Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SAS_Storebror

  1. Looks like you're talking about things that have been, but we're not in 2013 anymore. DServer.exe is 64 bit with DEP and SEH, as is IL-2.exe, the game engine has been reworked a lot (DirectX 11 anyone for instance?)... whether DServer was once 32 Bit or not isn't really relevant anymore. And let me add: Summarizing the past 5 years work of the dev team as "a few graphics and engine tweaks" is mildly offensive. Mike
  2. Sorry but I can't confirm that auto engine management doesn't give you an advantage. There's many planes where managing the engines keeps you busy most of the time, like P-39, P-40, Henschel 129, Fokker Dr.I and Spad XIII. Mike
  3. I totally agree. However you need to keep in mind that online a player can't choose whether or not to use most of the difficulty options we're able to set. That's why on "The Flying Ass Clowns" server we've set the difficulty settings the way we did: All the checked options you see here, except for the "warmed up engine", are optional to the player, meaning that while playing on our server, the player can choose whether to use them or not. All unchecked options except for "auto pilot" would, if we would enable them, always apply to all players. For instace, you cannot choose whether to have auto mixture control or not. If we'd enable this, all players would have auto mixture control. That's why we left those options unchecked, because otherwise it would simply degrade the simulation experience for all players. This means that on FAC you will have to learn how to aim and how to treat your engine, and you will fly with realistic physics. Learning how to aim is something you should do offline anyway. If you don't feel comfortable with having to watch your engine parameters, choose one of the planes where you can just use the throttle and don't care for anything else (comes true for most german fighters) or where you even can just cramp the throttle up to 100% and don't give a flying something anyway (Lagg-3, Yak-1 for instance). Later you can start mastering those planes equipped with more demanding engines (from a management perspective) then. All other goodies you need to get used to flying online, like having icons for other planes or ground targets, seeing who's where on the map, being able to watch your plane or others from outside, using the "HUD display" info text in the lower left, padlocking enemy or friendly planes or ground targets... all these things are at your hands and if you feel like, you can just switch them off at runtime yourself. Mike
  4. Nice to read that the multiplayer tank issue seems to be addressed. Well, well... the outlook of the further future is quite cool. Mike
  5. Alright, bug confirmed. Attached you can find the test results of driving into shallow waters at the coast of Gelendzhik bay. Including mission file, all logs, tracks and DServer crashdump. Steps to reproduce: Load the mission in DServer. Connect to the server. Spawn on russian base, pick T-34, all default. Start engine. Drive to the lagoon about 30 degrees off to your right. As soon as your tracks touch water, your tank will dive into the sea. The outcome depends on whether you host the mission on DServer or locally on an IL-2 Client game. Hosted on DServer, the server will crash a few seconds after you start diving into the water. Hosted locally on a Client game, you will die and further dive down to the deepest point roughly in the middle of Gelendzhik bay, after which you keep lying there, dead. The client game will not crash. Mike Tank Drowning Test 01.zip
  6. Maybe you'll find my "switchbox" project interesting in that regard too: https://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,58176.msg644830.html#msg644830 It's 5 axis, 40 buttons, 10 two-position switches and 10 three-position toggle switches. Works perfectly fine with both BoS and the good old Il-2 1942. Mike
  7. Ah now I get what you mean. You wanted to say that the Launcher advises to enable fullscreen whereas Jason's hint says to disable it. From your previous post, I was confused because "I tried turning Full Screen mode off to help. The launcher says it offers an increase in fps" has a misguiding "it" reference and I though you meant exactly the opposite. So... I cannot confirm what the Launcher says. At best, there's no difference between Fullscreen on or off, at least for me I could never notice any, and definitely there was no 15% performance increase. I can however confirm what Jason wrote, i.e. if you have stuttering issues, try to disable fullscreen mode. That hint definitely worked for me. Mike
  8. There's an unpatcher available for 4.13.x here: https://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,55464.0.html It will get you back to 4.12.2 if you have 4.13.x on your PC. Mike
  9. Sorry for resurrecting this old thread, but I have just noticed that apparently in 3.005 the mission does end as soon as you trigger a primary objective. I have triple-checked my mission, there's a 10 minute timer that should end the mission after the primary objective gets triggered (and the timer is set to 10 minutes, not 10 seconds, triple-checked for sure), but in fact as soon as the primary objective MCU gets triggered, a 10 second countdown starts and the mission rolls away. Am I the only one or is this really common behaviour now? I'm asking because I find this mildly annoying. I'd love to give planes a chance at least to RTB after having achieved their mission objectives. Mike
  10. I must say from a quick test the "force complete" command didn't seem to change much. It's been more or less the same like what I've had before, the flak would start shooting split seconds before it gets killed itself. However in conjunction with "attack area" commands it seems to work well. On the train, I have put "attack area" commands without "force complete" along the route, because "force complete" didn't seem to do anything but to actually stop the train. Funny enough, the "attack area" command seems to work in parallel with the waypoint command. I would have expected that any overlapping command issued to an object would kill the previous one, but that doesn't seem to be the case. So... for the moment the issue seems to be sorted for me "sort of", except for the performance impact. Two trains and two car columns, together with their additional "attack area" commands being activated along the route now (with radius 2-10km, depending on how far the waypoints are from the other), add another 2 units on the Tick Delay for me. Mike
  11. Thanks for the hint, never knew that AA equipped vehicles could be activated/deactivated from "Force Complete" commands, I always thought this would only apply to Searchlights and Landlights. Now the question is: What to do with trains? I've got no access to their carriage. Mike
  12. I've had exactly the opposite: G-Sync Monitor and stuttering in Full Screen Mode. No stuttering in Windowed Mode now (albeit other settings had to be toned down as well, but this has been discussed here sufficiently). See what got my issues solved here: Mike
  13. That's already the problem I think. If both objects are moving in the air, ground speed vector is irrelevant. That'd explain part one of the issue (why player planes' gunner doesn't hit sh*t when there's wind), but I couldn't find any good reason why only player plane's gunners suffer from this - pure AI planes have exceptional gunner precision - both russian and german planes by the way, and both to the very same extent despite the usual Luftwhining we keep hearing about Pe-2 gunners only. Mike
  14. Hi folks, Is it just me or are the gunners really duds as soon as you have wind on the mission? Test scenario: Setup a quick mission (n vs n planes), one Pe-2 S.87 "ace" with Blister Turret for player, one Bf 109F-4 "ace" as AI plane. Map is Stalingrad, I've been using the "n vs n" start point right at Stalingrad City. 4000m altitude, "Escape" situation. Use any difficulty setting of your choice but for testing purpose, I'd recommend to use "custom" settings with all "normal" boxes checked plus unbreakable and invulnerable. Start the mission, unpause it and engage the level autopilot to keep your Pe-2 flying straight. Now hit Ctrl+F2 and watch the scene from the 109's perspective. What happens in my test is this: The 109 will always approach from dead six. Most deadly thing you can do against a Pe-2. But... With wind and turbulence set to "0 m/s", the 109 will get hit at about 1.0 kilometer distance. Below that distance it usually gets humilated. With wind and turbulence set to "1 m/s", the situation already differs much: The gunner misses the 109, always by the same amount and in the same direction, until it gets within ~700m. With wind set to "3 m/s", the gunner misses until the 109 gets within 400m distance. With wind set to "6 m/s" or higher, the Pe-2 gunner doesn't hit sh*t anymore. Watching the scene repeatedly, it becomes obvious that the Pe-2 gunner seems to try to compensate the wind. Which is silly, because for two planes flying within the same medium, there is no relative wind offset. Wind just doesn't matter here. Yet the gunner tries to compensate it and therefore constantly misses in the same direction, by the same amount. This explains why people on WoL complain about deadly gunners - which is their mistake, but still... without wind, the Pe-2 gunner will hit you on it's dead six - yet on our own Server, where we have wind set to 3 m/s and turbulence to 1 m/s, the gunners hardly hit anything. BUT: Now comes the next fun fact: This only happens with Player planes. It's only your gunners suffering from this. If you try it the other way around, with you sitting in a 109 attacking a pure AI PE-2 (or you're sitting in a russian plane attacking a He-111 for the same matter), the gunners will hit you at 1.5km distance regardless whether you have 0 m/s wind or 12 m/s. They just hit. Every time, everywhere. Anyone else noticed something similar yet? Mike
  15. That actually makes sense. One of the changes we've made to our training mission set between the times when the server used to crash and nowadays where it doesn't do so anymore, was to redo all ground vehicle movement and, most notably, move the whole tank battle area some 40km up north on the map. Maybe we thereby got the tanks out of a "critical" area where they crashed the server before, and have them in a "safe" place now where there's no hole in the map. Mike
  16. Hm... I'm wondering what the performance impact of this will be. If for instance a car column is moving across the map for 100km, you have the choice of either creating a massive attack zone or flood the mission with many small ones. Sounds odd. Nevertheless, thanks for the hint, I'll give it a try. Mike
  17. Hi Mission Editor Experts, A new problem I'm facing: For some reason I yet have to understand, since some time on a previously working mission, all vehicles and all trains fail to defend themselves. For instance, I have cars with flak in a columns of trucks. The formation proceeds across the street, the proximity trigger triggers (I can see all cars do their "panik stop" right and left to the road), but none of the flaks in the columns shoots a single bullet. Same for trains: They run across the track but none of the flaks on the carriages bothers to shoot a single bullet. Waypoints are all "medium". AI level is "normal". Panic Stop formation command works, which means that the proximity trigger works as well. Am I missing something here? Mike
  18. In that case there's still/again something fishy with your account, time to get in touch with the support once more. Mike
  19. Strange thing. I'm using two monitors in exactly the same way. No issues here. Mike
  20. I did assume that the ones I need to sign an NDA with would be the 777 devs, so I PM'ed Han and Jason. Hope I didn't just lamppost my message now... confusing. Mike
  21. It's odd to see how server crashes come and go for apparently no reason. At the risk to court disaster, let me state that our last DServer crash was on August 17. The only major thing that changed since then is this: We have enabled mods. Yes, you read correctly. Maybe that's because we're now the only one's on "our" server list? God knows. Or hopefully devs too. I'm not going to state that they could let us know. Too obvious Mike
  • Create New...