A Different ME 262 Scenario Suggestion

[rwatson 26]

Sorry SH hung up the guns in 1968 I have seen the damage done

[rotton50 19]

That is your choice.

But you know what I'd say next, right?

 

[Sky High 166]

1 hour ago, rwatson said:

Sorry SH hung up the guns in 1968 I have seen the damage done

 

Guns don't do damage, only the people who use them. Sometimes, damage is a moral imperative. We had a bastard yesterday, found guilty for the brutal murder of a disabled 90-year-old farmer in the latter's own house, who had the temerity to claim self-defense as his defense. How I wish that poor farmer, God rest him, could have had a handgun under his pillow to do some damage with. Your man's barrister nearly deserves it, too. 

There's no guns allowed in London, but they're sticking knives in one another at a record rate. Give 'em all guns and they might wipe everyone of themselves out a bit quicker and let the law-abiding people get on with their lives.

 

Rant over.

[rwatson 26]

OH SH and Bob but the ghosts of the past remain and can't be forgotten gun advocates don't carry this burden and hopefully never will,,Have you ever taken a mans life or one pass or  to understand that a man has passed   take your your hobby and weekend warriors and and shove it I know the results from the real world

Edited March 9, 2019 by rwatson

[VonBeerhofen 63]

On 3/6/2019 at 4:00 PM, rotton50 said:

THAT it really crappy advice.

We're trying to keep a 20 year old game alive. Dissuading guys from joining the modding community is NOT the way to to that.

Plus, as Jel and I have made clear, over, and over, and over and over again, the editors take 80% to 90% of the effort out of learning how to mod.

Hexediting is a different deal. That is daunting, even for those of us who know what we're doing, but we don't do things that way anymore.

 

Sorry but I don't agree with your views and there's nothing daunting about hexediting, especially not with hexeditors which allow people to format columns and select a numeric system to display for each column, but perhaps it's my background which makes it look so easy. I agree that the editors make life a little easier but there's still a lot of knowledge required to learn how to use them, not only about the editors but also about how EAW functions.  I'm sure you're well used to it all but ships in the sky aren't particularly proof of how easy it is, more like how easy it is to overlook things. I'm not criticising the tools you use but I am trying to convey a fair representation of the knowledge required and can't see the benefits of painting a more beautifull picture then it is. Ofcourse you're entitled to your own opinion, which I respect, but it just doesn't agree with my opinion.

It's also useless to start a debate about how easy hexediting really is for me, but it bypasses how hard it might be for someone else who has no further experience with it. Simmilarly my explanation on how to make good 3DZ models will differ from yours but I'd still tell em how hard it is and timeconsuming to do it right, as I see no use for lying about it and to be honoust I'd rather find out sooner that people don't have the stamina for it then later, after spending weeks trying to explain things. It's tough, believe me, and If my views deter people then that's too bad but I'm always willing to help. Thanks to such help Modred learned how to reslot planes, with a hexeditor, and it didn't take him very long.

VonBeerhofen

 

[rotton50 19]

Some of what you say is correct but still it is a a disservice to the community by portraying the various editors as hard to use.

In this you are utterly incorrect. I know because I use them and in many cases was instrumental in their development, usually as the guinea pig, sometimes as the inspiration for their creation.

For proof that you are flat out wrong, look at the ship in the sky issue that you are referring to from Jel's post over at SimHQ.

In the space of an hour, Jel found a problem caused by some exec changes, fixed the problem using the TMOD.dat editor and was then able to fulfill my request to make hit bubbles for ground targets that don't start at ground level. All of this done with nary a hexedit in sight.

Now we all know you will brag of being able to duplicate that with your hexediting knowledge. Maybe yes and maybe no, let's face it, there been a lot of bragging over the years, much of unfulfilled, but that's not the point.

The point is, any member who would like to get involved with EAW modding DOESN'T NEED TO LEARN TO HEXEDIT. I capitalize this statement because it is the crux of the argument.

Indeed they do need to learn the ins and outs of EAW but that's a lot less of a learning curve than picking up hexediting and THEN learning the ins and outs.

You know, when the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails. That same thing applies to modding EAW. When hexediting is your only tool, all EAW modifications have base 16 solutions.

And BTW, if you respected my position you wouldn't keep coming back in here for four pages now declaring how hard EAW is to modify after I keep proving that you are incorrect.

 

[MarkEAW 62]

On 3/9/2019 at 8:26 AM, rotton50 said:

The reason Jel and I come here is about 25% to show off new stuff and 75% to refute these misstatements and as I said recently to another "mis-stater", it is becoming quite irksome.

We've had this discussion enough times over at SimHQ that is really is disingenuous of you to repeat the misstatements here.

To clear things up for members here who don't also frequent SimHQ I will reiterate:

The Code Group has the "keys to the kingdom" so to speak, in that we hold the source code for EAW. That means we can make major changes to the game that no other modding group can do. The proof is in the pudding if you fly other development lines and then try the 1.6 line. I won't go into all the details, suffice to say the difference is astounding. (That's not to say members should fly one or the other exclusively)

The reason the source code is restricted to those of us in the Code Group is that the original agreement, about 4 owners ago, includes a clause that we will never gain profit from our work. If we charge for our mods the agreement is rescinded, thus ending all further development.

The problem with releasing the source code to the public is that any unscrupulous modder could then start charging for his work. We have no intention of risking that.

We've talked this over many times at SimHQ. Some of those discussions got pretty heated because other people have other opinions, but ours is the one that counts and as HONORABLE people, we intend to stick to the agreement, no matter the accusations that we're hiding something.

So PLEASE stop accusing us of being an insular clique. It is a LIE.

We are always on the lookout for HONORABLE new members for the group who are willing to abide by the agreement. That can be documented in many threads over at SimHQ. You have already told us that, if you were able, you would release the source code on the belief that it wouldn't matter due to the age of the game. You are entitled to that opinion but you are not entitle to the singular action of releasing the code based on that opinion.

Hence you will never be a member of that group.

FWIW, it seems every time we reach a truce the same couple of guys tear open the wound.

Cut it out.

BTW, I'm releasing a massive new aircraft inventory package in the near future. A BETA version is being put through it's paces. Included with the package will be many of the editors that we're also being accused of hoarding.

So much for conspiracy theories.

I'm not sure what your going on about Rotton in the quote post. You need to sit back and read entire posts before you start ranting and raving about things not really happening. 

This is not the first time you jumped at others and started your BS as a result of not knowing what your talking about.

In my opinion your truly irrelevant. To me that opinion matters as do all my other ones.

I'm allowed to have these opinions and I will continue to voice them.

So get your leash back on and reread my post.

Maybe if you flamed me for the real words I used in my post I wouldn't have to point out your continued mis-informed behavior.

So stop with the negative BS and just mod the flight sim, be a a good boy and do so.

You can't really help anyone with your not existent empathy or willing to help in any fashion unless it suite you.

BTW, There are no conspiracy theories, its just you.  No-one wants to join anything your involved in, you ruin the fun of it with your attacks.

 

[VonBeerhofen 63]

On 3/9/2019 at 10:17 PM, rotton50 said:

For proof that you are flat out wrong, look at the ship in the sky issue that you are referring to from Jel's post over at SimHQ.

In the space of an hour, Jel found a problem caused by some exec changes, fixed the problem using the TMOD.dat editor and was then able to fulfill my request to make hit bubbles for ground targets that don't start at ground level. All of this done with nary a hexedit in sight.

.......................................

And BTW, if you respected my position you wouldn't keep coming back in here for four pages now declaring how hard EAW is to modify after I keep proving that you are incorrect.

 

Mr. Jelly is not a newbie we're trying to teach how things work, he made these tools and should know better then anyone how it works. Editing the hitbubble table to fix the ships is about the easiest thing I can think of in EAW, I already said that about asigning AAA and Flack to objects in EAWPRO.

Your last remark is a two way street and you're proofing nothing to me. I could say the same thing about your view but I won't, I respect your opinion and don't think it's worth quibling over.  I'm just responding because I think my opinion has at least as much value as yours. People are free to take it to heart or leave it.

VonBeerhofen

[Jel 37]

2 hours ago, VonBeerhofen said:

Editing the hitbubble table to fix the ships is about the easiest thing I can think of in EAW

I did not edit the hit bubble table. I used a conditional routine that positions TMods on the carrier deck using a value in the "TMod.dat" file that is completely unrelated to the hit bubble. It achieved what had been requested in a much better way without having to modify any hit bubbles. What I did cannot be done the same way in 1.2 or EAWPro because there is no external TMod.dat file and no individual "TModXY.dat" files with additional values that can be edited and used in conditional routines. There are no carriers with raised decks 60 feet high.

[Jel 37]

Here's a shot with four Wildcat TMods parked out of the way, and the MB-3s ready for take-off:

[VonBeerhofen 63]

You only mentioned that the problem was in the hitbubble table, there was no follow up explanation on how it got really fixed. Raising a carrier is merely an adaptation of the Z value in a 3DZ or the hitbubble table, and with that any object can be raised to what ever level. At some point I created an early 3D cloud TMOD and raised it 10.000 feet into the sky.

Besides that you're making assumptions about what I can do or not without knowing anything about what's possible in EAWPRO. Sure enough the PTIII carrier used for landing planes is an optical illusion but it can be raised and have objects on it too. Trucks and tanks and other vehicles are readily available but will only work properly as targets, not as a mere ground TMOD, as that will invoke negative scoring points, unless switched off ofcourse, in wich case there would be no penalty for collateral damage. Obviously having targets on deck will prevent the use of the carrier as a base but I think it makes for a nice target if not used as a base.

Anyway, stacking objects isn't more difficult in EAWPRO and just as feasable, just as it is in v1.2. EAW has no problem with having various objects in the exact same location, proof of that were the doubled AAA locations under Ray's objects, recently called a bodge. They work fine in all versions of EAW but EAWPRO no longer needs them as each object can have AAA capabillaty without the bodge.

But all that and your above post are besides the point of the discussion which is about wether editing targets to control AAA is easy to do for newbies or not.

VonBeerhofen

Edited March 11, 2019 by VonBeerhofen

[RIBob 39]

On ‎3‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 12:48 PM, rwatson said:

OH SH and Bob but the ghosts of the past remain and can't be forgotten gun advocates don't carry this burden and hopefully never will,,Have you ever taken a mans life or one pass or  to understand that a man has passed   take your your hobby and weekend warriors and and shove it I know the results from the real world

I respect your choice about firearms.   Entirely your call.  Second Amendment recognizes the pre-existing right to own firearms.  It says nothing about being forced to own them.   

I knew a guy, Donn DiBiasio, who was a local Second Amendment stalwart hereabouts for decades, until his death.  He was forced to shoot an armed intruder inside his business, and it certainly changed his life.  It was an entirely justifiable shoot, but I know that Donn always wished he was not forced to shoot the perp.  

Though not a combat vet, I have seen the results of a couple of firearms injuries, one resulting in death.  It is not a pleasant thing to see.  I pray to Heaven that I will never need to shoot someone.  

All the above said, can we please leave 2A discussions/arguments to another thread?

[Jel 37]

In my screenie the carrier is a base and I flew a mission in a MB-3 The Wildcat is TMod81 and there is a value in the "TMod081.dat" file that sets the height if certain other conditions are met.
The beauty of this is that there is no need to mess with the Z value of the 3dz. We can have  Wildcats on the ground at airbases, or on carrier decks, or at any required height using this system.

 We took the TMod table out of the exe, put the default one in a "TMod.dat" file, to which we added additional values so that a line of data is 70 bytes.
The exe reads "TMod.dat" and then reads any individual files such as "TMod081.dat", which is 74 bytes in length due to a four byte header.
I cannot see you being able to get EAWPro to use new types of external files, with some complex conditional code to run routines that use the data in them. I can see the structure of your exe, and I can see the limitations that it imposes. What you have done despite these limitations is excellent.

The point of the discussion is that you advised people not to use my editors, which implied that they were unreliable. Now you have changed your tune, and I agree that without a good understanding of how EAW works editing targets would be difficult for a newbie. It is the complexity of the EAW structure that is the problem, not the editors.

 

[RIBob 39]

The point to this THREAD was discussion of possible Me262 Scenarios.  Anything else is extraneous, and possibly irrelevant.

If such non-pertinent discussions, bordering on arguments, continue in this thread, I will ask to have it locked.  I mentioned this previously, and I repeat it now.

[RIBob 39]

FWIW, the next time I start a thread,  and it is deliberately taken off-course, I will ask to have it locked down a LOT sooner than this one.

I have ZERO interest in arguments amongst respected Modders.  Save it for threads dedicated to such.  

[Jel 37]

I disagree that it was deliberately taken off course. One suggestion directly relating to the topic was that the ETO theatre could be modded with more AAA at the airfields used by the 262s. In a response VBH discouraged people from using my editors to do this, which implied that there is a problem with them. This was the  statement that took the thread off course. It needed to be challenged, and it was.

[VonBeerhofen 63]

The challenge was to give RiBob control over AAA and Flack in his alternative scenario, if you can teach him how to use the target editor then that's fine with me. If my posts discourages him from doing so then I'm sorry about that but I think a warning that it's not as easy as portrayed is not out of place. It's up to Mr. Jelly to take on the challenge because I won't.

VonBeerhofen

[rotton50 19]

On 3/10/2019 at 8:02 PM, MarkEAW said:

I'm not sure what your going on about Rotton in the quote post. You need to sit back and read entire posts before you start ranting and raving about things not really happening. 

This is not the first time you jumped at others and started your BS as a result of not knowing what your talking about.

In my opinion your truly irrelevant. To me that opinion matters as do all my other ones.

I'm allowed to have these opinions and I will continue to voice them.

So get your leash back on and reread my post.

Maybe if you flamed me for the real words I used in my post I wouldn't have to point out your continued mis-informed behavior.

So stop with the negative BS and just mod the flight sim, be a a good boy and do so.

You can't really help anyone with your not existent empathy or willing to help in any fashion unless it suite you.

BTW, There are no conspiracy theories, its just you.  No-one wants to join anything your involved in, you ruin the fun of it with your attacks.

 

Seems you'd like to erase the history of why you were not allowed to join the Code Group.

Everything I wrote is the absolute truth.

To reiterate, you wanted to join so you could get your hands on the source code and then disseminate to the public. You said you believed it was time to make the source code available to anyone and we took your word for it. There is a record of those conversations.

Despite your allegations, this is not an attack in any way, I haven't jumped on anyone. As has happened time and time again, I HAVE refuted a lot of false statements made by you and VBH. Though it all I haven't made ANY personal attacks against anyone.

OTOH, your comments about my relevance to EAW and to put my leash back on are hurtful, nasty statements and the forum moderator should censure you for making them.

It's pretty simple really. Those of you who are out to demean other people's contributions and efforts with lies and slander need to just stop.

[MarkEAW 62]

Again,

I never said I wanted to join no group. I asked , and I didnt ask anyone but one person, to have temporary and limited access to the Gens forum and then I could provide better support for the Code Groups build of their EAW.

You where told this too after your first attack on me for the same exact reason, so your making things up like , you always do.
I thought it was because it was just your lack of knowledge on what transpired, but something else is going on with you, very odd.

[RIBob 39]

21 hours ago, VonBeerhofen said:

The challenge was to give RiBob control over AAA and Flack in his alternative scenario, if you can teach him how to use the target editor then that's fine with me. If my posts discourages him from doing so then I'm sorry about that but I think a warning that it's not as easy as portrayed is not out of place. It's up to Mr. Jelly to take on the challenge because I won't.

VonBeerhofen

I lack the skills, and most importantly, the time required to learn the skills necessary to set-up a scenario like the one I posited in the original post of this thread.

My initial point was: Is it possible to incorporate such a new scenario into the game?  This being done, of course, by those people who are familiar with how such things are created.

So far, Jel has provided what can be called a partial answer, in that attacking aircraft can cause defending aircraft to spawn from nearby airfields, and also that the aircraft taking off from the defending (attacked) airfield can be specified as Me262s.  Otten has also mentioned that the slow acceleration rate of the Me262 has been incorporated into at least some versions of the game, so that is historically accurate.

So far, the answer is:  "No, the proposed scenario is not possible, as stated. Something close can be achieved, but not an historically correct scenario".

That's fine.  I certainly don't expect that any of my suggestions are possible, or even desirable, although I might think them useful, and historically accurate additions to the game.

I understand that the developers/modders of the game have their own goals, and my suggestions might be non-congruent to their vision(s) for the game.  That's fine, too.

I respect the developers and modders of the game for what they have been able to do so far.  They have my thanks, and I believe, the thanks of the entire EAW community.

That said, and being a mere, ignorant user, I will continue to ask respectful questions, and make suggestions.  Perhaps at some time in the future, they might bear fruit, to the benefit of the entire EAW community.  From a single seed, a mighty Oak grows...

[rotton50 19]

On 3/17/2019 at 4:01 PM, MarkEAW said:

Again,

I never said I wanted to join no group. I asked , and I didnt ask anyone but one person, to have temporary and limited access to the Gens forum and then I could provide better support for the Code Groups build of their EAW.

You where told this too after your first attack on me for the same exact reason, so your making things up like , you always do.
I thought it was because it was just your lack of knowledge on what transpired, but something else is going on with you, very odd.

There is nothing odd going on, no attacks have been made and nothing has been fabricated. I was there throughout the entire discussion and I have all the knowledge necessary to refute your claims.

You made it clear that you didn't agree with our decision to keep the source code under our control. In fact, it was clear that you were incensed with our decision.

This is public record if anyone wants to waste the time necessary to comb through old posts at SimHQ.

What is not public are the discussions we had within the Code Group. Both the practicalities of releasing the code and your attitude were topics. After careful consideration we decided to not allow you temporary access based on your own words.

I don't know why it's such a problem for you owning up to your own words.

How about you do what you do and leave it at that?

[RIBob 39]

I don't know the history of this de-railing discussion, but I am certain that that history has nothing to do with the original topic.  If this de-railing does not stop RIGHT NOW, I will ask the Mod to step in and possibly sanction some individuals as he/she sees fit.

 

I'm really tired of seeing this in other threads, and particularly in mine.  Make your own threads where you can hash it out, OK?

[Stratos 3,167]

Lock after receiving complains of derailing, will take a deep look on this, in some hours and reopen it, and proper actions will be taken If needed.

[Stratos 3,167]

I reopened the original post, and issued the needed warnings.

This will be the last time I permit this behaviour, will ban anyone that completely ignores original post and start your small, ridiculous flame war carried from simHq. This has been my home for the last years, enjoyed it a lot, made good friends, and will not tolerate anyone that want to broke the way it works.

Everyone understood?

[RIBob 39]

Thank you for looking into the matter.