Jump to content

DD_Fenrir

Members
  • Content Count

    81
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

50 Excellent

About DD_Fenrir

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi Pat, Just suggestion: is there any way that a pilot's default status could be Returned to Base, so that unless the logs register them as killed, wounded or prisoner it automatically assumes a player who suffers a connection drop mid mission would be regarded as an 'abort' rather than an automatic KIA?
  2. Hi Pat, In reference to the above post by DD_Arthur I have attached the error log and error zips from the sortie last night. Also you may already have the logs and zips from the previous sortie that Arthur himself got disc'd from; I had attached them here: PWCGErrorLog.txt Lightning Strikes202006281506496.zip
  3. I have a great deal of time in the GBS P-38 now and find that fuel weight has a significant impact on the elevator authority and critical AoA flight characteristics. Bear in mind that the J model carries more fuel than the airframe originally was aerodynamically expected to carry; as such if the trim and elevator design was un-changed from the H model and you are fighting or landing at fuel loads significantly above that at which the designer had originally calculated was the highest expected landing weight then you will run out of trim authority. What these figures actually were... well.
  4. Hornchurch is just a fraction too far North to make it within the map limits. ED have expanded their Persian Gulf Map since it's initial EA release, expanding it's detailed area and adding airfields; there's a lot of reason to hope that the Channel Map will be dealt with similarly.
  5. The data on Detling is erroneous; just flew from there and it looks nothing like Abbeville; Philstyle must have had a moment because I can assure you that what he references as Detling definitively isn't. Hornchurch is not within map limits. West Malling, Biggin Hill and a further 10 no. ALG are missing, however in other maps we have seen later updates incorporate additional airfields and further geography.
  6. Hi Pat, thanks for looking at this. I have three custom additional squadrons: 401st FS, 402nd FS & 485th FS. Have attached the additional squadron files. Only 2 of these were populated with co-op participants during the mission; 402 & 485. Had one user idle kicked as he had a domestic emergency intervene prior to takeoff and another had a disconnect in flight due to Windows spontaneously restarting. Fens Custom Squadrons.zip
  7. No Thunder you're truth is off. ED had the Hornet, update to version 2.5 graphics engine, the planned Modern Air Combat, planned Vulkan integration and maintainance of it's existing modules on it's hands - they didn't deem the time or resources available to expand the WW2 era with their own staff. The idea was to hand off development of WW2 content to a party experienced in the genre; EDs role as a partner would be providing the engine and acting as QC and giving their approval on what RRG developed. That is the partnership. Back at the very inception no-one, even Luthier was sure what iteration that DCS:WW2 was going to take, that much was clear. Whether it was going to be a stand alone game using the DCS core, or whether it was going with a GBS style, independent but integratable modules or a full integration into DCS World was still to be decided. As development panned out it then looked as if the latter was going to make most sense. But development updates were slow, little progress seemed to be coming and ultimately RRG didn't hit their targets. ED ultimately were obliged to terminate their contract. They had every right to leave the WW2 stuff out as half baked vaporware but rather than leave all their kickstarters dead in the water having paid a lot of money ED took over the development of the WW2 content - except the Normandy map which they contracted out to Ugra media, the very same Ugra media responsible for the Po-2/U-2 available in GBS.
  8. Hi Pat, Couple of things; error after AAR, attached. Also a target for the 485th FS was generated very close to the map edge, so close that the dreaded auto-return kept biting the guys as they were trying to set-up or egress their attack runs, so much so that one guy took a flak hit to the face as the auto-return flew him back into the map. Any chance that targets can perhaps be filtered to be slightly further away from map edges? Many thanks - it was a shame the AAR didn't process cos' the guys I flew with had a blast. PWCGErrorLog.txt Lightning Strikes202005312305476.zip
  9. What is certain is that the Mk.IX was not cleared officially to carry both 2x 250lb and a 1x 500lb together till September of 1944; 126 Wing (401, 411, 412 & 442 Squadrons) did not carry a full load till 19th October. The consensus seems to be that the single 500 was preferred to the 2x 250 loadout, but if range was an issue then 2x 250s and a slipper tank was the norm. Just found this nugget from "126 Wing RACF" by Donald Nijboer, Osprey Publishing, attributed to No. 17 (F) Sector on 10th July 1944: That covers the official side. However, there's wiggle room for crafty formation leaders to say conditions did not permit... I have 441 Sqn's Daily operational record sheets for July. I will consult and see if any information is forthcoming, particularly post July 10th.... Bingo! Out of a total of 14 Armed Recces flown by this squadron in the remainder of July after the 10th only these two note use of bombs. Also note that the majority of mission types were not Armed Recces but Frontline Patrol, Beach Patrol and High Patrol.
  10. Armed recce with bombs for spits were introduced towards the end of the Normandy campaign but became more common in the autumn/winter of 1944. Much depended on the wing commander of each particular wing and even group headquarters tended to advise rather than instruct, trusting (for the most part) its Wing Leaders to assess the situation and make the right call.
  11. Alas, another AAR issue. Don't know if I'm doing something wrong regards the procedure, but before I hit 'Finish Mission' I had every other participant 'Finish Mission' and left the server running. I then filled out the claims manually (had 6 across 5 pilots) and hit 'Start Debrief' - it logged the various ground kills and I thought we were on to a winner, but upon hitting Finish Debrief and being directed back to the Campaign Pilot Roster screen, only the mission count and the ground kills had logged and a Co-op participant who was KIA after lawn darting from 15,000ft was logged only as seriously wounded [edit - figured this one out, "Select Max Pilot Injury" was set to 3]. I then check the journal and all our claims, across all three squadrons containing participants had been denied! With only a 15 second timeout between finishing mission and rotation to the next (same) mission (it's the only one in rotation), am I supposed to let it rotate to the next (same) mission and then complete the AAR process or do I need to preserve the mission logs and leave server, or (as I have been doing) complete AAR before I leave the cockpit using 'Finish Mission'? Thanks in advance! Lightning in the West20200510220533.zip PWCGErrorLog.txt
  12. 1. I interpreted that for more than squadron required competitive mode 2. There was half a chance that a second squad we sometimes fly with/against might want to join in at a later date and competitive would allow them to fly Luftwaffe if they wished.
  13. Great news, thanks Pat, looking forward to being able to run this with the 20+ members of my squad!
  14. Hi 777, Seeing this more and more recently in my squads multiplayer matches. If you happen to be between a friendly AI and it's target of choice (for example, you've been chasing a bandit around for a minute or so and the e/a happens to attract the attention of one of your AI wingmen) your "friendly" AI will quite happily blast away at the e/a whilst you are sat squarely between him and his target. At least 5 of us 'breathers' have been shot down by our own AI squad mates in the passed two weeks in these scenarios! And it 's not our breather guys jumping between the AI and it's target whilst the AI is mid-firing. I have witnessed on several occasions one of my human chums, hanging on to a target through a various aerobatics and the AI barge into the fight and commence firing whilst my live friend was interposed. Anyway to reign in the AI's itchy trigger finger when a human player obscures it's target?
  15. Voila! Please note I have two custom squadrons in here: the 402nd FS, and also the 485th FS. Input.zip
×
×
  • Create New...