Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About Stix_09

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Remote control cars helicopters and planes . Motorcycles. Games that require you to use your brain (and occasionally some that don't)

Recent Profile Visitors

127 profile views
  1. I have agree with Thad on this one. It covers this stuff pretty well. There is so much useful info in pranksters guide and the "IL-2 Sturmovik Mission Editor and Multiplayer Server Manual" I did have a few issues with Prankster's guide but using the other guide I was able to work out the problems. Not only do they explain how to do it they also give a lot of tips on how to make missions that are clearer and easier to read and troubleshoot. I've also looked at some other people missions to see how they did things and it was evident they were either made before the guides were made or without reading these guides after they were made, and to be honest they are a difficult to follow , mainly because of poor grouping. These guides really are excellent and it's definitely worth the time to follow them. In the long run, particularly as your missions get more complicated they will make even more of a difference. I've also picked up several gems that would have cost me enormous amounts of time otherwise. (like creating a scenery group using the developer templates of all the structures for each map I did not know existed)
  2. Stix_09

    Camel Vs Dr1

    I see you watched the whole video too.
  3. You might find this topic useful info, (see my posts about getting these tutorials to work). (PzUmurkz post works too) This guide and tutorial files need to be updated to work with new engine (minor changes) It's based on a 2015 version of the game engine and editor. PS I don't know how to get this pinned topic updated....
  4. Ya it used an older editor (and based on older game engine version) , and there was some changes made to the names of some things (read about it somewhere). Pretty sure if you delete the .msnbin files the editor recreates them (one of the main changes was CheckEntities -> CheckPlanes) see Complex trigger - Upcoming changes The editor actually loads these compiled files rather then the .mission (txt files) if it sees them, because it uses the game engine to run (hence why you can only run editor or game , but not at the same time). That's my understanding. It takes longer to open mission files the first time until it compiles them. The other thing is unless you are running dserver to play his tutorials you need to create them as single player missions to test them (that is also mentioned in his guide , part 5 testing) They really should update that guide section considering its a pinned topic, as this not helping new people learn to create missions. (I'll make a post in that topic I think about it)
  5. This guide covers counters and groups and gives examples on how to use them. "Forum topic: Prangster's IL-2 BoS Mission Building Guide" If you have already done this you should review it again. (I'd def go through his tutorials) I found minor errors in the guide and could see ways to improve on what he did , but its well written and very useful, even if its dated and uses an older editor. (tip delete the .msnbin files in the tutorial missions before you open the mission files in the editor, as you want the new editor to recompile them.) I'm currently learning how to build missions,but I have a programming background so I understand basic principles and as Gambit said you need to create groups (kinda like functions in programming ), it simplifies the editor layout and makes troubleshooting far easier. The other thing is you want to only activate objects as encountered (and deactivate when not needed) as much as possible , it will reduce load on computers running the mission, you don't want to turn on all object at mission start if you don't need to , especially AI objects , can put a lot of load on computer (also covered in Prangster's guide). I had a look at your mission file and its far more complex than it needs to be , because a lot stuff is not defined in groups. The other advantage of groups is once they are debugged and working well, you can reuse them again (so again less chance for mistakes). This section "IL-2 Sturmovik Mission Editor and Multiplayer Server Manual" also a must read, and good reference material. Like I said I'm still a beginner when it comes to building missions, but having training in any form of programming , many of the principles apply here just as well. Another programming principle is "divide and conqueror ", get stuff working in simpler and smaller blocks, then link them together. As Thad said keep it as simple as possible.
  6. Stix_09

    Would You Purchase?

    Point is kinda moot anyway, they after current stuff (and that's a bit still) , I think pacific is next theater, so you likely looking at stuff like zeros, Corsairs, Wildcats etc... will be a while before ya see any new planes outside that
  7. Stix_09

    Would You Purchase?

    Yep its a good point about the type of player, I agree with that. However I still say too much is put on the community, and the game does little to help people get into it. Even an experienced sim player who is new to IL-2 needs hunt online to learn how to drive it than they need too. I'd like to see a lot more done there, or at the very least the game should help you find what you need online. Test this ( without searching around the internet or this forum). Just go find a basic manual on the store site or where you get the game. Show me the manual for steam version? or Show me the manual (even a basic guide) on the dev sales or support section site)? Is there one installed with the game? If you hunt around you can find one that' out of date online. If you are a new person wanting to put the time in and learn sims and Il-2, how easy do does this game make that? Not very. Thats my point. If youtube did not exist or this forum you would be hard pressed to learn this game. (and even then they don't even point you where to go. (far harder than it should be) And I think multiplayer should also have dedicated servers managed by dev , not pushed all on the community to fund and host and or a better (easier) system for users to do it. The game is great , but from a new user perspective (experienced simmer or not) it's presented poorly. The best software (or hardware) is only useful if you can understand it. The spitfire was successful, primarily because it was easier to fly than vs say a 109, also a great plane , ague-ably just as good, but harder to use well. I think it may have had a manual too.
  8. Stix_09

    Camel Vs Dr1

    Came across this video the other day on Camel vs. DR1. (ww1 , the start of air combat) Gives a different perceptive vs common dogfight engagement we have on a simulators like il-2 GB / ROF vs ww1/ww2 i.e The dogfight is not the engagement you would be looking for in ww1/ww2 I should rephrase that and quote the video "A good Pilot never got into a dogfight out of choice" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z25T-s0gu8M If you watch the whole video, it compares the two planes.
  9. Stix_09

    Would You Purchase?

    I'd prefer they work on the current game in particular multiplayer to increase new players to the sim. Too much new content IMHO. They already got their hands full (over committed) with BPlatte, tanks and fc work. Currently far to much is put on the community when it comes to multiplayer (ie its all on the community currently). If you are a new player its a long slow learning curve and its damn poorly documented. Many just give up and go elsewhere. (apart from AGAIN fantastic work done by the community, videos , tools, and docs and this forum this game would have died long ago) Taken me ages to work stuff out . Its a far to long and difficult process for new players, with no help in game or even a manual (that's not hidden on the internet and I think not even a dev one at that) and that's why numbers suffer.. If you are not super keen on this sort of thing, you would not bother. Devs seriously should rethink their focus. That MHO.
  10. To get some of these to work with current build of game (3.006) i had to delete the .msnbin files and open and then save the mission in the editor.(recreates these msnbin files) plus a bit of code tweaking. I believe the msnbin files are the compiled version that the game actually uses and the editor creates and then uses(EDIT: confirmed) Def have to edit some of these older missions to get them working with the current game build, as there has been some changes in the editor and naming. I'm going through through the mission building guides to work out how all works. Its interesting and complex, but well thought out. (you can clearly see the ROF roots in all this, which has a very similar editor which this one is based on). These guides (by Prangster) use an older editor , so there are a few differences, but I also found there are a few mistakes in these guides too, but not to hard to work out as they are well written. I think its important when building missions so they don't get to complex and over tax the computer , couple of ways to do this 1) make objects into groups when possible so; you can reuse them (a library) and it also simplifies the mission editor layout , less clutter (similar to a function in programming) which also has the benefit to easier work out whats going on,later and for debugging. 2) use triggers to only activate(and deactivate when not used) things when required (ie a plane flies within a certain radius) rather than just activate everything at mission start. Been a while since I messed with any form of coding, but some of the same principles apply when designing missions.
  11. Stix_09

    72AG-DED- Random Expert +

    Minor rant: Yep, IMHO far to much dev effort going into new content and not enough into doing stuff to make the game easier for new players to get into it. It's interesting the game devs put so little effort into multiplayer server aspect, done right it could explode online players and attract a lot more ppl. They should be working a lot more with the community i recon, without them this game would be dead. One example of what I mean: Some people have done some great howto videos on the game < why have the devs not made that more public in their marketing> thats a win win for the content creator and the developer? An example of working with your community. (Maybe give the people in the community an incentive to help you sell your game....???) Multiplayer server development is all community based.... I think that is a huge mistake and missed opportunity. Some great tools have been produced which is great, but I think far to much is put on the community here. As a relatively new player to IL-2 BOx, IMHO without the current community efforts I would probably have put this game into the too hard basket (like many do). Dev game documentation is pretty poor, and its a long learning curve to work stuff out yourself, without you tube I would have been lost long ago (some really great videos on how to fly, plane configs, capabilities , combat skills etc etc). You have to hunt all over the internet to work stuff out from predominantly community created content. Pretty much almost all the howto and docs are community based (and without effort of the really keenly interested , you would not know they existed without a lot of time looking online), they are barely referenced in the marketing of the game, if at all. Just trying to work out what all the settings mean is like "WTF does that setting do??" There are still a few setting I have not worked out what they do... I love the game, so I'll keep plodding along. Currently I'm leaning how to build missions (great tool BTW, excellent effort here) Having great software is only good if your users know how to drive it...more effort should be focused here , (and more recognition community content creators in their front line marketing) , that's my only real gripe with BOx. (The online player base IHMO suffers as a result to much of the above, and also IMHO not many want to play online and get slaughtered by an elite few as a result of this...) Rant done: 😉 And yes I support the game and hope it continues to succeed.
  12. Stix_09

    Ground Vehicles

    Ya but what if we want to drive and AA truck, you might now want to , but some of us do. In COD its a lot of fun to shoot at planes from the airfield under attack. Be nice in BOX to do this. And why not. They are totally different experiences. I don't get this mentality that we should only fly planes in BOX. I want both as do many. Lets have the choice.
  13. For me it was caused by super sampling (antialias transparency in NV control panel, i had 2x set here), but with this off I found I needed to use landscape: sharp setting (not the sharpen tick option) setting in game graphics options or i get shimmer in land textures (which is why i was using transparency) I left MFAA on it made no real difference. I have a gtx 1070 vid card. I run game with ultra setting and 4k textures, and limit fps to 50. i don't use vsync (or frame buffering). SSAO is on HDR is off Looks good, 1440p resolution on 32inch monitor. Hope this helps others. Flying around the Kuban map in quick mission at low altitude and card is idling most of the time around 60-70% utilisation @ 50fps. (card is factory overclocked but I like to under-clock it to standard setting to keep it cooler in my small cube case.
  14. Stix_09

    Ground Vehicles

    Nope prob not, but I would jump on an aa gun to defend and airfield, like you can do in il-2 COD, or drive a vehicle as part of a combined air and ground assault of target.
  15. Stix_09

    Ground Vehicles

    I think this is much more than just a flight sim. IMHO vehicles are a great addition to this game (If its not overdone and too complex). I think it will bring a lot more people to the game, and that also means more money to develop (vehicles AND planes). There is a huge player base for vehicles, and this platform is perfect to have both and have it done well. I don't buy the argument, that it takes away development of the planes , that just doesn't make economic sense. If you want more development on a game , increase its player base , and you will have an economy that can support it.  Adding vehicles it going to grow this title. You need player growth or games die. I like how this game is developing. People buy games to have fun , whether that's flying or shooting at planes from the ground. The point is you can choose to fly or drive an AA gun or tank. Being able to control a ground vehicles adds to the immersion. You want to fly planes , great , fly planes. I want to do both. The other aspect is to get in a vehicle all you need is a mouse and keyboard. To fly a plane and enjoy it , you need a lot more hardware (and $$). This is quite a roadblock for many, with a bigger learning curve. (And many of these new players may start only with vehicles...). There is an argument for current and new players in all this, and many perspectives. (For me track IR is $300 NZD , or $75NZD for a Ps3 eye with opentrack. Not cheap... then you still need a reasonable stick, let alone peddles and all the other stuff you can get , to get really immersed) Personally I want to do both. They are both enjoyable... just like many , many others also find. (hence this thread). And they go together to make a far better WW2 combat simulator (as I said as long as its not too overdone and complex) Your concerns are valid, but there are solutions. Whats to stop it having 100+ player matches to support this in the future... think bigger. Configuration of the servers could have limits on each also.... many ways to do this. As long as its managed well it will work, and devs have been on the ball so far... its a very active developed game, with some thought going into it.