Jump to content

56RAF_phoenix56

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    81
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

35 Excellent

About 56RAF_phoenix56

  • Rank
    Founder

Recent Profile Visitors

520 profile views
  1. Of course you're right Alonzo. Not being able to access spawned 'planes as objects is the greatest flaw in the scripting engine. I'm really hoping the delay in the development of the Air Marshal function is because they might have had to add such functionality. But I presume servers (like Finnish, or Coconut as was) detect Supply 'planes landing through parsing the log? On altitude of the recon, I'd make it consistent with the cloud base. Potentially, you could add a delay of a typical flight time to the nearest coalition base, but that's rather artificial. Thanks for your excellent server. 56RAF_phoenix
  2. Recon proposal I wonder if it would be possible to reveal (and make attackable) the Recon targets after the recon 'plane has landed safely? I think it would add a lot of realism and change the tempo of the map. 56RAF_phoenix
  3. Temuri - I can confirm I have this problem too. I led the bombers of 56RAF on a high-level bombing mission of Axis Depot #1 and simply could not see it from about 3.5km altitude in the bomb sight. We went back at low level and it only popped into view when I zoomed in at relatively short distance. Definitely a LOD problem, I would say. Cheers, 56RAF_phoenix
  4. Type of improvement: Realistic RADAR object Description: Report aircraft location, altitude and heading - based on real horizon and clutter effects, the radar range equation, the diffraction equation and realistic operator search and track methods. Benefits: - RADAR had a profound effect on post-D-day air activity which is largely missing from this simulation; - it would promote the effectiveness of larger formations against smaller units, thereby encouraging more group behaviour on df servers; - it could be integrated with the Mission Commander tool to provide more realistic ground control; - it could be integrated into the Mission Builder enabling AI or other actions to be triggered by the RADAR object; - it could be destructible, allowing attackers to influence strategic gameplay.
  5. With the greatest possible respect to those who put huge amount of time and effort into running this server, I feel you've got your formula a bit wrong. I hope you don't mind some hopefully constructive, criticism. Our squad flies a variety of missions: fighter-sweep, strike, escorted strike. We have a wide range of skill levels. To my mind the biggest problem is that too many of your maps have the targets too concentrated. While this may have been true to life at the time, the limitations of the sim mean that it can only support a limited number of targets and therefore everyone knows where you're going. Therefore I think map makers have to sacrifice a little bit of historical accuracy to overcome this limitation. I realise it's really hard to do and depends on the numbers of players on the map. But I believe KOTA would benefit from more widely distributed targets, plus (if possible) extra targets activated when one is destroyed, so that everyone doesn't end up fighting over the last remaining target. Real war was usually not like that! Now I realise what I write will be unpopular to those who most enjoy hovering over targets and picking-off incoming fighters/bombers. But there has to be a balance between these roles to make a successful server. I hope for greater success for your server and that we can spend more time on it (particularly after the fiasco of alt-visibility). 56RAF_phoenix
  6. Alonzo - Though I'm no expert in this area, I've had some success reducing stutters on Combat Box by reducing the MTU in this way on the PC Ethernet interface as well as the upstream routers. I have a theory that setting the MTU on the PC Ethernet interface allows some netcode API calls in the game to determine what maximum packet size it should use, rather than relying on some handshake protocol. This can be done as follows, open a Command type window as Admin, then type this to see the interfaces: netsh interface ipv4 show subinterface Then look for the one that says something like "Ethernet" or maybe "Local Area Connection *2", then type something like: netsh interface ipv4 set subinterface "Ethernet" mtu=1492 store=persistent You should be able to tell which subinterface is being used from the stats printed from the first command. This seems to reduce the game packets so they don't go above 1500 when the PPPoE header is added. Note this extract from Wikipedia: ****** ADDITIONAL THOUGHT ****** I may be a bad thing to reduce the MTU from 1500 on your outermost router because that's where the 8 byte PPPoE header is added. I'm ignorant of whether that MTU setting applies to the LAN side or WAN side, if it were the WAN side the and you set it to 1492 you might cause fragmentation. I'm increasingly thinking the PC Ethernet interface is the important one, unless the netcode does PATH MTU Discovery to the upstream router. 56RAF_phoenix
  7. Jason - Could you please define what is "off" for Dynamic Resolution? The GUI allows values 0.5-0.9 and "Full". 56RAF_phoenix
  8. Here's a practical outcome, rather than opinion, on the use of the alternate visibility option on this server: I was flying fairly distant 9 o'clock line-abreast with the 56RAF CO on KOTA last night the night before last, when I saw him being bounced from his 6 or 7 o'clock - so I called a warning and he broke. It turned out that it was a much more distant 'plane that was magnified by the alternate visibility setting and the aircraft was much further away than I thought. I have a lot of sympathy with the devs trying to find a recipe that works for many different resolutions, screen and VR - it may not even be possible. But this experience has convinced me that (for my setup, 1080p on a 27" fast refresh monitor) the alternate visibility option is not realistic. 56RAF_phoenix
  9. I'm afraid we're a bunch of aged skinflints who don't even pay for our own TS - it's kindly provided by an old squad member, Bunter. The lack of Whisper is one of the reasons we don't use Discord. 56RAF_phoenix56 In fact I'll add to my comments about Discord (maybe at the risk of being banned). The current company claims to be against adverts or selling user data, which is admirable. But some say was worth $1.65B last year. So, as sure as eggs are eggs, the company will get sold to someone else who will monetise the user base in a less pleasant way. Sorry to be so OT, and I hope the server goes well. I'm grateful for it. 56RAF_phoenix
  10. Coconut - I was the 2018 CO of 56RAF and we spent a lot of enjoyable time on your Expert server. Having done some mission building I'm acutely aware of the amount of time you have put into devising the scripting and objects for this server. We are immensely grateful for the work you and others put in to the best servers. In particular, I liked the following aspects of it: 1. the way you balanced the accessibility of plane types with encouragement to behave realistically by limiting plane numbers; 2. the equal importance given to the air war and the ground war; 3. the presence of AI always give something to do, even when numbers are thin; 4. the recon "pop-up" of targets and the long map run times give the opportunity to do realistic successive missions; 5. though behind-the-scenes, your optimisation of the AI scripting load was very useful to many. I rate your server up there with the best, like TAW but different in character. I'm so sorry you're going, but understand that nobody can run such an effort for ever and wish you the best in whatever your next project is. 56RAF_phoenix
  11. Actually, I suspect the strength of the cooling system against bursting pressure is optimised to reduce weight. The system only needs to be strong (and heavy) enough to sustain the pressure difference between the internal operating pressure and the outside pressure. Therefore surely the overpressure relief valves only operate to avoid damage to the system. For a balanced design, that pressure would be at an altitude that would be a little higher than the aerodynamic ceiling of the 'plane. So, surely in normal operation the valves would never open and the system should remain closed and not boil due to the pressure change? I would bow to more expert knowledge on aero-engines, but this seems logical. 56RAF_phoenix
  12. However, the atmospheric effect on boiling would not start until the overpressure valve acted, bringing the previously closed system into a new pressure state. Because we don't know the normal operating pressure in the cooling system, we can't work out when that would be, even if your overpressure figures are right (and I presume 0.5atü means 1.5 times the outside pressure). Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. 56RAF_phoenix
  13. Hi JM, that would help, or you could move the NOICON proximity trigger to the map waypoint track. Also the waypoint altitudes in feet need fixing. Also, in mission 3, the wind is in the almost same direction as the one all the AI take off. At 11 m/s there's no way aircraft would be taking off downwind. But thanks for an excellent campaign, we're flying it coop and enjoying it. 56RAF_phoenix
  14. Having recently tried my hand at Mission Building, I'm beginning to understand how much work you've put into this - thanks! J-M, I tried converting this to a coop for the squad, and when we flew the first mission I realised that there was no altitude information in the brief (and incorrect information of 23 ft on the map) for the rendezvous with the P-39s in Mission 1. As we fly Full Real, that makes it really hard to RV with 'planes that don't communicate with us. I may have had coop conversion issues too, but I suspect this problem is common to Single Player. I haven't tried the other missions yet. Good atmosphere, we look forward to flying the rest. 56RAF_phoenix56 PS. I'll also add that it helps to know what airfield the P-39s are coming from, we can keep a lookout in that direction.
  15. Apologies to that Pe-2 our squad shot down near Anapa tonight. First, one our number identified it as a 110, then we all believed it until it was too late. Mass delusion, I suppose. 56RAF_phoenix
×
×
  • Create New...