Jump to content

Alfaunostebas11

Members
  • Content Count

    182
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Alfaunostebas11

  1. Thank Butzzell ! I have tested your solution and it works! That was exactly what I was trying to accomplish, but I couldn't, basically because - who knows why ... - I never imagined that the Deactive could be used with the Timer, blocking the path! Beautiful idea ... Then I had looked for other more complicated roads, but then I also ran into the Check Zone problem that cannot recognize the unit alive from the destroyed ones ... Below I attach what is the flow chart that I used, using the Damage MCU to immediately destroy the number of units needed to test the mission. As I said, the key point, the joint of all is the timer X, which works like a traffic light ...๐Ÿ˜€๐Ÿ˜€๐Ÿ˜€
  2. OK Gambit, but if you read the discussion, I am of your idea, that Force Complete has no effect on the rate of fire ...
  3. PLOT TWIST ! I had TESTED the "target defend area" mission with the use of Check Zone triggers, as indicated in the flow chart above and it worked fine. But now, when I go to use that in a mission, it doesn't work anymore ...! It seems that the Check zone detects stationary units object-linked by it, even if they are destroyed ... Is it possible? I explain better. If I object link Check Zone trigger to a specific stationary enabled vehicle or artillery (not setting plane or vehicles coalitions as true in the Advanced Properties), the Check Zone itself, when activated during mission, detect the unit and fires ... But if fires also after the unit is destroyed, during the mission! How is it possible that it detects a destroyed object? I specify that, of course, the Check Zone is activated after the object to be detected has been destroyed and that the object is in the range of CZ...
  4. Here I learned that even the most experienced often do not have the ready solution ... and in any case every problem can have different solutions and all of them can be effective. This is a very beautiful thing !!! Regards, Stebas.
  5. OK Gramps. I will try the solution I have adopted with the Check Zones, but if it proves too heavy, I will certainly use the count of the destroyed units instead of the surviving ones, the failure of the objective, rather than its achievement. In practice, nothing changes, and the final result of the mission is not affected ... Thanks for your attention.
  6. Thanks Gramps. Yes, I know this method and have also used it in other circumstances. But now what I would is a different result. I don't want to activate a failed goal, but I want achieve a positive goal. I want to see, after a certain period of time, the green label on the map that says "secondary protect area completed" and not simply wait for the the lack of the "secondary objective failed" red label. And in the final screen I want to see: Mission accomplished, primary obiective (land) and secondary 1 objective completed. Perhaps, for most people, it maybe a small and useless difference, but I wanted to understand if and how it can be achieved ... with an easier way than I have experienced with multiple Check Zones ... Thank, Stebas.
  7. Dear friends, good morning ! I am still asking you a question, concerning the construction of the missions and in particular the realization of a mission objective. The player's job into his plane is to defend ground units (stationary vehicles and artillery) that are attacked by the enemy. The goal will be achieved if - after a certain period of time - at least a number of units manage to survive. I remember that in IL-2 Sturmovik original it was very simple: there was a target, called Defend Area, in which it was simply necessary to indicate the percentage of units that had to be saved. In this case I would need an MCUS that could count how many units are still alive in a certain group or in a certain area, but the thing seems to me not so simple. If it were airplanes in flight or moving vehicles I could use the Complex Trigger, but this does not seem to work with stationary objects, as the related options in the Events Filter section, such as, for example, Object Stationary and Alive, seem not to work or not be implemented. So, also in accordance with what is said in the Manual about TCT, "If you want to detect objects that are already inside or outside a zone (in addition to detecting objects entering or leaving a zone), use the check zone trigger" Therefore I used the Check Zone trigger with object links to the units to be detected. The problem is that this trigger, unlike the TCT, does not fire for each object, but makes only one detection, so my solution was to insert as many Check Zones as there are objects in the area. This solution seems to work, but it has the problem of weighing down the mission layout , because, for example, if there are thirty objects to monitor, I need thirty Check Zones and as many Timer delays which are then all linked to a counter. Basically and more generally, the problem is: how to count the number of (stationary) objects present in a specific area and at a specific time. I believe that you, friends, will probably have better ideas than mine ... Thanks for your attention, Stebas PS. I attach a simple flow chart, showing my solution, referring, as an example, to only three objects to be detected
  8. One hypothesis that I would like to verify is that Force Complete can be applied, to adjust the rate of fire to those individual artillery units that shoot alone, without the need for the Attack Area command... perhaps it could be possible...
  9. In the meantime, I have experienced what we are discussing in a small ground attack mission, where two ML-20s shoot from a convenient distance (about 7 km) to an airfield where some vehicles are stationed. I tried using the classic Attack Area method (setting HIGH priority, Ground Area AND Ground Targets) and then putting a Force Complete command (setting HIGH priority), 3 seconds after activating Attack Area function. The classic solution works and the two cannons each fire with a rate of fire of about 3-3.5 shots per minute, achieving some kills. The second solution paralyzes the two ML-20s which evidently interpret Force Complete as a stop to the previous command and don't fire. I also tried to place the Force Command before the Attack Area, but in this case it is ignored and the cannons fire with the same rate of fire that they have in the absence of the Force Complete. Ultimately it seems to me that the artillery follows the last command it receives, ignoring the previous ones (moreover, as it would seem logical ...) But, maybe I'm doing something wrong. I attach the files with the two different solutions. Stebas. Artillery Test.rar
  10. You said very fair things Icky. I had already experienced many things, others not of what you say. But the fairest thing you say is that there is nothing 100% certain, you just have to try, try and try. This is, in my opinion, the beauty of this Mission Editor, where everyone has their own way of working and where the same actions and identical objectives can be achieved through different procedures and logics ... Nobody has the truth in the pocket and there is no text that is the Gospel. Yes Jim, naturally I didn't mean to give you any fault. I had understood that this function emerged after the writing of your manual, as it also appears from the fact that currently the Force Complete command has now three priority levels, while you had described only two, reffered to the on/off lights.
  11. Well job, Thad ! Only a small correction: I think LeFH 18 is German and not Russian. Sorry Icky but I didn't know about this third function for Force Complete, as I don't think the Manual mentions it. But it intrigues me. Normally I place an Attack Area (maybe with high priority) and Object link it to the guns. So this is not enough? And where do we put the Force Complete, before, after or in substitution of Attack Area? Thank you.
  12. Icky, please do you want to explain better why you are using this MCU ? I normally use Force Complete to stop an action, as an Attack, not to ensure a good rate of fire... but...
  13. Thanks Jim! Your intervention is as always precious, as is your experience. I did not believe that the lack of possession of an aircraft was identified by the program before the file was launched, thus inhibiting its appearance in the list of available missions ... This is an important thing to keep in mind for the future ... And thanks to Stoppy. The mission works and it seems that almost all cannons fire towards the Kalach base (although most of the victims are procured by Lefh 18). Now I will try to test them in other situations and places, to see if and how they work. Grazie ! Stebas.
  14. Thank you Stoopy. Unfortunately I am experiencing a problem with your file, in the sense that, after saving it, while I can upload it and examine it on the BoS Mission Editor, it does not appear on the IL-2 mission screen, so I cannot launch it. It's a problem I've had on other occasions. Sometimes I solved it by simply changing the file name and saving it again, but this time it doesn't work ... Basically, a file is loaded into the Editor, but not into the IL-2 program, so it cannot be tested. I specify that the name of the file and the mission are identical. Stebas. PS. In the meantime, however, I am working on the study of the various artillery units, their characteristics and their maximum useful range. My intent is to prepare a summary table of all types of artillery, so as to facilitate their use in the construction of missions.
  15. I also have experimented the issue. Actually the correct sequence, with Bf-109 and similar is: 1) stop the engine 2) begin the rearm (for me is the key "y") 3) deactivate some automatic functions, if activated, default with LShift+N, LCtrl+R and LCtrl+M 4) turn on the engine again 5) relaod All Guns (for me LShift+R) 6) (optional) restore the functions, again with LShit+N, LCtrl+R and LCtrl+M And so the frontal guns are active. For the Ju-87, as above except point 3) which is not necessary Thank you for the tips...
  16. Very well, it works... Thank you ! The key to set before restarting engine are: LShift+N, LCtrl+R and Lctrl+M.
  17. No answer to your question, DF Lion ? I'm also interested in the "ground battle" problem and I have also posted something about the related difficulties, only yesterday. This is the text of my post: "Dear friends, I find it difficult to create ground combat situations within my missions. Despite having made some situations that work well, in a certain scenario, when I intend to copy it to insert it on another mission, it takes a lot of time to fix it and put it back in place. And, often I can't. By "OK situation", I mean Soviet cannons and tanks that shoot German ones and vice versa. Cannons often remain silent, sometimes only one side attacks. I have experienced that some weapons are able to perform a self-attack (IL-2 46 style...), without the need for the Attack Area, others do not, some have a limited range, some only fire "on sight", even if, theoretically, by placing a visible Attack Area above the target, they should attack. So, I ask some of you, if you have created a typical situation in which, for example, a Soviet tank brigade attacks German positions defended by anti-tank artillery (PaK). A situation that you can copy and insert on a mission reliably. Thanks, Stebas PS. Or, if the template does not work automatically in the new mission (apart from its activation, via MCUs etc.) what are the variables or parameters that prevent this and for this to be verified and possibly modified." For the moment it seems that the community is not interested in what is happening on the ground... We hope someone comes to our aid... Stebas.
  18. Dear friends, I find it difficult to create ground combat situations within my missions. Despite having made some situations that work well, in a certain scenario, when I intend to copy it to insert it on another mission, it takes a lot of time to fix it and put it back in place. And, often I can't. By "OK situation", I mean Soviet cannons and tanks that shoot German ones and vice versa. Cannons often remain silent, sometimes only one side attacks. I have experienced that some weapons are able to perform a self-attack (IL-2 46 style...), without the need for the Attack Area, others do not, some have a limited range, some only fire "on sight", even if, theoretically, by placing a visible Attack Area above the target, they should attack. So, I ask some of you, if you have created a typical situation in which, for example, a Soviet tank brigade attacks German positions defended by anti-tank artillery (PaK). A situation that you can copy and insert on a mission reliably. Thanks, Stebas PS. Or, if the template does not work automatically in the new mission (apart from its activation, via MCUs etc.) what are the variables or parameters that prevent this and for this to be verified and possibly modified.
  19. Nice idea and excellent realization! Congratulations !!! PS. It is a pity that the function of Rearm, Repair and Refuel has big limits and for many planes, once the weapons on board are reloaded (guns and machine guns, not bombs), these no longer work, thus making the function almost useless. I also experienced this in my "Bloody skies of Kuban" missions, but it's not our fault ...
  20. Bravo Jaegermeister ! I limited myself to the technical aspect of the construction of the missions, but rightly a large part of the time (for those who, like us, love historical missions) is used, preliminarily and during the drafting of each mission in historical research, of facts, documents, battle orders, departments, maps, front line, battle dates, historical episodes etc. Each of my seven campaigns for IL-2 Sturmovik 1946 is accompanied by a manual of about 200 pages, both in Italian and in English (which is not my native language ...)! With IL-2 GB, now, we also have the possibility to give each plane a name, so in my missions I try to use the names of real pilots who fought on that scenario ... fantastic!
  21. The flight simulator, for many years (I started with FS2, Commodore 64 ... how old I am!) is for me a very great passion and I have now spent tens of thousands of hours in front of the computer, with keyboards, joystick, throttle and pedal , flying in all the skies of the world, first with civil and then with military planes. Now more than ever, having to stay home for this damned coronavirus scourge, I am full time engaged with IL-2 Sturmovik, for which (already since several mounths...) I am carrying out a campaign (on BoS), of which I have already written and tested twenty missions (the total should be around 25). Unfortunately, with the beautiful and powerful, but very complex, editor of the new IL-2 GB, building missions is very demanding and very long. Fortunately, the community is very helpful through the forum. Above all, most of the time is spent testing missions, debugging, also in consideration of the fact that, unlike the old lovable IL-2 Sturmovik 46, it is not possible to quickly switch from the editor to the game to try out the changes, but every time you have to exit, launch the program, load the mission and try it. Of course, every time you fly, you find that there are several things that don't respond as you expected, so you have to write on paper, what are the problems you have detected. Then exit the program, go back to launch the BoS Mission Editor, study the possible changes and then try the mission again. If the changes are OK, go ahead implementing the mission with other planes, objects, objectives and so on, until you reach a result that you think can be appreciated by those who will use this work of yours ... Personally, to get a mission that is not too simple, I need at least 20-30 versions of progressive updating (I save the version with a progessive numer after the name, so if something is wrong, I restart from the last version OK) and several working days. So, I would like to share the best way to test with those of you who develop missions and campaigns, given that I do not know that there is a standard debugging procedure that allows you to track the progress of the program step by step while it is running , in order to understand what is the logical step to correct when something you had planned does not happen. Another help, of course, can come from cameras placed in significant positions, or from observing the behavior of other planes / vehicles / artillery / ships etc. padlocking them during the mission. On in some occasions, it may be useful to fly the mission with navigation aids and with the icons visible on the map. Trivial example of troubles: a Proximity trigger did not work because it had not been linked by an MCUS, or a logical action did not take place because timing was wrong, or an object had to be enabled or not, not to mention very recurring situations when bombers do not want to attack... or more complex things. All this wastes a lot of time !!! Aside from the intensive use of templates or groups, something that is very useful, I find that a important help is given by positioning a series of "subtitles", which warn me that the program has "passed through a certain place", or viceversa has not passed and then I go to look for the problem. Of course it would be nice to have more help from the Editor, or perhaps a kind of log, where all the logical steps while the mission is running are recorded, or there is already a utility or something like that, but I don't know it. So, how do you do your debugging? Thanks, Stebas
  22. "One of them"... naturally... you are not the only in the "big brain family" of IL2 GB... ๐Ÿ˜€
  23. A very simple and fast method! Thank you Jim, you are the greatest reference authority in the field of Mission Building !
  24. Hello my friends. I still ask for your kind help for a question regarding how to work with groups of objects. In particular my question is this: - How do you merge two groups together, or simply move some objects, together with their links, within an existing group? Thanks for your attention, Stebas PS. I do not want to "nest" one group within another, but simply to insert in Group A the objects and their logics, which form Group B. The final result must be a single Group A. I think that one possibility is to Ungruop both the Groups and then select again all the MCUS and object, creating an other Group. But if we have many items it could be possible to make some mistakes or inadvertence. Any other solution ?
×
×
  • Create New...