VonBeerhofen

That sounds great Erik, the moreso since the agreement was already broken in my opinion. VonBeerhofen

I've been able to add 5 new weapon callibres and descriptions to EAWPRO. 3 of these are now in use and 2 remain open for whenever they're needed. The 50mm was already mentioned, as was the 8.8cm and the newest one is the 13mm which can double as a handweapon in a WWI scenario. I have no idea as to what the two remaining ones should be sensibly called. Weapons like the 25mm Japanese guns can be set now too or anything in between the other stock callibres and will use the nearest discription entry in the above displayed program. Anything in between the default callibres and the new ones will do the same, where obviously the 13mm displays as a machine gun and the 50mm and 8.8cm display as canons. VonBeerhofen

Thx for your consideration Stratos, good call. VonBeerhofen

You do whatever you must do Mr. Jelly, I have no need for your tools, as I told you on multiple occasions, why do you keep offering them? My hexeditor can enter ANY field in ANY file with ANY number. It can even change entire columns with a specific range of values with or without a certain amount of randomness, there's really nothing like it. It for instance can randomise a single object's postion in the EAW_TTD where ever that object is sitting in the file, or ANY range of TMODS. It can copy paste just those objects into a new file, so they're all sitting behind each other, the object or entire blocks of objects can be moved a line up or down or 100 lines, without destroying the data in that line, reverse or rotate the data, invert or encrypt their values, add or subtract a single value to a column, line or an entire block in which certain positions can remain untouched, it's possibillities are almost beyond comprehension and is the most powerfull tool I have ever created. Even today after 10 years of use I get new ideas on how to use it It can do this to all filetypes in EAW, including all 30 planes in the PLANES.DAT. I hope you can do something with that information because it renders all your editors practically obsolete I'm sorry to say. So I don't think there's any problem whatsoever and what you say only goes for your tool, which I'm obviously not using. It's just a hexadecimal value in a file and anyone can take control of it. VonBeerhsofen

Don't worry guys, I don't have any use for Mr. Jelly's tools, although I do occasionally use them. The tools I have develloped are way more sophisticated. As I said the ME262 with the .88 nose canon was tested to work fine in the Launchpad long ago. These are just hex values in a file and any hexeditor can change them. If I recall Mark is right, there is an earlier version which allows direct editing of the gun values, not sure if it's still active in later versions. It could have been the value in the top left pane, which shows the adress locations and the set value. I just no longer really need them but they served their purpose pretty well. VonBeerhsofen

Don't try and go that route again with me Mr. Jelly. The fact that I'm first told to adapt a more postive attitude when nothing negative was said and the follow up smear campaign to turn me into the bad guy are direct attacks on me and my work and is totally uncalled for. What is innuendo in the fact that v1.60 isn't working on my legacy machine? Do you think I'm lying? Why do the both of you keep messing up honoust threads which are meant to help the EAW community? Do you think that it will keep people flying EAW or help me devellop my work further? The EAW community is well aware of what's been going on for a very long time now. I've asked this question in another forum and I will ask it here again, will you and Rotton allow me to do my work in peace or will you keep haunting me with your unfounded accusations whenever I post something of interest? VonBeerhofen

Once again, v1.60 has nothing to do with my release of a 1.2 version or the fact that there are people who may not be able to run other versions. It's merely trying to hide the fact that a person is brutally trying to discredit me and my work without any reason, both in this forum and in another. VonBeerhofen

I strongly object to the above form of personal attack in a thread which is meant to help this community. This thread holds no threat to any version, in fact there's no mention of any version prior to Rotton's appearance and that goes for simmilar threads in another forum. Perhaps I should be sorry for the low specs of my computer but I'm not, neither should anyone else who can not afford a top of the line machine or is simply trying to hang on to their old machines because they do the required job and it's all they need. Why would this release or the fact that my computer is incapable of running certain versions of a game have any impact on those versions at all? If it works good then people will be happy campers and stick to their choice, however when it doesn't then people have the right to an alternative, which is what I'm trying to provide. If people want a cross examination then this is the wrong thread for it, even more so because the answers have long been provided without any further result other then unfounded accusations. VonBeerhofen

I can't be positive about something that doesn't work on my machines. As for the computer specs and visiting old threads in HQ, I doubt wether anyone has any interest in them but you. I recall the same questions being asked about a month or so ago, also in a thread which had nothing to do with v1.60. Why are you repeatedly trying to draw a positive release thread, which may help this community survive, into a negative one. I haven't said anything negative about you or v1.60. That it's not working is just a fact but further unrelated to the topic of the 1.2 version. You obviously doubt my findings relating to v1.60 as has happened on numerous occasions, but you keep dragging that version into anything I say, at moments which have nothing to do with it. When I then reitterate that it doesn't work you try to turn me into a bad guy which isn't particularly helping with me trying to remain productive for this community. Can't you be positive for once, if only for those who now have an alternative? I encourage anyone to play the version they like and I don't care which one that is, as I've also said on numerous occasions. Once again v1.60 is totally offtopic here, so are EAWPRO or v1.1a. 1.2 update is released and there's nothing more to be said other then that I hope it will solve some people's issues. I hope that's positive enough for you. VonBeerhofen

We've been through these questions several times since 2010, I suggest you reread those threads in HQ. They're still the same computers and I hope you'll find the answers to your questions, which are obviously your concern. My concern is those people who have simmilar systems as mine, or lack the knowledge and understanding on how to make their games work with those legacy machines or even newer ones. I hope the patch will get them going again so they can continue playing the game when revisited, the same way they were used to. In that respect v1.60 is totally off topic as it's no longer comparable in any way with v1.2 VBH

The patch is available here: https://rabartel.home.xs4all.nl/DownLoad/EAWv1.2_NoOS_NoCD.zip Mark feel free to host and/or edit the contents if you think the ReadMe isn't entirely up to date. VonBeerhofen

Does it matter how legacy? Fact is that they can't run v1.60 and that there are probably a large number of players who find themselves in a simmilar situation, or just want to revive their stored versions of EAW. The patch will alow them to do so, irrespective of Operating System. Possibly a few old time modders will be energised to finish the work they've started, without having to learn new ways. It wouldn't be the first time that oldtimers pick up an old hobby to keep themselves occupied, after all their knowledge doesn't disappear, unless they're struck by Altzheimers or another scary desease. VonBeerhofen

I'm afraid that v1.60 doesn't work on legacy computers with limited resources. It doesn't work on my WinME or XP system. The patched addons do however work flawlessly, inluding OAW, :) The patch is not only very small but easy to install too and provides an alternative to cumbersome upgrades, without altering the game's behaviour in ANY way. VonBeerhofen

It's not about the other thread Mark. I can't fix the issues you've described in it, but I can fix issues with the addons for v1.2 and setting things up. Many addons were missing files on which there wasn't sufficient knowledge in the days they were created, tools weren't very develloped, not even mentioning the issues related to differences in D3D and Glide behaviour. For this reason these addons may have worked or not, depending on the system it was running on. Some addons appearently seemed to work untill people dug in deeper and found that there were things that weren't working, because for instance no savedata files were created, mission files were missing or other files which weren't properly understood at the time were edited wrongly. The sharing of information wasn't working very well either and often lacked detail or were written in to cryptic forms for average users to make sense of. I'm sorry to say that my personal experience was that I found there to be very few addons which didn't have mayor issues. It's hardly surprising really when you know that to create good working and complete addons would take several people 3 years or more, and many therefore kind of stranded, as people lost interest in fully completing them. So you see it's not only about fixing hardware issues in the EAW.EXE, it's also about preserving EAW's history and keep it's old addons working, preferrably as intended by their creators. Minor fixes can bring em back to life again. In this respect EAWPRO won't do the job unless these addons are converted, since it's an addon in it's own right, and there's just not enough time for that. They wouldn't work as intended anyway. I've been working on a clean v1.2 which can be installed the same way as EAWPRO, add the ZIP to any 1.x version of EAW and use whatever historic addon created at their own risk, including old versions of OAW. In OAW it will require that it's EXE is also replaced, but it should then work as anything else from there on, with or without the wrapper, whatever is required. I feel for many the need is there to stay with the original game, and your website is probably the best location for such a version. VonBeerhofen

With the reorganisation of the sprite table I was able to introduce 4 new animations when bullet hits objects. The animation takes calibre and object armour into acount for the animation selection. These animations may also be randomly used elswhere, for instance in explosions or as debris flying off planes or objects. Other animations have also been activated to mix randomly with the selections. VonBeerhofen

Many more dangerous situations were incorporated into EAWPRO. One is the possibillity of AAA and flack capabillity on ANY groundobject, target or none target, static or moving. When a target location has a single AAA or Flack position, the maximum number of flack and AAA will be divided between all the objects which were given attack/defense capabillity. When one of the positions gets destroyed another one will take it's place untill there are no more objects available which were asigned this capabillity. In other words, the destroyed position simply moves to a new location and becomes active again. A new routine also gives the watersplash destructive capabillity when planes are directly over it and within 100 feet. Because of this effect belly landing on water has become much more dangerous as the splash is generated multiple times each time the plane hits the water. Exploding ground objects were given a simmilar but slightly different capabillity and even exploding planes can destroy your plane when you're within it's explosion radius, so it's prudent to stay at a respectfull distance when shooting up stuff. The explosion radius is linked to the exploding object's size, the larger the object the larger the blast radius. Planes in tight formation may actually cause a chain reaction with other planes and cause damage to an entire group. They will not immediately explode but damage points are given as with bullet impacts. Here's two pictures which show what happened to a low flying bomber which just came too close to an explosion, notice that there are no fighters around or any tracers visible, the explosion happened as the lead plane crashed into the ground. VonBeerhofen

Here's an impression of what EAWPRO's new effects look like. Many new animations were added and most animations are now twice as long (16 frames) in 4 times higher resolution ( 4096 pixels) and played at twice the speed as in stock v1.2. Besides that effects are randomly combined to allow hundreds of different mixes instead of just the same repetitive animations from v1.2. Obviously rendering this stuff comes at the cost of framerates, which is why most routines dealing with animations were highly optimised to run much faster. What you see here is the result of a bombing attack by B17's and watching the event devellop on my ancient 1.6Ghz PIV with a 64MB gForce2 showed only a neglectable drop in FPS when the event was visible on screen.

Further tests shows that the download url is fine, but browser may use the cached browser information on their own computers when the url was already visited. When the cache is erased the new download becomes available. VonBeerhofen

Combat Ace downloads files to it's own servers to which I have no access. The file on my FTP site has been fixed and people are advised to copy/paste the shown url into their browser instead of using the direct link to the combat ace server. It's doing the same with any pictures I post. Sorry about that but it's beyond my control. VonBeerhofen

Problem solved, :) VonBeerhofen

With the help of Russ Watson I was able to fix a none transparent Glide trails issue which slipped through the net when effects detail is set to high. Here's a few screenies which depict the current status of effects in EAWPRO on both Russ's machine using a wrapper and my own machine without the wrapper using D3D mode. VonBeerhofen https://rabartel.home.xs4all.nl/FX06.jpg https://rabartel.home.xs4all.nl/FX07.jpg https://rabartel.home.xs4all.nl/FX08.jpg https://rabartel.home.xs4all.nl/FX09.jpg https://rabartel.home.xs4all.nl/FX00.jpg

Just a test how to embed screenshots from my FTP. VonBeerhofen

Stratos, my FTP usually allows embedding of the pictures. My last pictures with the shadows didn't need BBS code, they showed immediately when I entered their url's, the same way I did above and the board simply showed them. Should I use [ I M G ] [ / I M G ] to display them properly? I can't edit the previous post either. Is there a way to edit after logging out? VonBeerhofen

Some people may be aware of what happened in SimHQ due to me posting a link to a discussion about me in a public forum, which was about blaming me for ongoing disruptions in that forum, and another call from a single person to the EAW community and the SimHQ moderators to take action against me. This person, who had just received a year ban himself, had shown time and time again that unsustained allegations, brutality and repetitive abuse to various members of that forum is proof of my misconduct. It's forum moderator accused me of violating a public forum's security in order to retrieve this information, which was said to be confidential. This has been disproven by this forum's moderator and various members of SimHQ. Since I was the subject of discussion I felt I had the right to post the link which showed how my adversaries operate behind my back, but nonetheless in an open forum. As a result of that I can no longer post there and to be honoust I no longer want to. All I want is to be able to post my findings and show the result of 18 years of research and modifications I've made to EAW with the help of the source code, gernerously made available by Atari. I feel I have the right to do this in peace and without the constant intervention from those who do not like what I've achieved and/or lack the same knowledge. It's doubtfull wether these people will let me work in peace, as they're also members in this forum and my creation is competitive with theirs, but it's my hope that the moderator of this forum is unbiassed in fact I know he is, because we've been in contact for a long time now and he's been very much aware of what's been happening in that other forum. Let's just say that not a single post I made in there was met with any friendlyness, inspite of me trying to share information and help others. I'd like to stress that I'm not looking for an audience but I believe that there may still be a few people left who can have some fun with my creation, how many that will be is of no concern to me, especially since I've done all this work for those people I call my online flying friends, who'll obviously benefit the most from it. I'm too old to fight over a hobby which has given me and my friends immense pleasure, so I hope that this community will accept me with an open mind and allow me to continue what's probably going to be the one and only hobby I will be capable of persueing, which is to have some fun with EAW the way I want. There's nothing prestigeous in what I've accomplished and it's probably never going to get fully finished but I have given it full time in the last 18 years and I think there is an interest amongst the EAW community in what I have tried to do with this game. I'm open to reasonable requests and or suggestions but I can't promise anyone that any proposals can or will be carried out, as it depends completely wether things are within my capabillities, after all this is just a hobby. VonBeerhofen

Let me assure you that there's nothing ''buggy'' about them, but I guess that some people just lack the skill to create them as they're not easy to create and require quite a bit of time. Sure enough they're different then the flat shadows which simply don't have a perspective view. Ofcourse they're not true shadows, just as the default shadows also aren't true shadows and are lacking certain aspects we all associate with shadows. For instance 2D shadows are incapable of showing the tailfin because it has none, nor is it capable of showing a sideway view of the fuselage and a topdown view depemding on the viewangle, as opposed to the 3D shadow. They're just flat and boring, at least that's my view, and I wouldn't call them buggy for that reason, they're just one solution to add shadow to a game which is incapable of doing the real calculations we see in more modern games. The 3D shadows are another solution which I and many others feel is much more interesting and possibly can be properly animated one day with the roll or dive of airplanes showing the model at appropiate angles, something which is impossible with the 2D shadows. So that leaves the question which is more buggy? Ofcourse the shadows can easily be replaced by their 2D counterparts, which are still in the game's 3D CDF, I mean you don't have to like them just because I like them but calling them ''buggy'' seems a bit over the top. VonBeerhofen