Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

44 Excellent

About JG4_Deciman

Recent Profile Visitors

799 profile views
  1. Ok guys I finally made it And it took me 'only' a year... A 'Train Chaser' was wanted And a very complex logic was needed to create the 'chaser', which was only the final step... Here is a very small part containing all the 'basics' used 10 trains (each having 5 subtrains -> spawning places and carriages can be different) Entire logic used is COMPLETELY random (spawning, movement, ...) Tracks are the connection between 2 points (Checkpoint, Switch, Station, DeadEnd) Every track can be used by 1 train at the same time only Trains will use random tracks when passing a switch (depending on the target tracks being busy or not) Trains will randomly spawn (depending on the target track/spawning position being busy or not) Trains will wait at signals (switches/station) until target track is free (or despawn after a while) Trains will despawn at a switch if BOTH target tracks are busy Spawning/Despawning points: DeadEnd at 1032-7 Station at 0231-4 (moved from 0331 to a closer position) - only connection is toward north. - any train spawning or entering with heading south will despawn Switches 0127 (no further target possible, so despawning always when reaching) 0432 (no further target possible, so despawning always when reaching) Checkpoint (0131-3) Trains can enter from both directions In case a train cannot proceed on track it will wait In case a train cannot enter because of a waiting train the waiting train will become a 'Ghost' (means despawn and save train and orientation) In case a train will become 'Ghost' all existing ghosts are deleted In case a 'ghost' is present after a train passed the checkpoint it is respawned Deci PS: If you don't understand the basics on mission creating don't even try to understand what I did here. The logic used inside is VERY complex and VERY demanding if you try to understand it... and I've made it as understandable as I could when coding it! I'll be able to answer questions for details, but I'm not willing to teach the basics before answering questions Noticed bugs: Trains passing the switch 0131-6 entering from south (checkpoint at 0131-3) and heading towards DeadEnd (0132-7) can despawn instantly after passing the switch. Reason still unknown... Edit: The mission inside is multiplayer/dogfight and created to run under dServer AND hosted by player. In case you want more/different planes edit the airfield and make sure any added plane is 'AXIS SIDE' TrainChaser.zip
  2. Short answer... For anything showing up on the map you need a 'spotter' So either you are in spotting range with your plane yourself, or any other unit (vehicle, ... WITH entity AND spotting) is able to see the other unit. I've placed some 'spotter vehicles (my own nation)' inside my mission to see my trains on the map for debugging. They show me all units inside their spotting range they can see (but that can be much lower than the spotting range set) And I've never got map markers showing for bue/red only and having ignored all other nations Deci
  3. Tried to open with mission editor, but no sucsess. But: Failure message took really long to appeare On my own missions (and they are really a lot larger than the downloaded one) the message appeared much earlier. And after setting the 'Haze' (even manually by editing the .mission file by hand) it was gone. So I really don't think it's related to the new 'Haze' setting introduced. It must be something else... I've still got an unupdated version on a second pc (but right now not the time to do any further investigations) but I'll try to open the faulty mission with that version as soon as I can and report if it was loading... Deci
  4. Hi there Some changes to mission editing... As I wasn't able to open some (!) of my missions (.mission) after installing the update and my dServer refused to load only (!) the same missions as .bin, too I used the resaver for one of my missions not running. It took a while but I was able to open it afterwards and check the differences. Only 1 line was completely new: ... CloudConfig = "summer\01_Light_01\sky.ini"; SeaState = 0; Turbulence = 0; TempPressLevel = 0; Temperature = 25; Pressure = 760; Haze = 0; WindLayers { ... And it only seems to affect missions containing clouds Maybe that helps to easily 'repair' missions, campaigns or whatever Deci PS: You should resave your missions even if they still load after the update
  5. Add-On... I was not able to open some of my missions (which were running running) with the editor after the update. I could solve that by using 'resave missions in folder' Its seems to affect all missions where cloud setting is not '0' Deci Edit: Only 1 line has to be added inside the .mission file... ... CloudConfig = "summer\01_Light_01\sky.ini"; SeaState = 0; Turbulence = 0; TempPressLevel = 0; Temperature = 25; Pressure = 760; Haze = 0; WindLayers { ... The 'Haze = 0;' is new and seems to be only needed sometimes
  6. Just a guess, but maybe the solution: All Factory complexes inside your setup seem to have more than 1 building Maybe each building inside a complex will fire the 'OnKilled' To eleminate this (in case my guess was correct) there are 2 options: Either let each 'OnKilled' for the individual factories fire a Trigger Timer, triggering the counter and deactivate itself instantly Or if you know how many buildings inside the individual factory will report an 'OnKilled' let them trigger an additional counter (set to 5 for 5 buildings inside) and let it triger the main counter when every building inside was killed Deci Edit: IIRC the large oil tanks inside can be killed one by one, and each destroyed oil tank generates a '.... destroyed....' output in the chat. So I think I'm right with my guess
  7. Create subfolder(s) in the data directory 'IL-2 Sturmovik Battle of Stalingrad\data' I've created '_MissionLogs' and '_BinLogs' Edit the 'startup.cfg' [KEY = system] ... bin_log_folder = "_BinLogs\" text_log_folder = "_MissionLogs\" gamelog = 0 keep_binary_log = 0 mission_text_log = 0 [END] The logfiles will now be saved in the 2 new folders instead of the main folder AFTER you enabled saving them The 3 lines ending with '...log = 0' disable saving logfiles To enable saving set the logs you want to save to '...log = 1' Deci PS: It's not mod related. It's a global game setting
  8. AddOn... The trains pass bridges after the latest update without any problems. Thank you guys, and I'm sure you'll handle the other bug, too Deci
  9. Ok, simple question (as I can see at least 1 user downloaded the mission pack) Did it help or do I have to extract all waypoints from my mission let them be directly triggered (with the delay used by the logic) and see what happens... And I really think after all testing I've made the problem is not located inside my complex logic. Otherwise the problem would be present always and not related to the location of the group (or to be more detailed, the location of the waypoints making troubles) and not happen (or happen not) with exactly the same logic used and only moved the waypoints to a slightly different position... Deci PS: I could also try the same logic on a different map (lapino) but I don't think it would make any sense as the problems must be related to the map AND the positions of the waypoints
  10. @Gambit21 @-DED-Rapidus @Regingrave Here are 2 reduced versions. No buildings, no bridges Reduced the mission to 2 subtrains for the same train (starting position) Removed the 'spawner logic' Removed the 'area logic' And bypassed everything needed on mission start. All commands are serverinputs To spawn trains : Spawn BIE (train from Bielefeld) Spawn GUE (train from Guetersloh) Only 1 train possible at the same time (spawner is disabled/enabled automaticaly) Subtitles: Checkpoint ON/OFF Difference between the 2 missions: Simply moved the entire group containing the 'Checkpoint' to a different position on the same track Behaviour of the trains: Checkpoint at 1035-7-6 - Train from Guetersloh behaves as it should - Train from Bielefeld turns at first waypoint Checkpoint at 1035-7-2 - Train from Guetersloh turns at first waypoint - Train from Bielefeld behaves as it should Additional notes: Before implementing the 'Checkpoint' trains behaved as they should in both directions Same waypoints were used So the track between the switch in 1034-6-6 and the station in 0936-7-9 seems to be the problem. Same strange things were noticed before on a different track Trains passing the switch at 0736-6-9 heading to the switch at 0638-8-3 behaved normal Trains in opposite direction turned when reaching the first waypoint of the switch at 0736-6-9 Deci TrainDebugging.zip
  11. ok, deleting everything except the logic is not the problem. but the logic still is massive (even if only 1 train) I could try to create a 'scripted' version means every logic inside that is working (and I guess all are) and not relevant in that case could be replaced by a 'loop' trigger (using the delay for the 'normal' logic feeding that trigger) My problem (and I guess yours, too) is - there is a lot of logic constantly running and using resources - waypoints are activated (but not triggered) - waypoints are deactivated (triggered or not) And I can only say, the only active AND triggered waypoint is never reached under conditions I cannot define. I know the (completely) same logic (switches) in most cases worked as intended and in 1 known case not (and they are all the same by 100%) Same to the 'checkpoint'. Sometimes it works, sometimes not Same logic, different position (just moved) result exactly opposite one. Maybe I'll have to create a very simple (scripted) one using all waypoints for 1 train letting them be activated/deactivated with the same delay my 'normal' logic would need and see what happaens Deci
  12. Unfortunately the fix didn't solve the problem... Updated both installations (game and server instance) Opened the updated server Loaded the original mission Saved it (new name) Started dServer (new saved mission) and game client and saw the same strange things happen... Train enters the 'Checkpoint' and depending on 'from where' it uses either the full logic and did what it should or it turned 180° after reaching the first waypoint. Made some further tests. Took the same base mission for all tests and activated my debugging subtitles. All that was changed in the 3 testing versions was: Moved the entire group containing the 'Checkpoint' to a different position on the same track. Checkpoint at 1035-7-2 Trains entering from Gütersloh reach the first waypoint trigger the next waypoint turn around instantly drive a while and stop. The second waypoint is never reached. Trains entering from Bielefeld proceed on track as they should, triggering all waypoints and proceed on track Checkpoint at 1035-7-6 Same things happen but completely the other way round. From Bielefeld -> strange behavior From Gütersloh -> behave as they should Checkpoint at 0935-6-7 same as at 1035-7-6 So as both missions use completely the same logic and the only thing changed is the positon of the waypoints (and all other MCU's what should make no difference) I can say: The logic is working as it should (up to the point where I could test it) The strange behaviour is (waypoint?) position related None of the positions where the 'strange running' train finally stops is the position of any waypoint inside the mission So now it's up to you @Regingrave @-DED-Rapidus @Gambit21 to tell me what you need (mission) to be able to locate that bug. Using the entire mission is too much, that's what I know now. But I finally found different locations giving me different results for the same logic used... Deci PS: Bridges not tested up to now, Concentrating myself on this bug
  13. Maybe, maybe not... So where does he take the knowledge of 'not enough players'? The number of players (sp mode) is and remains unknown. The 'sp quality' is a different thing... Deci
  14. Ok, some simple questions... Why do you think we need more players for IL2? What tells you there are not enough players owning (and playing IL2)? All I can see is the number of players connected to the multiplayer servers. What I cannot see is the number of players active in single player mode. And the only ones who know the numbers of sold games are at high positions inside the company. And I guess the know if they have enough sold copies or need more... I know they want to sell more (because everybody selling something wants to sell more, but that is not questioned) So the answer can only be: you (and me, too) don't know. All you can see (and think is needed) is more players you can see (means multiplayer) So what do we need for that? Options for more players on multiplayer servers More multiplayer servers More multiplayer missions Multiplayer servers online 24/7 More players needs adjusting the dServer to be able to use all resources of a modern pc (and not only 1 core) and by doing this sharing the hardware (cores) to allow more players at the same time. More servers needs more users offering their OWN time and money to host a server More missions needs more users offering their OWN time to create missions More servers online needs more users offering their OWN money to host a server (and servers that are able to host multiplayer missions are expensive!) So breaking it down to the basics: Everybody can try to create missions because the editor is for free and included Some users try (or managed) to understand the mission editor and how it can be used Some users share their knowledge do other users And there are also some users creating single player content (missions/campaigns/generators), but we don't see the number of users playing them... But hosting a server is quite different... Even if you have the abilities to create missions (or somebody else did and you are willing to host them) you'll meet the limits sooner than you like. A server with the ability to host 80 players same time will cost about 50€/$ per month or you buy (or own a pc with the same hardware - means cpu speed), but in that case the limit is your internet connection (upload/download speed) and the daily reconnection with a different ip... So as a final fact: Having more users being seen to you/me/everybody would mean: Servers can deal with more players at the same time Servers can be available at lower costs And both needs the same: Servers can deal with all aspects of a modern cpu. Or to be more detailed: Servers can handle more cores and request lower core speeds for beeing able to manage the same (and more) they do now. And if this solution would have been easy to implement it would have been done a long time ago (means already in 'Rise of Flight', where I met these limits for the fist time). But as there is no 'easy' solution do the same I do: Learn to live with these limitations Do your best to get the max out of what is possible Try to help making missions run smoother (and free of bugs) And I know my latest mission detecting a bug was very demanding for the devs... But I'm believing it helped locating some bugs... Deci
  15. Thanks for invitation. Maybe we'll see us in the sky. And the changes made were only a few. The rest of your logic was working as it should (and easy to understand and debug) Additional remark... You use 'CheckZone' for detecting planes in area. This uses less resources than the 'Complex Trigger' I use for the same things to do. And I'ld really like to do this in my own missions (at least in the one I'm creating since more than half a year). But it only works (dev's may correct me if changed in the meantime) only when running a dServer for hosting multiplayer missions or in single player missions. Whenever you try to host that mission from within the main game (starting a server) without having a second account for a dServer and the ability to run both (game and dServer) at the same time these triggers (and maybe even some more) will not work. 'Complex Trigger' requires much more resources AND an additional counter (if you need 'units inside the area or area empty' what the 'checkzone' will trigger) but afaik it will be working under all conditions, so even when a player tries to host a mission from within the game... Just keep that in mind in case you want players to be able to host your missions on their own... Deci
  • Create New...