rotton50

Dizzy Dean, one of our great baseball players, once said "It ain't bragging if you can do it". My contention is that since it's rare that one of your models ever sees the light of day, indeed you are bragging, not doing.

Doesn't matter to me what you post. In fact, it makes my case. Players do not care one whit if there is an occasional, minor R/S issue. They do care about having a huge number of aircraft to chose from, multiple scenarios with well over 2000 different ground targets in those scenarios, different payload packages for their aircraft with all sorts of additional weapons and most importantly, when something is posted it is already available, NOT some time in the distant future. An Ideologue, OTOH, posts picture after picture of "perfect" models that will never see the light of day and brag about a dubious expertise to an ever shrinking group of followers. See the difference? Relax and have some fun or adhere to a strict protocol and suffer within the constraints of a smothering ideology. I know which one I prefer.

Simply not true. There are a massive number of aircraft available in the 1.6 development line with no R/S issues and most of them use some form of hard point attachment. In fact, my "Empty F" method takes this to it's logical end with a main section that is nothing but hard points attaching all the pieces together. Since all 3dz's are recognized in the exactly the same way by the EAW exec, of course adding my shape to your shape would work. The game doesn't know who built a particular model so there is no inherent risk associated with combining pieces from different sources. The problem is that some modders strive for ideological purity and others adhere to the idea that the enemy of good is perfect. As we know from so many real world examples, the ideologists DEMAND purity.................................all the while, realistic players couldn't care less. PS - The Okah rudder R/S was fixed as soon as I saw the screenshot but I didn't feel like reposting a new picture.

It's faster to adapt an existing nose cone than build one. No sense reinventing the wheel.

Not 100% accurate. While you can't copy and paste elements from one model to another you can easily attach separate 3dz's together with hardpoints. So you could null out the sharp edged nose elements and then find a smoother nose cone somewhere in the EAW universe and attach it to the front of the main fuselage. The whole exercise would take about 1/2 hour. FWIW, the roundest nose cone 3dz I've ever come across is the radar pod I built for the P-82. if you want to try adapting that one, you can still get it at Talley-ho.

"One thing is certain these new models will not suffer from any R/S anomalies like some other carriers do." Leave off the "like some other carriers do" comment and then it would be a true statement with no condescension. vs "Some other carriers actually look like WW2 carriers." This statement did not say that the posted carrier looked bad, only that it didn't look like a WWII carrier. Which, at this point it doesn't. I hope the moderator can see the difference.

My favorite shots from the upgrade showing the accuracy of Mr. Jelly's target editor and my perseverance - A damaged cruiser in tow by an ocean going tug: A crane offloading P-40's in Port Moresby: Deck cargo and AA guns on a freighter: Combined Airbase / Seaplane base:

Thanks. The original SPAW was the effort of four individuals and made this upgrade quite a bit less daunting than it seems. The most difficult part was getting the guns placed just right on the carriers and the cargo on the decks of the freighters but I think it was worth it for the added realism. Enjoy.

So what you're saying is that there are multiple, fully functional aircraft carriers available to the community right now for those players who use the 1.6 development line?

Got a few more "what-ifs" in the pipeline including this one - As you can see, it's armed with two 20mm cannon and carries one air to air anti-bomber rocket, plus it's got a full smoke plume behind it. So far in flight testing testing, I haven't been able to shoot down a damn thing. It's too fast! But it is a hoot to fly for the 1/4 hour that it has fuel for. After that it's a brick. Kinda like what the real thing would have been like. Never forget, the 1.6 developers strive to keep you entertained with new releases all the time. Presently we're working on some new scenarios involving lesser known theaters of operation from WWII. Just a taste of things to come: CANTZ 506 floatplane, which of course lands and takes off from water tiles. BV138 tri-motor floatplane- Fokker G-1 - Fokker T-V Fokker 21 Fiat G-55 These are completed but there are quite a few more on the list of planes to be added to the 1.6 inventory. Short Stirling Westland Lysander P-80 F9F F11F Boomerang Ju288 Defiant Mc207 Flyable V-1 Valentia Vampire Wirraway Wellington He219

Mr. Jelly has never taken credit for EAWPRO. Adding it as an option under the 1.6 umbrella is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and he's always made it clear that it is VBH's work. Credit HAS been given and that's as much as any of us modders can ask. You see, our work is non-proprietary, meaning that once it's out there anyone can do whatever they want with it. It doesn't matter if VBH doesn't like what Mr. Jelly is doing. The simple fact it he can't do anything about it. Of course, in a normal environment a modder would be THRILLED to have his work enjoyed by as many members as possible and so would encourage the actions of someone willing to put in the effort to incorporate their product for greater exposure. I'll give you an example of how it would work if we had a normal environment in these forums. Back in 2007 not long after the original SPAW was released by The ModSquad, I downloaded a copy from Talley-ho just see see if there were any installation problems. Everything looked OK at first and then I noticed that one of the carrier groups had been moved. When I inquired at our back forum as too the reason, it turned out that none of the groups in the ModSquad's version were close enough for online play. Seems there is no time compression in online play so the opposing forces need to be fairly close so Mr. Jelly moved the group to a better location for online play. That was fine, however, the carrier group was placed about a mile from an island AND heading right toward it. Now consider that we had toiled for a year on this project, striving for accuracy and as much realism as we could pack into the game, you can imagine we weren't too happy with this turn of events and we pitched a fit in the forum. Let me say that technically, Mr. Jelly was within his rights to do what he wanted. However, IN THE SPIRIT OF COOPERATION he offered two different versions, one for offline and one for online play. Got that? IN THE SPIRIT OF COOPERATION.

Number of things: 1 - The term "The Final Cut" is not yours to appropriate. It would take a very large ego and a very small mind to think otherwise. 2 - Indeed, you have been working on a "Final Cut" for a decade.......that's ten years or 10% of a century. I guess it's going to be great............when it's finished. In the mean time, players can play in the 1.6 sandbox right now. A sandbox full of goodies you can not replicate even if you had a full century. 3 - As Mr. Jelly pointed out, this is my final large scale project for the EAW community, thus the name SPAW2019 Final Cut. There is no way in hell that the community is going to confuse the greatest add-on that has ever been produced for EAW with your work. Jeeeze, it doesn't even have the same name...........SPAW2019 Final Cut vs EAWPRO Final Cut. Why are your shorts in a knot over this? 4 - This thread is a perfect example of the poisonous atmosphere you bring with you wherever you go. It's sad beyond belief that you felt it necessary to start an entire thread to whine about the title of another member's hard work. And to have another member jump in and agree with you..................all without even trying the new product. You are sad, petty little boys.

When members of the EAW community write misleading things like this we will remain silent. " This sim is very daunting, to any newbie, and needlessly so. A well constructed, and well-written TUTORIAL, specifically written for NEWBIES might be of great benefit. All you old-timers are familiar with this sim, and how to set it just the way you want it. That is NOT so easy for a Newbie, and I reckon they will blow-off the game if it is too hard for them to play. Yes, all the setting-up is second-nature to old-timers, but to newbies, it is a confusing, daunting process. If you want this game to get wide-scale use, then write instructions intended for people that have ZERO familiarity with the game. V1.60 is a great sim, but the instructions for menu choices MUST be better written, and included within every download. Installing the game is sufficiently difficult to discourage most new users, sad to say. The fault is theirs, in that respect. Setting up the game, once installed, is another matter, and that process desperately needs a well-written tutorial. Submitted in all helpfulness." Laughably NOT helpful. When the misinformation related to the 1.6 development line ceases, we will be thrilled to help. We need more modders to keep the game alive but we will not do so in the current environment.

I have nothing to add to my comment. I will let YOUR return comments speak for me.

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**!

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.

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, 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!

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.

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.

That is your choice. But you know what I'd say next, right?

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.

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 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?

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.