Jump to content

SAS_Storebror

Members
  • Content Count

    1043
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SAS_Storebror

  1. Some things we've just encountered in MP: Apparently, as soon as "Lock payloads" and "Lock weapon mods" are activated, there's a ~75% chance that the plane you pick has one single loadout available only, which is completely locked from any changes. There seems to be no logical scheme in when or why this happens. Fact is: In ME all mods and payloads (0..99 and 0..999 respectively) are enabled on all planes and this was workind with 2.012 perfectly fine. Furthermore, as soon as I use "Manage SDS" and save an SDS file, the difficulty settings of "custom difficulty" are being reset no matter what has been selected, it always resets to "Navigation icons" and "Warmed up engine" enabled and everything else disabled - this should rougly be the "expert" setting, so there's no way to apply custom settings at all anymore. Cheers! Mike
  2. Yep I've tried that because it did the trick on previous updates, but didn't work for me this time. Might be a glitch though, as the same ME on the same PC freaked out on .list files again right before. Now... let's see what it gives once I've updated my real gaming rig. Cheers! Mike
  3. That indeed is not funny. I fully understand that a major update might require changes to mission files, but the least thing that should be available at the time of the release of such update is a description of the required changes. It's painful enough to touch all mission files manually, but wild guessing is simply too much, especially since we don't have no logfile to give us a clue what exactly the ME or DServer is complaining about. Cheers! Mike
  4. Cool thing, time to update! Thanks a lot for all your efforts, to the whole team! Cheers! Mike
  5. Alright Vaal, thank you very much for your reply. Turns out it was a permission issue on the folder structure of my server, I seem to be overcautious Thanks again and Cheers! Mike
  6. Just ran update.cmd today to grab 1.2.19, but somehow the update doesn't seem to do much. All output is as it should according to UPDATE.en.txt, but the website still states that it's version 1.2.18 and I don't have the files src/stats/static/img/aircraft/a-20b.png src/stats/static/img/aircraft/bf 109 g-6.png src/stats/static/img/aircraft/la-5fn ser.2.png src/stats/static/img/aircraft/p-39l-1.png src/stats/static/img/aircraft/yak-7b ser.36.png which according to the update post should be there (only the A-20B.png is there, the others are missing). I do have the "mangled" versions of these files in "static/img/aircraft" though (without "src/stats/"), e.g. yak-7b.0a46979096b6.png Quite confusing, what's wrong with that update? Cheers! Mike
  7. I must say this .list file thing is getting mildly annoying. I've just took a mission which I have been working on for a week, edited in hundreds of revisions, on every "Save" or "Save As..." the .list file was created successfully. Today, all of a sudden, the Mission Editor decided to start creating empty .list files for this mission again. Really. Same PC, same mission which was working yesterday in ME flawlessly, today I get empty .list files again. Dammit. Cheers! Mike
  8. Correct, it's two. Straight from the 777 Studios Mission Control meeting room, they haven't achieved unanimity about the correct switch position yet: Cheers! Mike
  9. Durchaus möglich. Laut aktuellem Update wird's vor 17 Uhr Ortszeit sowieso nix. Also ruhig Blut
  10. There you have your update. 4PM GMT, nothing earlier. Sit back and have coffee, like me. Cheers! Mike
  11. Die Meldung ist normal und der Launcher updated dann, wenn das Update verfügbar ist. Wer schnell genug ist, sieht sogar die Meldung über die Versionsprüfung am unteren Rand des Launcher-Fensters wenn er startet. Geduld meine lieben Freund, Geduld. Beste Grüße - Mike
  12. Thanks JimTM, that was an interesting read again! The last two points pretty much reflect what I saw so far. Seems like disabling the "AI Return to Base Decision" option is the best choice, better let one plane die than messing up a whole formation. The first note about airfields I didn't fully understand. For instance, on a MP mission naturally there is an airfield object for the spawn point. If that one is set to "on parking" and AI decides to use this airfield as "stop after landing" position, a disaster will happen on next player spawn. Cheers! Mike
  13. Leute, es hieß "ab 9 Uhr GMT 4 Stunden" - das ist 14 Uhr unserer Zeit. Ist es schon 14 Uhr? Momentan bekommt man beim Versuch sich einzuloggen die Meldung, dass ein Update erforderlich ist. Sobald dieses Update vorliegt, wird es automatisch eingespielt, entweder direkt bei der Anmeldung, oder wenn das nicht klappt, über den Launcher. Steam-User haben's da leichter, die bekommen das Update automatisch im Hintergrund und ohne viel Bla-Bla eingespielt. Viele Grüße - Mike
  14. I'm having a similar issue. In my case it's not just the 1st waypoint, it's a whole flight's speed. I have formations of 4 He-111 each. All the waypoints for these formations have a speed set of 260km/h and an altitude of 4000m. When the mission play, the Heinkels fly at about 350km/h along the route. No idea why. Cheers! Mike
  15. Oh, by the by... I understand that in a formation, waypoint object links are only set to the formation leader. How are object links from attack commands or landing points handled? Are they set to the leader only as well, or to all planes of the flight? Cheers! Mike
  16. Thanks Silk! Alright, the method of handing over leadership to the next plane in flight sounds interesting, I'll watch that a couple more times to see how this works in the game The level bombing method is understood. Instead of letting the flight proceed to the next waypoint when bombs are gone, they'll proceed after a fixed set time. Not too intuitive and somewhat whacky, but so be it. Now... my idea was to further use a set of Events on the planes in order to let them return to base when certain things happen. For instance, when a plane is critically damaged, it should break off formation and return to base directly. While this might (or might not) work for non-leader planes, I'm somehow asking myself how to do it with the leader. Even more, when the leader get's critically damaged, he will likely not be able to proceed the mission/path/waypoints as planned - e.g. he might just spiral down - will the whole flight go down with him then? Or is there a way to avoid this? Same thing for "bingo fuel" - in case of fuel leaks I'd like to give planes of the flight the ability to break off and run home, without killing the whole formation's task of course, but I'm uncertain how to achieve that. Cheers! Mike
  17. Alright Haza, understood and agreed, lets move on to the more fruitful parts of our discussions So... back to the roll rate. According to the Rechlin test report quoted here, the roll rate of the La-5 (IIRC it was an "FN" model tested there, not sure though) was slightly less than 4 sec. @450km/h. Assuming that the russians didn't make matters worse when developing planes, the Lagg-3 would not be supposed to roll faster so this would indeed indicate that the Lagg-3's roll rate is slightly overdone. No sheer facts nor numbers for the Lagg-3 unfortunately, but those 4sec. might rightfully act as the lowest limit for the Lagg-3's roll rate. Cheers! Mike
  18. Dear all, I've got a couple questions concerning formations again. I've been playing around with bomber formations performing level bombing tasks and my observations are somewhat irritating. As far as I understood, the idea of having formations is that all path or formation related commands are given to the formation leader, and the other planes in the formation will follow what their leader does, as they are attached to him from a "target" link. Now if that is true, what happens for instance when the leader gets killed? The leader will go down, the plane will be destroyed and then? Since all path related commands, like waypoints, attack commands, landing etc. are all issued to the leader of the formation only, and that leader is now absent, what will happen to the other planes in the flight? Will one of them automatically become the leader? If so, which? And how are the others attached to him (they don't have a "target" link to any other but the original leader)? If not, how is a flight supposed to proceed when the leader gets killed? Same thing, just slightly different in the initial event: Level bombing. The logical way would be to issue commands for further waypoints once all planes have dropped their bombs, e.g. from a "Bingo Bombs" Even on the plane's advanced properties. However, if for instance I set a "Bingo Bombs" Event on the leader plane in order to proceed to the next waypoint, logically this would mean the the leader would drop his bombs (and he's likely to do it first, before all other planes of the flight), and then since his commands automatically apply to all other planes of the flight, not only he would proceed to the next waypoint, but all others would immediately do so too - thereby stopping to drop their bombs. How is this supposed to be handled and how is it supposed to happen for real? Thanks in advance for your hints. Cheers! Mike
  19. Thanks for the extreme hostility shown here. I do indeed think that the roll rate of the La 5 FN will be irrelevant. The poster asked for a guess and that's my guess. I guess you've simply overlooked that it was a direct reply to a direct question being asked and therefore thought it was time to start a personal infight? Once again: Talking about roll rates is an interesting thing and the opening post showed interesting test results. The complaints coming from conclusions drawn with lack of data to back them up though are... well... you guess it. And the hostility one has to face when pointing out that fact again is interesting and has been noted. Cheers! Mike
  20. No sir. I'm all for an open discussion as long as it is at least remotely factual. As such, I've tried to point out that the NACA chart which was raised for comparison simply doesn't compare (and I guess that message reached the recipients). Further more I've tried to point out that complaining about the Lagg-3 roll rate in comparison to the Fw 190 roll rate will lead us nowhere as long as there's no data available to backup any stance. That message unfortunately didn't reach the recipients, as we were further on confronted with opinions about early radial conversions of the Lagg and other simply incomparable stuff. Trying to bring in a 2nd source (and I told you I don't trust that either) just seemed to make matters worse. What's not understood here, and that's really sad, is that any FM related discussion sure can be held in any pub on this planet if it's based on feelings and opinions, but if you want it to show results and if you want to convince the devs of anything (which in good faith I hope was the intention of all these debates), then what you really need is facts. Facts instead of feelings. Facts instead of opinions. Thanks for your suggestion to stay out of this thread, which I neither think you're entitled to, nor will I comply to. Sorry. Cheers! Mike
  21. My guess is it will be irrelevant, but almost definitely worth a couple complaints so... Cheers! Mike
  22. Order a coffee and get a tea? No sir, that won't go unnoticed Think it's time for insults? What's wrong with you? Cheers! Mike
  23. Funny thing that you can distinguish things very precisely when the content doesn't suit you, yet you mix up things excessively in your attempts to backup your stance. I fully agree: Turn time doesn't make up manoeuvrability alone (it's a part of it though). Now if you could agree that all your quotes are as unrelated to the Lagg 3 Series 29's roll rate (and the La 5 Series 8 one's FWIW), then we'd be on the same base from which all you can say is this: The devs chose how to make the flight models, they probably had their reasons for doing it like they did, and as long as you don't have source and data to prove they're wrong, it's better to just accept their take on it. Of course everyone's free to make a fool of himself, no matter what. Cheers! Mike
×
×
  • Create New...