Jump to content

56RAF_phoenix56

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    73
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

About 56RAF_phoenix56

  • Rank
    Founder
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. For the record, 03_heavy_08 is the only cloud texture I can find that has two layers of clouds (neglecting the cirrus for the moment). Weirdly, they are both cumulus. In RL you don't get cumulus starting at two levels. Not what I want, hopefully the devs will improve on this. Clouds will be particularly important in BoBp to offset the dominance of radar. 56RAF_phoenix
  9. Just to restart an old discussion, I fully understand AWS type virtual servers have too large latency for our sort of sim. However, I see Amazon now have the GameLift product, which implies something more suitable. Or is it for people playing cards...? Has anyone tried it? The idea of a virtualised squad server is attractive since it would only be used for a few hours per week. 56RAF_phoenix
  10. Coconut - I'd be interested to hear what configuration you're using from ovh? Particularly network traffic and CPU power. 56RAF_phoenix56
  11. Thanks for the explanation Leon, However, if a load your example "04_overcast_09", with , say 50m height, I get a thin layer of cloud that is 50m thick, but the clouds above are high and certainly not thick in the way that "_09" might suggest. The effect I'd like to get would be something like broken nimbostratus, with altostratus above. Something you see a lot of in RL. If I can't get it, I can't get it, but at least you've explained the system to me. Thanks, 56RAF_phoenix
  12. Thanks for replying Gambit, but I'm afraid I don't understand your answer, essentially what you mean by "presets". Do you mean there are some missions released with the game that use the dual layer clouds, so I can examine the mission files? I had a look at several of the Kuban ones, but can't see multiple layer clouds yet. 56RAF_phoenix Wait a mo, are you saying that some of the cloud textures include clouds at different heights? If so, that's hugely disappointing, I was hoping I could manually set the type of cloud and height. 56RAF_phoenix
  13. I very much like the dual layered clouds I see on some of the MP servers since 3.001 . How do I set this in the mission editor? The text mission file is equally uninformative as there seems no index associated with the cloud texture layer. 56RAF_phoenix
  14. Please note that nowhere did I suggest that a squad should be allocated a base exclusively. I did explain how SoW worked, it was not perfect. I expect this thread to be for ideas to be floated and reasoned discussion. 56RAF_phoenix
  15. Thad - I don't think sharing the allocated aircraft between members of a squad would break the system in any way. I'm not trying to suggest some sort of favoured treatment for squads, unless maybe balanced by location. On Storm of War (the most realistic air combat simulation I've ever experienced), non-squad flyers had aircraft at separate fields (often better than the squads had) and squads had allocated aircraft at their home field that were resupplied at a slow rate (from a factory field). The 'plane mix would be a first class fighter, a second rate one and a bomber. Eventually the squads would run out of first class fighters. We've thought about running our own server, but generous people like Coconut have put so much work into it that it would be quite difficult to replicate with the same quality. Coconut: please try more generous aircraft limits before you think of removing them, if they prove unpopular. 56RAF_phoenix
×
×
  • Create New...