RIBob

SH, you are a far more advanced person than am I. I respect that. I also Respect Otten's offering, but regret that was initially offered with many admitted flaws, and so required many modifications. When I hear him say that his project is GTG, and fully de-bugged, then I will try it out. In the meantime, I have too much on my personal, mere user, plate, to begin to attempt things that others, such as yourself, are better equipped to do. Full disclosure: Mr. Otten's provoking me got me temp banned from SHQ, due to what I believe (others in private messages, concurring) was the Moderator making an unfair judgment against me, and not taking Otten to task whatsoever. I read there, in SHQ, but do not post, because the same Mod is there, and I have zero faith in his fairness. I post some comments there in IM with various members, and with reading, stay in contact. I do not flatter myself that I am but a simple user, with occasional suggestions on how to improve the game. Most of my suggestions will be considered, and found to be impracticable; Or maybe not, at further consideration, perhaps by other developers. As a EAW player, I wish Otten all success. Despite past differences, I wish it for the benefit of the game, and the Community But as a simple user, I can't afford the time and disk space to download what was admittedly a problematic --and so far not fully GTG download. I say all this with all respect to you, SH, and only explain things as far as I have done so you can have a better understanding of things, as they stand. I remain, with respect, a simple User, RIBob

mMark, I am still transitioning from my win 7 comp to win 10 comp with Virtual machine to play win 7 machine within a partition of HD. Being an idiot, and entirely un-coached in the process, I still have some things to do. It's actually not that hard, once one knows what to do. What takes me a week (part time) would take an experienced person an hour. Hopefully this week I will be back to flying --IOW-- have the VM rig up and running, and I can give a decent response. Sometimes, real life intrudes. For example, G/Fs horn on her is not working. Took some time to get it fixed, after we both got home from work, but there goes my computer time. Got the damn horn working, though.--her safety is paramount. Next thing is the comp. First things first. Looking at what I see pictured above, I think that's probably OK for daylight with a .50 cal MG. I am definitely not disposed to the flash underneath, and to rear of the muzzle . That artifact should clearly be removed, as it has no place in reality. The rest of it is OK. Having seen M2 Cal .50 MGs fired in daytime it looks all right. If what is depicted above is a depiction of a different firearm, then the depiction might be wrong. For example, a US .30 Cal or a Brit .303 MG, or a German 7.92 MG would be similar, and of relatively smaller "flame" effect, compared to what is depicted above, at least in daytime. If that's a depiction of something like a US .50 Cal MG, then probably OK. A German of Brit Cannon would exhibit probably 100% more muzzle flash, at a simple guess. All this is a simple guess, based on memory, and some personal observation of M2 .50 Cal Mgs, as well as .30 Cal MGs in daytime. At night, both of them are FAR more brilliant in muzzle flash than during daytime. There is really no comparison. Note that Night fighter pilots were sometimes blinded by MG/Cannon muzzle flash, and had to rely (if available) on radar operators. If no such available, then it is waiting for night vison to return, in early war. Hence their scant kill rate. Aircraft radar made a huge kill difference, because pilot vision/navigation could be controlled by radar operator, given an effective team during later war. Note also that Bomber gunners were also blinded by their own muzzle flashes, but at least at the start, they had the opposing night fighter's muzzle slashes to aim at. It's a complex subject, with aircraft, pilot experience, and technology all playing counteracting parts. Hope this helps, RIBob

Sorry to not have given thanks on this site. I believe I responded via IM on another site, though. Thanks for your work!

That's no derailment, Mark, nor even close Your comments seem to be entirely pertinent, and thanks for making them.

II currently have a Win 7 Pro machine, and two Win 10 Pro computers. I have, because of the "Pro" nature of my OpSys, access to Windows Virtual Machine. This feature allows setting-aside partitions within one's hard drive for other Operating Systems to reside. Generally speaking, this takes a pretty large drive capacity.. OTOH, it allows setting-up of any "legacy" OpSys one might desire. There are ways to achieve the same thing without owning "Pro" OpSys. Google "Virtual machine", and there are many good programs that will allow such on non-"Pro" OpSys. The point to this exercise is to have a modern computer, capable of doing whatever one wants, including modern, secure, internet connection, and also accessing a subset of that same computer wherein resides a subset of win 7, win 98, or whatever one wants. Not all of us can afford to maintain "legacy" computers that are friendly to EAW. There are "work-arounds" if one wishes to use them. Now, as time goes on, we devotees of EAW just might find that the next version of Windows will not support EAW at all. So, the employment of VM on our computers will become a necessity in the future, as opposed to a novelty at present. I encourage all to investigate VM. It is built-in to most Microsoft "PRO" level OpSys, but there are independent programs that will achieve the same goal if one lacks a "PRO" level OpSys. The only downside to VM is that many people will need to greatly augment their HD capacity. I don't think a 2 Tb HD would be excessive at all. In order to make the VM machine work, you will need to obtain useable versions of legacy OpSys. In some cases,, this can be done by "cloning" existing OpSys onto a segment of an existing HD. If one lacks the desired OpSys, then it will need to be bought; perhaps one's local computer guy can provide a copy at small cost. Perhaps your semi-discarded HDs can, along with their legacy OpSys, provide the basis for a VM. Just set up VM, transfer legacy disk contents into appropriate VM environment, and you are back in time. IMHO, the only way to keep EAW alive is to help people with modern computers to access the game. Virtual machine is a big part of that. YMMV.

Well, as I said previously, you have always treated me with politeness and answered questions in a way that allowed me, as a mere user, to benefit from your answers. In relation to computer upgrading, mentioned above, I might add that Microsoft has declared that the extended end of service from them of Win 7 will occur on January 14, 2020. It will be possible to buy further service from them on an escalating scale for an additional 3 years. So, even Win 7 will be consigned into "legacy" system status. It seems, at least to me, that working hard on augmentations to EAW and at the same time dismissing the inevitable extinctions of such OSs is a problem. Now, men of good will, and set upon the same goal, can differ amongst things. I believe we are both such, and moreover, you are like a mentor to me. I make this comment with a certain amount of caution, lest it be considered a personal criticism. I am simply pointing out that if EAW has any future, it must be easily installed onto Win 10 computers. Simple as that. I think the days of people keeping legacy computers on-hand to play old sims are dying with the users, and dying with their computers. So, I submit this suggestion, with all possible good intent. Your competitors, so to speak, might be ahead on this score, and I think the EAW world would be much brighter if your creations could be used by new users, using new computers. Your friend, RIBob Sorry about the font change; it just happened.

Hi, Mark! hope all is well with you! I am just getting over the transition of computers from original Win 7 (gaming) to new Win 10 unit; I needed to install new RAM, upgrade graphics card, upgrade power supply, an some other stuff. along with upgrading CPU from I5 to I7. All of these components were pretty cheap, and self-installed, so the new comp probably stands me at $400. Along the way, I also upgraded CPU in laptop (everyday computer) to an I5 unit from the original I3. I have been spending a little money, but learning a lot, and the knowledge is priceless. All is going well, but I still need to transfer all the programs/files on Win 7 Computer to the new Win 10 unit. That might take a few days, but so far as my reading on the internet goes, my intended method of file transference should work all right. Then we will see how things work. I have a lot more sims on the Win 7 HD than EAW, but that is not your concern. Will advise when there is news to report. Thank you for maintaining/upgrading the Help Site! It's truly the best portal into EAW. I don't believe you are given anywhere near the credit you deserve for helping keeping the game alive.

Thank you for looking into the matter.

We all understand that the Me 262 was a superb aircraft at high altitudes. However, its' weak point was on the ground, and taking off and landing. To that end, the Luftwaffe instituted strict dispersal/camouflage procedures on-ground, and also instituted procedures for various piston-engine aircraft to "cover' the take-off/landing of the Me 262s. So, how about a landing/takeoff scenario at an Me 262 base? This would involve the 262s trying to land/take off, the "covering" force of piston engine aircraft, and Allied aircraft attacking the base and landing/taking off 262s. Allied aircraft get bonus points for 262s destroyed, in addition to 'covering' aircraft. Maybe two different scenarios: landing and taking off. I understand that this would be a very demanding scenario, utilizing the in-game AI for purposes for which it was never originally intended. Even so, a question unasked is never answered. Submitted for discussion

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?

Ships carry stuff. Sometimes, by their nature, the stuff carried can make a huge difference if the ship is attacked. For example, there is a big difference if a ship is carrying gasoline compared to troops. Given that the ships seen in EAW comprise many different types, is there any provision for differentiating between the types depending on the cargo/stores being carried, and the type of attacking weapon? In one instance, a troopship if struck by a bomb might catch on fire from items on board burning, not the least of which would be fuel oil, always present. On the other hand, a cargo ship carrying 500 Lb. bombs might well display secondary detonations of its' cargo which would quickly dwarf the primary impact. The possible scenarios are rather finite. Troop ships/Cargo ships/Fuel tanker ships/various warships. It should be noted (as in the similar Bomber Damage Model thread I posted here) that MG bullets will not usually detonate bombs, as the casing is sufficiently stout to discourage full penetration. However, explosive cannon shells could well set of a single bomb, thus initiating a chain reaction amongst the other bombs. fuel tankers need no elaboration. It strikes me that each type of ship, ideally, should have its' own "hit bubble" which in turn is described by the type of cargo it's carrying. Moreover, the effects of certain hits on certain ships should likewise be quite different. It's very likely that certain ships, carrying "dangerous cargo" were placed in certain positions within the convoy. Perhaps if the ship "Hit bubble" can be manipulated, it might be done with regard to such placement of ships in the convoy. Please allow me to mention that if this thread is seriously de-railed, or there are untoward personal attacks made in it, I will ask that the thread be locked, and that the Moderator take any further actions he/she sees fit. I am tired of this happening, and I will not be even an unwilling part of such behavior. Submitted for discussion.

I'll D/L VB's content with no hesitation. Modred is an unknown quantity to me (no offense), so I will read up on reactions to his offering. Have heard nothing but positive things, so far. Otten's latest offering seems to incorporate an embarrassing number of glitches, and so I will wait before downloading it.

Standing by; I have a considerable mount of updating to do. For a sim that is supposedly on its' last legs, there are an uncommon amount of upgrades available.

SH, you have made some very considerable additions to the EAW community yourself. It's people like you that I was hoping to motivate, and I am delighted that you have stepped-up and made some positive contributions!

VB, you have always treated me right, both in private and in public. May I suggest, in like manner, that you are selling yourself--and your creations-- short. Many players of the various EAW sims, of which yours is a part, have more modern computers. In some cases, the players of EAW need to use alternative computers using obsolescent Operating Systems to get to play EAW. Most people are using Win 10 right now, and maybe an ancient computer running Win 7. That's not going to cut it for people trying to get into the game. That's part of the problem why there are fewer and fewer players of EAW, and its' variants. Inaccessibility is the initial problem--where to get a running copy of EAW, for instance, onto which to download your creation? And then jump through hoops to get it to run? For those who haven't seen your creation, that's asking a lot. Sure, I know it's worth it, but problem is that the newbies don't know it. VB, my friend--if I may presume to call you my friend-- I believe it is in your best interest, as well as the best interest of the EAW community to think about how users of more modern Operating Systems can easily access your work product. Certainly MarkEAW's Help site can play a part. Perhaps it might be possible to incorporate a Win 10-useable portion of your creation with a useable base EAW program already incorporated? I will bet that if you offered a stand-alone, one-download, version of your creation, as opposed to asking the potential user to find a suitable "donor" version of EAW, you might do better. It bears mentioning that a more modern computer would certainly save you a considerable amount of time-- perhaps a great deal of time. You could probably "see" your creations in a fraction of the time it now takes your older computer to render them. You say--correctly-- that time is short for many of us. So why waste your valuable time using an old, slow computer? I submit this with all the best wishes, and as a friend. I--and many-- look forward to your continued contributions to EAW.

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...

Added, since I am no longer able to edit the Original Post. This very long, and highly detailed original source seems to contain within it the answers to many convoy-related questions: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/Admin-Hist/011-Convoy/011-Convoy-3.html It appears that the usual practice was to segregate the fuel ships , the troop ships, and the general cargo convoys into separate convoys. Aside from the "hit bubble" of an individual ship, based on its' cargo, the "general" convoys might require some attention, as some of their ships would certainly be carrying ammunition. In the absence of original, direct information, common sense says that the ammunition ships would be emplaced towards the least vulnerable part of the convoy, that being the middle. That said, given the consequences of their being hit, such ships would likely be towards the center, rear of the convoy. That being the case, fewer un-hit ships would need to evade a stricken ship, and the damaged ships would not long illuminate the convoy whilst they were exploding. I will provide further info as I come across it, but what is currently available is probably sufficient to provide the basis for an answer to the question posed in the Original Post.

No problem with anything that I've ever seen you post, Mark. You and I think alike, mostly, and what we disagree on isn't worth mentioning. Win 10 Comp is ready to go, but I discovered I need a unique cable to access the drive with all my backup programs. Win 7 comp off-line (for now), so I'm waiting on the damned cable. I should have ordered it ling ago, but it got overlooked.

Thanks, VB! Will D/L when the new computer is finished.

Well, I'm keeping Win 7 computer for at least a while, until I fully understand Win Virtual Machine. I have Win 98 and Win XP Pro OpSys available for VM, and others, as I require them. Win 10 computer is necessary to deal with the present, and the future. Frankly, with all the bitter, pointless, infighting present for a long time in the EAW "community", I'm discouraged from participating in EAW discussions. I've already been unfairly temp banned from another site, and am reluctant to get involved with similar discussions on this site. Pity, as EAW is a great sim, except for many of the people who have made it great. Life is too damn short for that sort of BS.

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.

Mark, I'm upgrading to a Win 10 computer with 2nd Gen I7 CPU, 16GB RAM, and a GEForce GT 1030 graphics card. The Card is FAR from cutting edge, and the rest is not exactly pushing cutting edge, either. Still, it's big step up from what I had in my old Win 7 system, which (surprisingly) ran EAW v1.28e, EAWPRO, and V1.60 all with graphics set near to max. So just a head's up that I might be re-reading your Help Site, with a particular view to Win 10 compatibility. Oh, and asking some questions, too, Lol!

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.

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?

Your Help Site, once I trusted your instructions, allowed me to get EAW up and running. Many thanks!