Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Erik

      2019 Drive   05/31/2019

      Can you lend a hand?  GET STARTED TODAY


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Neutral

About rotton50

  1. EAWPRO cockpit gunflash activated

    Guys, gun flashes from nose guns are OK, probably add to the realism factor a bit but don't spend too much time admiring those wing gun flashes or your going to get shot in the a**!
  2. I'm working on a total makeover of the target set in SPAW. Part of the project involves moving the frontlines around for a couple of reason: 1 - I never liked the idea of having three SPAW scenarios, one for default, one for online play and one for the floatplanes. I'm going to try to combine the needs all three scenarios by moving the frontlines and some of the aircraft carriers. We'll see how it goes. At some point I'll need input from the online players but not just yet. 2 - I wanted to replicate a beach assault. I tried it in ETO2015 but I didn't know as much about the TMOD's dat files so I gave up on including it. Now that I have a better grasp of the data I got it to work for Guadalcanal. Here's a few screenshots to give you an idea: The invasion fleet- Jap fortifications in the foreground, Allied landing forces in the background- BTW, those puffs of brown smoke are shell blasts If you add this setting to the [EAW] section of your ini file you will get this affect ----- GroundBattle=1 Also, there is a date trigger in the TMOD.dat files. It was originally meant to turn on the V-1 launch ramps only in 1944-45 but it can be used to turn on and off any TMOD in any year. Meaning, this invasion fleet will only show up in 1942. In all other years this is Allied territory so there's no need for an invasion fleet off the coast of Guadalcanal. In addition to the invasion scenario I've produced a number of TMOD's that are elevated thus allowing for all sorts of new add-on targets attached to existing ones, like AA guns, carrier deck aircraft and deck cargo: One of the great things about the target editor is you can magnify the terrain down to a couple of feet, thus putting TMOD's exactly where you want them. For instance, here's a radar tower at the very top of a mountain peak: I have a long way to go. So far I have most of the targets in the Solomon chain and all the fleets upgraded to the new standard but that's only about 1/4 of the total number of targets. I'll post updates periodically as I come up with other inventive ways to use the vastly superior modifications available in the 1.6 development line.
  3. 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?
  4. Ribob, all of your suggestions have already been incorporated into the target upgrade package called ETO2015. Some ships catch fire, and then sink or list to one side. Fuel ships explode,burn and then sink. Ammo ships blow up and leave nothing behind. In addition, some freighters have planes, truck or jeeps on deck that can be targeted. Plus most ships have visible AA on deck which is also targetable. You really should give that scenario a go if you want a target rich environment. Just watch those German hospitals because some of them are actually AA sites!
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. That is your choice. But you know what I'd say next, right?
  8. Hence our 2nd amendment, which is unique in the world, written by men who understood that governments ALWAYS tend toward over reach. Yamamoto famously warned the Japanese high command "In America there is a gun hiding behind each blade of grass". He wasn't far off.
  9. 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.
  10. I made it perfectly cleat that the first guy to step forward will be showered with help from both Jel and me but there's no point spending time on this if no one is interested. Since you do show an interest in the damage models for the level bombers would you like to learn more about that particular area?
  11. Of course I see it. The question is, do we take time away from our own enjoyment to publish a set of documents that will probably never be read by other members, let alone acted on? I won't speak for Mr. Jelly but I know that I'm not interested in that. I'd much rather have a member approach me because then I know there's real interest in learning. So far there hasn't been any interest, which is fine, most members just want to fly.
  12. Mark, here's the problem with that approach. Basically there's two guys who know how the editors work. What you're asking is for us to spend quite a bit of time putting together help files WITHOUT knowing if anyone will ever use the editors. It's not like we've just recently put out the welcome mat for the community here and at SimHQ to see if there are any takers. So far in the five years that Jel and I have encouraged new modders to step forward, I can't think of a single inquiry. That doesn't mean we've given up but we're also not going to spend time working on something that will probably never happen. I hope you understand.
  13. meh, nothin' new, Jel. Some people are just afraid of competition. Recall the claims of hard drive crashes about 15 years ago? This is just more of the same. But I think we've made our point and the members are free to make up their own minds. FWIW, I'd love it if one or two would step forward and tell us they're interested in learning to mod.
  14. 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.
  15. As stated a couple of posts back, TMODs have nothing to do with the terrain they're placed on so "Terrain Modification" would be an incorrect assumption. Terrain Model (TMOD) would be the correct designation.

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..