out of the conversation for lack of knowledge on the subject.

2 - You have used them and from experience know that they work well. In which case you are not telling the truth.

There is no third option.

[Jel 37]

Over 10 years ago Will Gee introduced the TM2 system with 4 bytes per tile. It cannot be applied to the 1.2, FXExe and EAWPro exes. However, as a result the target editor was modified, and it has continually evolved due to input from users and further development of the 1.28 series up to 160.

In the development of the  1.28 series we took out a TMod table which was hard coded in the eaw.exe, put the data in an editable file, and later split this file into individual TMod data files which the exe reads. These files are easily edited with an appropriate editor with which the user knows exactly which values are being edited. Individual edited files can be copied into the root folder for testing.

Similarly, when we split "planes.dat" into 30 individual files each single file is easily edited, allowing the hit bubbles to be set (and lots of other things too). Again the users know exactly what they are editing.

Formation tables were put into editable external files, and the exe was edited to allow additional types. Similarly the exe was edited to accommodate additional runway types in an editable file, and as a result the carriers from 1.28c onwards have runways on raided decks.

The hard coded data in the1.2 exe was a PITA. VBH made a good file map of the eaw.exe which made his hex-editing achievements possible, but no other modder has found the need to hex-edit since working editors became available. What he has achieved is remarkable, but the possibilities are restricted because of the hard coded data in the exe, its inability to read  use the data from any new external files, and limited available space for any new code to be added. VBH claims that he cannot run the 1.28 series, which I do not dispute, but if he cannot, then despite his years of working with EAW he has limited experience from which to comment on the editing software that we use when he has nothing to test the results with.

[RIBob 39]

Before this thread is inevitably locked, allow me to reiterate the suggestion for modifying the hitbubble to distinguish between fully/partially laden bombers whose bomb loads are detonated by either Flak and/or enemy cannon fire delivered by aircraft, and bombers whose bomb load has been dropped.

At present, I lack the time to learn new, involved skills. Simple as that; I have a lot on my plate.

However, if circumstances change, I will let you know.  I have never set a challenging, but realistic,goal, and failed to achieve it. 

 

 

[RIBob 39]

On ‎2‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 9:39 AM, VonBeerhofen said:

Observations are based on 20 years of modding experience and merely my opinion. However when it's as easy as you describe then I wish you good luck with teaching RiBob the ropes of installing and using those programs. For editing the hitbubble table I personally only need a few minutes with a hexeditor, teaching inexperienced people how to use a hexeditor and explain the hitbubble table will need significantly more time.

FWIW I find it just as annoying to point out everytime that things aren't as easy as some people think they are. I would like nothing better then seeing RiBob edit the EAW world and create an addon of his own making. He can then give his own opinion on how easy it was, :).

VBH

I would certainly also enjoy the experience, as I am addicted to learning things as I get older in order to forestall or prevent senescence.  I would also being tutored by others.  There seems to be room, for fair-minded people, for many approaches to the same subject.

As I say, I am learning, and no expert.  I am glad that I can learn from all of the Modders, and enjoy their products. 

[Jel 37]

Quote

the suggestion for modifying the hitbubble to distinguish between fully/partially laden bombers whose bomb loads are detonated by either Flak and/or enemy cannon fire delivered by aircraft, and bombers whose bomb load has been dropped.

The fuselage hit bubble is a single value in the 160 "plane.dat" file for an individual aircraft, or in the 30 plane "planes.dat" file used by 1.2 and EAWPro.
It does not get changed in the game.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Jel

[rotton50 19]

THERE IS NO NEED TO BLOCK THE THREAD.

This is not the start of an argument. It is a continuation of the conversation about what can be reasonably be added to EAW. There have been no pejoratives thrown about, no insults of any kind and some of the same misinformation we're always fighting about was quickly corrected without rancor.

So.

Seems to me we'd be putting a lot of effort into something with very limited returns.

A level bomber having it's bomb load blow up due to a direct hit is basically eye candy. As it stands now, you see plenty of level bombers going down in flames during an intercept.

How in the world would a player know OR CARE if a particular plane was hit by a flak round versus blowing up from a rocket attack or some well placed 30MM cannon rounds? ( FWIW, if you spend that much time admiring the action, you are going to get shot down)

If we're going to add immersive things to EAW they should be things that the player affects directly or experiences in the cockpit , like when we added skip bombs, large caliber weapons, torpedoes, moving barges on rivers, dive brakes and distinct engine sounds

For instance, oil spattered windscreens, flames coming from the engine and bullet holes in the gauge cluster are all things we don't have in EAW but were included in SWOTL and PAW, twenty years ago. Heck, SWOTL even limited the max speed you could achieve with a full fuel and ammo load.

These additions are within the abilities of our one remaining programmer. In fact, I think some progress was made in these areas before things started to slow down due to lack of manpower and that paucity of manpower is the problem.

Edited February 28, 2019 by rotton50

[Jel 37]

Here are some statistical facts regarding the development of the ETO theatre. I have checked the sizes of the "targets.dat" and "tardata.dat" files to calculate the number of targets, and the number of TMods.

In EAW1.2 there are 302 targets and 3826 Tmods

In the EAWPro public release there are 309 targets and 17894 Tmods

In ETO 2018 there are 316 targets and 31751 TMods
This theatre is Ray's ETO 2015 plus a few convoy targets added by me.

It gives the reader some idea of the amount of work that has been done by VBH and Ray in order to produce much more interesting ETO theatres in terms of targets and ground objects.

Jel

Edited March 1, 2019 by Jel

[RIBob 39]

I don't pretend to believe any single one of my suggestions for modifying EAW is particularly valuable in itself.--although some have already been enacted.  All of my suggestions are intended to provoke some thought amongst those people capable of modifying the game., and to the Game's benefit overall.

Perhaps some of my suggestions will provide "food for thought" amongst such people.  Perhaps answers to such suggestions, while immediately being thought "impossible" might cause some further consideration, with unaccountable consequences.

It appears that a "landing" scenario of 262s is very difficult to achieve, as is currently thought.  That's too bad, as such a historical scenario would be very interesting, as described above.   However, if it's not feasible, then so be it.

I have  a lot of confidence in those who are capable of modifying the game to think outside the box, as they have done in the past, and to incorporate wild suggestions, like mine, eventually.  Will take some time, and a lot of thought.  However, since you all have already demonstrated a willingness to devote a lot of time and thought to your existing creations, what's a little more?  Particularly if it makes the sim better?

Sure, it's easy for a mere user like me to suggest what is impossible/difficult.  I get it.

But without people like me asking for the "Impossible", how can we find the limits of the "Possible"?

I have a lot of faith in your creativity; perhaps more than you do yourselves. 

[RIBob 39]

 As to whether or not this thread ought to be locked,; that depends.

On most Forums with which I am familiar (many), if the Original Poster (me, in this thread) asks the Forum Mod to lock the thread, that is universally done as a courtesy to the OP.  I do not know if that is the custom here, but even if not, I think it a custom worthwhile considering adoption .  I hope that I will not need to ask the Forum Mod to lock this thread, but I will certainly do so if contentious comments continue to appear.  

Edited March 2, 2019 by RIBob

[RIBob 39]

14 hours ago, Jel said:

Here are some statistical facts regarding the development of the ETO theatre. I have checked the sizes of the "targets.dat" and "tardata.dat" files to calculate the number of targets, and the number of TMods.

In EAW1.2 there are 302 targets and 3826 Tmods

In the EAWPro public release there are 309 targets and 17894 Tmods

In ETO 2018 there are 316 targets and 31751 TMods
This theatre is Ray's ETO 2015 plus a few convoy targets added by me.

It gives the reader some idea of the amount of work that has been done by VBH and Ray in order to produce much more interesting ETO theatres in terms of targets and ground objects.

Jel

Please forgive my ignorance, but I don't understand what you are saying in above quoted remarks.  Perhaps translating your previous remarks into more easily-understood language would be to your benefit.

[rotton50 19]

FWIW, there is nothing the least bit contentious about pointing out false statements. Nor is it contentious to discuss the merits of a proposed modification to the game.

The definition of contention is " likely to cause disagreement or argument".

We've seen none of that in this thread. In fact, compared to EAW's history, this has been a downright joy to engage in. Freely exchanging thoughts about what might be possible and what's worth doing. Very much like our discussions on the back board at the GEN, I might add.

So, if this comment is considered contentious then frankly the forum has an serious problem in that all discussion about improvements to the game are curtailed if one person doesn't like what's said.

Is that what the community desires? A shutdown of ideas?

A closing of debate over the worthiness of proposed changes?

I doubt that's the case for the vast majority of members so let's not let the tail wag the dog.

[VonBeerhofen 63]

On 2/28/2019 at 4:35 PM, rotton50 said:

Seems to me we'd be putting a lot of effort into something with very limited returns.

It wasn't that much of an effort really, I just ran into the right routine and saw it's possibillities and I can only say it looks pretty impressive but yes it's mainly eyecandy in that nearly everything new in EAW is just eyecandy to me. Those who're not interested in eyecandy can stick to v1.2 which totally lacks this feature. 

As for using the target editor, I've been involved in it's devellopment and used every program released since, including the splitter program, which saves individual targets so they can be imported or converted into other targets. Can't say if that's the newest version, it just doesn't alter the fact that I wouldn't advice others to get involved in using them, irrespective of how easy you say it is.

VonBeerhofen

[rotton50 19]

3 hours ago, VonBeerhofen said:

.............it just doesn't alter the fact that I wouldn't advice others to get involved in using them, irrespective of how easy you say it is.

 

I am floored by this comment.

Serious question.

What possible reason could there be for this advice?

 

 

 

 

 

[Jel 37]

Consider the case of  a player who would like to learn how to modify a 1.28 - 160 ETO theatre.
It could not be done by hex editing, so what are your suggestions?

[Jel 37]

On 3/2/2019 at 1:11 AM, RIBob said:

Please forgive my ignorance, but I don't understand what you are saying in above quoted remarks.  Perhaps translating your previous remarks into more easily-understood language would be to your benefit.

The default EAW theatre is a 640x320 grid of terrain tiles. When you fly EAW and chose a target and a home base you see a map with the targets and bases on it.
They were put in their positions on the grid using an editor which can add new targets, and delete or move existing ones.

When you take off from your home base you will see hangars, AAA guns, barracks, fuel dumps and the like. These are the "TMods", and they were added to the your home base and placed in position and orientation using the same editor.

When you fly you may see ships, trains, trucks and armoured vehicles. These are also "TMods".

You may also be attacking a radar tower or a warehouse. Again these are "TMods" which need to be added and positioned by the target editor.

There are other TMods such as trees, forests, houses, farms, cathedrals, windmills.
These can be added and positioned using the target editor, but many are positioned on terrain tiles using a different editor.

So if you note the numbers of targets and TMods in EAW1.2, and compare that with the numbers in EAWPro or ETO2018 you can see how many new targets and TMods have been added and positioned by VBH and Ray. This was time consuming work. The figures were quoted to recognise that.

I would add that Ray has used my target editor to make SPAW, ModSqadBoB, in addition to his ETO2015. Moggy has used it for IRAQ , Dunkirk, and Switzerland. Pobs used it to make Spanish Air War and a Burma theatre.  I used it to upgrade a number of older theatres such as DAW, Malta, Carrier Air War, and Pearl Harbour. I also made experimental limited tileset versions of the 1914-18 Western front, and the BoB theatre.
The files we created have worked flawlessly, and I am justifiably proud of the reliability of my work.

Jel

[Sky High 166]

Jel,

in my version of 1.60, I have installed SagginB's fine 512x512, 24bit terrains into the Seasons folder. In my ETO2015 (Jel2018) folder, i have placed your UseSeasons file (which I got in your AoE1.29 download), which gives me SagginB's terrain with Ray's ETO2015. My question is, will Ray's targets show up in this terrain?

Edited March 3, 2019 by Sky High

[Sky High 166]

Postscript: I did a small experiment, launching a groundstart in the same airfield in both Default ETO and ETO2015 terrains, each with SagginB's HR textures and there were far more and varied ground objects in the case of ETO2015. So, it seems the targets do show up, giving me the best of both worlds. 

Your 'UseSeasons' file is a handy one, indeed, Jel.

[Jel 37]

The targets and TMods are independent of the terrain tiles, so they will always show up

[rotton50 19]

Sky, indeed the targets will show up no matter the terrain. However, many of the TMOD's were placed in relation to the default terrain, mostly in the towns and cities. So a factory placed on the corner of two roads in a city might not look correct with a different terrain set. Same for roads, beaches, airfields and seaports.

Really, everything was placed very carefully in relation to the default terrain in both SPAW and the ETO so it's probably best to stick with those.

That said, it would be interesting to see how much different an addon terrain set looks with the new target sets. Might not be that big a difference.

 

 

 

One thing Jel forgot to mention is that the 1.6 development line has the ability to display different TMOD's depending on which side of the front line you are on.

You can see this in SPAW if you look closely at the ships as you pass over them. They will display correct flags depending on which side of the line you are on.

There's a lot of nice touches like this scattered about the new target sets. Besides the ships, vehicle convoys and aircraft situated on airfields change from Axis to Allied but there are probably others I've forgotten.

All of the placement was done with the target editor and the individual characteristics of each TMOD was set using the TMOD editor.

There is no comparison between hexediting and the editors. Hexediting is what you do when you want to fiddle about the edges of the EAW world while the editors allow you to make major improvements that greatly enhance the player experience in EAW.

So to anyone interested in doing a little of their own modifications, ignore the advice to avoid the editors. They are quite easy to use. Take it from the guy who, by far, has the most experience with ALL of them.

Edited March 3, 2019 by rotton50

[Sky High 166]

SagginB's terrain looks so well and so realistic that I'll put up with the possibility of some of the targets being inappropriately-placed. However, in my first comparison, with Corneuilles (I think it was) airfield, the objects seemed to fit well enough. I need to investigate further.

Edited March 3, 2019 by Sky High