Jump to content

SAS_Storebror

Members
  • Content Count

    983
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SAS_Storebror

  1. The settings file which got overwritten (startup.cfg) is in the "data" folder, not in the "updates" folder. Having a backup of "updates" therefore doesn't help, you need to have a backup of the "startup.cfg" file, the while "data" folder or your whole game instead. Mike
  2. True of course. I was rather referring to the communication part of it. In general, to me it would look much more intuitive to have something like a "latest hotfixes" thread in the announcements section where, quite like it's being done with the updates, anyone can find anything related to getting his/her game up to date in one spot, hassle-free. That way it would need only two thread subscriptions (updates + hotfixes thread) to stay informed automatically - nothing remotely comparable is possible with the current system of dropping hotfix notices into each update's separate discussion thread. The fact that the trouble with this particular launcher issue is a first timer remains unchallenged. Mike
  3. Thanks for clarifying this Jason, much appreciated. I knew that it was no bad intentions that lead to the slightly confusing situation we've had, and we all know that things like these can happen. Maybe someone comes up with a brilliant idea on how to avoid this in future. A more brilliant idea than what's usually pouring out of my head I mean Mike
  4. It actually seems like even if you have updated successfully before (with or without removing the "update" folder), you should follow this additional step of replacing rofuplib64.dll and running the launcher again, as this will get you another update of ~125MB (in my case) which was not part of yesterday's update run. On that opportunity I can't avoid repeating what I've said for the past 10 updates or so: The update mechanism and even more, the communication of these little "hotfixes", could need a slight improvement. The way it's being handled right now can hardly be expected from a newcomer to be able to keep up with IMHO. Mike
  5. Nice Update. The overwriting of startup.cfg got me on our Server, it's a quite annoying thing for Server operators because you don't see that something got overwritten in the first place (no visual changes like on Client games) so there's quite a chance for Servers to operate at suboptimal settings (up/down bandwidth limits, logfile creation) for some time now until the operators happen to notice this issue. I'm glad I've had a backup of startup.cfg I could restore from the daily backup sets. Mike
  6. Same 36/36 here. Easy thing. The only plane that gave me a headscratch for a moment was the VL Myrsky, but only until I figured that in the lower right of the image it said "VL Myrsky from Wikimedia commons" - lol? - but even without that, I could have ruled out the other three options. Mike
  7. That's what you need the Selector for indeed. Since the Java Classfiles differ between the BAT modules, there's no way to have an ingame switch as the underlying Java VM of IL-2 (Java 1.3.1 build 38) does not allow replacing classes at runtime. Mike
  8. I will be there on saturday. Currently I'm staying at a hotel 10mi nw of Cambridge, and I'm quite indecisive how to get to the airshow tomorrow. As I came with public transports, I've got two options: Take a Taxi to Cambridge and use the official shuttle bus from there on. Pro: No risk to get stuck in traffic jam on Taxi. Con: Lots of traffic in Cambridge, Shuttle bus might be overrun, gets stuck in traffic itself and only operates every 30 minutes or so, therefore depending on the situation, it might cause significant delayed entrance itself. Go directly to IWM by Taxi. Pro: Fastest if the traffic isn't too chaotic. Con: Slightly more expensive, in case of massive traffic jam almost inacceptable. Does any of you pros have experience with either of the two and/or a recommendation for me? Mike
  9. You don't need to run the game from Selector. IL-2 Selector is only needed when you make changes to your settings (different mod type, different RAM size, whatever). Without changing anything, you can just run the game by starting il2fb.exe. Mike
  10. Still no luck here, Server is offline at the moment, but I'm glad to read that this has been recognized and will be dealt with properly. No big deal, *beeep* happens Mike @edit: It's working in this very moment again, hooray!
  11. It's not that hard to make use of paratroopers in missions. It just takes a complex trigger waiting for troopers to touch down within a specific radius around the target, count the events and make things happen (e.g. overrun enemy airfield or defenses or whatever). I have rather found myself thinking "we need something similar for the russians" than "what should I use the 52 for?". Eventually I have added the Ju-52 to the available planes for russians for the time being to fill that gap. This bird is absolutely underrated, the plane in IL-2 Great Battles is a piece of art, the handling characteristics are absolutely convincing, that simulation aspect is great (read the pilot manual or die on the strip) and the visual representation compared to anything I've seen is second to none. Definitely a must have to me. It's solely the mission makers fault if this plane has no suitable task. Mike
  12. It's only useless when mission makers don't support it and / or the majority of players only cares for a quick growing number of PvP kills at any cost. Neither is the plane's fault, it's definitely useful. Mike
  13. ...and on the coming weekend thereafter, it'll be at Duxford for the Flying Legends Airshow (which I'm happy to attend this year): https://www.flyinglegends.com/aircraft.html Mike
  14. I've got a hang on this bird too, as with many other underdogs. As for the tracers you're absolutely right, tracers give away your position immediately. Don't know whether the huge difference in visibility between the plane itself, exhaust smoke, bomb smokepiles and tracers is physically correct, but we'll have to deal with it anyway. The problem here is that you can be careful as much as you want, if there's a single AAA gun down where you drop your bomb, it will sufficiently "illuminate" your activities for a horde of 109s and 190s to dive on you - online that is. In summary, I totally agree that from a survivability point of view, any other plane will serve you better. The 110 will, the 190 will, and the 262 with bombs definitely will. Mike
  15. What still surprises me to the present day is how easy it is to kill a Henschel. Deliberately overstated, when you sneeze hard, a wing will fall off, whereas with an IL-2 you can cut a row of trees at the loss of one aileron. Seriously I find it much harder to down a Macchi than a Henschel - just talking about what amount of hits each plane can take before meeting the elephant. On our FAC server we've got blue and red bases evenly covered by AAA, and we have AI mudmovers visiting these bases regularly. When I let two Ace level AI Henschels attack the red base, it's 50/50 whether they'll get to drop their bombs at all or die a split second after AAA opens fire (usually by losing a wing). The best I've ever seen was one single Henschel that got to turn in for the 3rd pass when getting killed. For red I can use a pair of IL-2, Pe-2 or a mix of both, and they can circle the blue base for 10 minutes or more, taking endless hits from the Flak 38 standing there without suffering lethal damage. I haven't been in either of these planes in WW2 myself so can't say whether this is what it's supposed to be, but I can't help myself from being slightly surprised that a plane built for purpose like the Henschel is turns out to be that weak. Mike
  16. Honestly I've seen people doing that on our FAC Server and every time I see such guys I think to myself "thanks god he's gone". Who needs people who can't lose? Who's "we"? This might be your opinion, it certainly isn't everyones to the same extent. Mike
  17. I guess base camping is the safest way to drive it empty. If I were the mission maker, I'd sorround all spawnpoints with high density, "high" level flak cannons targetting both ground and air targets. Mike
  18. This, or just hoist up, press F10, sit down, press F12, repeat. No need to even disable TrackIR for this. The setting is plane dependent and it will survive restarts of the game. You can really make yourself comfortable with each plane individually that way. Mike
  19. You can always move into your favourite position and press F10 to make that your new default centered location in that particular plane's cockpit. Mike
  20. I see your point, but how does one mission maker's idea on one single multiplayer server mixed with the demand for a new aircraft compare to a completely unrelated plane being on sale right now? Isn't that slightly off topic in this thread and with it, a little disrespectful towards the team sporting this whole thing? I know that this wasn't your intention, but that's what it can easily come around like, especially when people jump the gun on such comment like @77.CountZero just did. I do not wish to offend anybody, I'd just want some of you guys to try to slip into the dev's shoes for a brief period of time and consider what it feels like to them if they have to read such comments on a thread which is just supposed to make customers happy. Mike
  21. I don't know what kind of issue you guys have with the U-2, it's a great plane and endless fun to fly. It serves it's purpose very well. It's not the plane's fault if you judge it by it's survivability against a riot of 109s and 190s in bright sunshine only. If you concentrate on the fastest planes with biggest guns only, you'll miss a whole lot of fun in this game. Just saying. Mike
  22. Thanks @BlackSix, that's exactly what I'm trying to get across all the time: The distance between Airfield and Aircraft is what matters, nothing else. This is consistent throughout the whole takeoff/landing logic, be it when the planes spawns, lands, or decides to land. In @JimTM's great summary this is the only point that was wrong (and carries a note about that fact at the moment, but I take it that it will be changed soon now that there's a corresponding dev comment on that matter): Planes don't take off according to the airfield object closest to the takeoff command, but according to the airfield object closest to themselves instead. Mike
  23. Lucky us the real server isn't concerned. I'm only trying to get my local "test" copy working again like it's been for years. The startup.cfg is fresh from the reinstall. I've compared it to the working file from the public server and there's no difference. Yesterday I've uploaded the whole game folder from my local PC to our server on the internet to see whether it's working there. It does. So this is probably something related to connectivity, but now that all ports are open and the PC can be reached from the internet, I'm scratching my head as to what could keep it from showing up on the list... Mike
  24. With a single airfield that might be true (it makes sense after all), never said any different. However as soon as you have multiple airfields available (for the regarding side that is), the closest airfield will win, regardless what it's taxi points look like or where they are, even regardless whether it has any. Mike
  25. As mentioned earlier, I've tried it and it doesn't work like that. Really. Maybe it should work like that, but it doesn't. Mike
×
×
  • Create New...