Jump to content

-RS-Nolly

Members
  • Content Count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

About -RS-Nolly

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Heat haze was already there. I blew up a 262 on the runway a few days ago and could see it from my flaming nacelles.
  2. @PatrickAWlson I redid the test last night, and I think I misspoke, in line with the comments above. I think AI level makes a difference also. Experience With pe2s: On Low, they jink slightly to a believable and managable level and return to formation On normal, they pull sharply all over the place. But not as much as you describe. They only go a few wingspans and return to formation. I have the bombers disabled then activated when its their turn (multiple waves) 1 V of 5 aircraft, with another V of 4 covering the first V. I think the formation and/or cover command may be helping somewhat. The mission logic is giving me some issues, but I 'll post it for you tonight (au time)
  3. I have a bomber mission with multiple bomber waves: PE2 old and New, Ju88, He111, all waypoints set to medium. im finding they generally hold the line. PE2s and JU88s in particular will jink a bit in close passes, but quickly reform. Its not ideal, but not a dealbreaker im finding - as the waypoint speed is slow (300kmph) they get more than a wingspan or 2 out of formation before the threat has passed and they wiggle back into line. Video of recent test below of the HE111 wave which seem to hold rigidly to their lines (note the AI is all set to low on these bombers - i have since jacked it up so that my shoddy gunnery and reckless manouvering gets me a lot more perforations ): Latest iteration is up on the RS squadron server
  4. I think you must have ground units that are of the opposite coalition close to that AF. 16 of them, the top symbol means the AF thinks it's under attack. I suggest you check the airfield buildings/vehicles and everything at the nearby objectives👍
  5. Possibly formation before waypoint. Also I can't see if you have linked the wingman to the leader, but that may be just the picture
  6. Try using a stack of overlapping spheres instead. Not as precise, but will do the job
  7. As above, but with tanks/vehicles. included below: - video (recorded outside game) - tacview -mission file. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1thrEkKUIOhsLGxExfmKIGn2SMENsUK6v
  8. Awesome server with the coconut engine running right now.
  9. closest approximation i think is possible: - have the ai fly over a large wooded area. - Experimient with command damage to get him to crash in the woods. - use subtitles to simulate a radio conversation where the pilot going down says "pick me up at north side of woods" or simular - after the crash, and a a time delay use a complex trigger to activate a signal fire at the pick up point when you fly over. - use a complex trigger to do the pick up. this separates the landing from the pickup, making things much easier. Note: using command damage set to complete often causes the pilot to parachute out. im not sure if it is 100% consistant. i suggest testing this and if so possibly adjusting your story to suit. Command damage does work on planes, read the manual. im not sure if partial damage can cause a engine failure.
  10. @Jason_Williams I read a thread last week where someone was complaining about disappearing objects (planes in that case i think), and you asked for records. I cannot find that thread now, so please forgive my separate post Here are the records of an instance occuring with ships. in the folder below is - a video taken using windows. - the in game recording - the tac view of same i was approaching ships in the northern sea on the kuban map from the west, in Combat boxes "Crimean offensive" mission Ships appeared in my view, but disappear when zoomed in on. Phenomenon seems different depending on crew station i was looking from, but this may have been as i was closing distance. I experienced this last week also when attacking a simular target on the rhineland map on WOL (flying an A20, mission name forgotten). I believe i have tracks from that instance aswell i can try to dig out if you wish. In that instance ships where of a different type (small eboats and a few bigger ships). The effect was simular but i think it varied for the different types. Love your work, ask AnPetrovich if he's ever coming back to Dalby for a fly. Many thanks, Noel https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1pczJaBrvQT4BwaktAzfEVSILMuXZAqvQ?usp=sharing
  11. I have created a search and destroy arty spotting mechanic I ll be deploying shortly in MP. Specifically created for the UV2, but I'm going to set it up for il2s stukas and 110s also. Once it's deployed and working, I 'll share also.
  12. Type: Full mission editer: "runway" object Explaination: my suggestion is for one of the following: - change the roughness of existing objects like ports or other large grounds objects so that planes can land on them. - add new objects: "runway" of various lengths that can be placed on the map and that planes can land on. EDIT: Alternatively, provide a change to the "mods on" function so that landscape/map mods can be allowed, but all others not. (so a "Map mods" option and another "other Mods" option). So that mission editors can do this: , without opening the servor to other mods Benifets: The reason for my suggestion is to allow mission editors to create airfields of sorts on the map in remote areas. This would allow the use of some vastly under utilized areas, such as the mountains and NE corner of the kuban map for example, which are underutilized at present due to the distances involved. Especially those mountains. Providing something such as this as an object,with a sub mounting that allows it to merge nicely with existing terrain. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marston_Mat Useful in fantasy scenarios. Thanks
  13. Its worth considering that if the making of one Pacific pack is a problem, what next? If 1 is hard, the second will be impossible, meaning you're back to the ETO, with one reduced quality Pacific pack off by itself. If things are as jason says then no pto is the right call. It's a diminishing return lowering standards to meet whimsical desires. The agreement to lower standards would be quickly forgotten once PTO mania takes hold, and the negative dickbags have a turkeyshoot. The unfulfillable demands for a second Pacific module would be deafening. Let's get over it and move on. There are other opportunities for the devs to pursue.
×
×
  • Create New...