Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SAS_Storebror

  1. Okay we're getting closer. $ "../.venv/Scripts/python.exe" manage.py import_csv_data --verbosity 0 Traceback (most recent call last): File "manage.py", line 7, in <module> execute_from_command_line(sys.argv) File "C:\Python3\virtualenvs\il2stat\il2_stats\.venv\lib\site-packages\django\core\management\__init__.py", line 371, in execute_from_command_line utility.execute() File "C:\Python3\virtualenvs\il2stat\il2_stats\.venv\lib\site-packages\django\core\management\__init__.py", line 365, in execute self.fetch_command(subcommand).run_from_argv(self.argv) File "C:\Python3\virtualenvs\il2stat\il2_stats\.venv\lib\site-packages\django\core\management\base.py", line 288, in run_from_argv self.execute(*args, **cmd_options) File "C:\Python3\virtualenvs\il2stat\il2_stats\.venv\lib\site-packages\django\core\management\base.py", line 335, in execute output = self.handle(*args, **options) File "C:\Python3\virtualenvs\il2stat\il2_stats\src\stats\management\commands\import_csv_data.py", line 28, in handle 'cls': row['cls']}) File "C:\Python3\virtualenvs\il2stat\il2_stats\.venv\lib\site-packages\django\db\models\manager.py", line 82, in manager_method return getattr(self.get_queryset(), name)(*args, **kwargs) File "C:\Python3\virtualenvs\il2stat\il2_stats\.venv\lib\site-packages\django\db\models\query.py", line 503, in update_or_create obj = self.select_for_update().get(**lookup) File "C:\Python3\virtualenvs\il2stat\il2_stats\.venv\lib\site-packages\django\db\models\query.py", line 914, in select_for_update obj = self._chain() File "C:\Python3\virtualenvs\il2stat\il2_stats\.venv\lib\site-packages\django\db\models\query.py", line 1156, in _chain obj = self._clone() File "C:\Python3\virtualenvs\il2stat\il2_stats\.venv\lib\site-packages\modeltranslation\manager.py", line 213, in _clone return super(MultilingualQuerySet, self)._clone(**kwargs) TypeError: _clone() got an unexpected keyword argument '_rewrite' As much as I understand, Query.clone was reworked in Django 2.0 and now all such lines need to be changed... Cheers! Mike
  2. Thanks for the reply. There seems to be an issue though and I suspect it might be related to the newer Python Version: $ ".venv/Scripts/python.exe" -m pip install --quiet --no-index --find-links=wheelhouse -r requirements.txt Could not find a version that satisfies the requirement argon2-cffi==16.3.0 (from -r requirements.txt (line 7)) (from versions: ) No matching distribution found for argon2-cffi==16.3.0 (from -r requirements.txt (line 7)) Cheers! Mike
  3. Hi guys, I've got a couple of questions concerning IL-2 Stats installation. The readme says Is there any point in sticking to version 9.5? Or will version 9.6 or even 10.1 do as well? I'm not a big fan of running outdated software on my servers, that's why I'm asking... Similar as before, any reason not to use Python 3.6.4? Sounds cool, so using IIS and running the Django Framework in FastCGI mode is supposed to work? Anyone got experience with this? I'd rather like to avoid operating a second Webserver in parallel to the existing IIS for security reasons. Thanks in advance for your answers. Cheers! Mike
  4. I'm not talking about framerate. Max_Damage called it "frames" - what I'm talking about is the "Simulations per Second", that's what the dserver.exe shows as "SPS" value. On a well working server, this value is 50 +/- 0.1 SPS, with no variation, and that's exaclty what we have on our FAC server. Correct. On client side flight paths are being interpolated until the next location update comes in. Ping times from both clients involved plus the SPS tick delay sum up to a value where you can observe things like you've described. That however has nothing to do with what we observed here. I'm the only client involved. The NDB is a server thing. My ping to the server is 20ms (even when we add that to the distance travelled, we still don't get the required two meters), but that doesn't matter because each of my client's location updates has that same delay, so effectively on server side they are received and calculated in the same 50 SPS rate again. I do have the recorded track, so if the Devs are interested, just drop me a PM. Cheers! Mike
  5. While the explanation sounds reasonable at first glance, on second glance we see: I was on my final approach, just about to flare for touchdown. Speed was 160-170 km/h. 170km/h equals 47.2 m/s. With 50 SPS (Simulations per second) on the server, the plane moves less than 1m per simulation. The average wing chord of a 190 (correct me if I'm wrong, no figures at hands at the moment) is about 1.7m. Add to that the pole strut diameter of the NDB (about 30cm? maybe). This makes it impossible to pass the NDB between two "frames" (simulations on server side). In order to pass it between three simulations, first of all the server would have to drop one. This would have been visible on the server window, our server is far from it's resource limits and simply doesn't drop simulations so far. And even then, at the end of the previous simulation I would have had to be exactly a millimeter away from the NDB pole, and after the next simulation but one, just a millimeter behind. Unlikely. Add to that, all of this doesn't explain what ripped off the stab. But at least it's funny Cheers! Mike
  6. But then it just went up to ~23% on that second time. I want my other 77% back! Just kidding... Cheers! Mike
  7. Today on one of my PCs the Mission Editor decided to stop working again, so I reinstalled "IL2_setup_BoM.exe". Running the launcher after that, the whole game package had to be downloaded again (thanks...). Near the end of the download process, I managed to take this screenshot: I know I'm a nitpicker, but 122% is quite a lot isn't it? Cheers! Mike
  8. A few days ago online on our FAC test server, Skylla, Blueberry, Conky and I flew a couple of sorties. On my 1st sortie (with quite some success), on landing I overlooked the NDB placed at one end of the runway and ran right into it on approach (all images clickable for full size): The resulting damage was interesting. The prop got bent but the wing went through the NDB (or vice versa) with no damage: The poor Focke got kicked to the side, and even though the tail didn't touch the NDB at all, the right horizontal stab was ripped off: The aftermath fell within expectations first. Ditched the right wing, structure showed a crack, then toppled over to the left, ditched that wing too, struture cracked again: Finally I got rid of my tail wheel and came to a halt, twisted around by 180°: The plane was standing like this for about a minute, when all of a sudden the right main gear strut collapsed and I fell down on my right flaps: Conclusion: Funny stunt, albeit not all that realistic Cheers! Mike
  9. From the current planeset it would probably have to be the I-16 because under given circumstances, flying and looking around would be the best thing to do with BoX in that case and the I-16 appears to be the best "casual" plane for that purpose. Other than that, once available, I'll most probably fall in love with the Jug. Cheers! Mike
  10. Everything's fine Jordan, I know I've got a straight tone in my messages sometimes Your figures make sense. Here is the promised comparative check with the i7-7700K, running DDR4-3000 memory @2133 MHz (BIOS default with XMP disabled), 3000 MHz (XMP enabled) and 3333 MHz (overclocked). The maximum difference in synthetic figures is slightly less than 10% (click for full size): Cheers! Mike
  11. Sorry Jordan didn't want to accuse you of anything, however that 25% performance increase by raising one tiny little single PC's component speed by 21% (33% clock rate increase - 12% latency increase) sounds rather optimistic. Especially when we take into consideration that your Ivy Bridge CPU isn't built for DDR3-2133 support... My test system was an i5-2500K @4.2 GHz, Nvidia GTX 970 GPU (Palit Jetstream 4GB GDDR5) and 16GB DDR3-1333 RAM. I'll run a comparative test on another system with i7-7700K CPU @4.5 GHz and 16 GB DDR4-3000 (aka PC4 24000) RAM as soon as I find time to. But you can see what others achieved with different RAM speeds e.g. here: https://techbuyersguru.com/does-ram-speed-matter-ddr3-1600-vs-1866-2133-and-2400-games For those who are not bothered to read the tech article, they've tested DDR3-1600, 1866, 2133 and 2400 RAM (the latter in CL10 and CL11 fashion) with a wide variety of synthetic tests and actual games, and the result was an average difference of 1.4% between "slowest" and "fastest" RAM, and a maximum peak difference of 3.9% (under very special circumstances) between the two. This differs in dimensions from 25% (and the OC factor is twice as high in that test) and again, it's highly unlikely anyone would ever notice the difference. Cheers! Mike
  12. Can't say much about microstutters (cause I never noticed them yet), but the massive increase in average FPS raised my attention. Unfortunately you didn't say what FPS you were coming from. To get some kind of figures, I assumed it would be below 100 so the increase would be 15% at least. This would mean for me, with an average of 70FPS on a test QMB sortie I usually fly for such kind of measurement, I would have to reach an average of 80FPS now. This definitely isn't the case. Even more, I can't notice any change in FPS at all. So I thought "let's take this to a test" and benchmarked the memory with both standard settings and overclocked. Standard in my case is DDR3-1333 with 9-9-9-24 timing. Overclocked in my case is DDR3-1600 with 10-10-10-26 timing. This is the result (click for full size display): Without going into detail, I think it's plain to see that the difference falls within measuring tolerances. IOW: Overclocking memory is a placebo tuning measure. Cheers! Mike
  13. Exactly: To each his own. A possible way to deal with this would be to either let users choose whether or not to keep their "made up" awards, and/or let users choose whether or not to show "made up" awards on others profiles (and your own), while keeping them stored for others who still like to see them. The latter would probably be the easiest and most straight-forward approach, because every user could choose how he'd like a user profile to be presented. That's nothing else but forcibly wiping the current achievements again. I'm not about to argue pro or contra "made up" awards vs. "historical" ones, all I'm saying is: If you wipe all achievements a user gathered during the past 3-4 years, this would be a massive slap in the face of those who don't mind whether or not the current award system is "historically correct" - as a matter of fact, you'd forcibly toggle a switch and cause a massive wipe of something the user might have had collected intentionally and laboriously throughout the past years. Esteem is different. Back to topic: There seems to be no "official" list of available Achievements and Rewards (or the Devs aren't bored enough to tell), Fazer_Beam provided a pretty close match so the case can be closed. Thanks. Cheers! Mike
  14. Did so in the very beginning of this issue already and just repeated the test on the last affected system (which I have yet to reinstall like stated in my previous post): No change. Cheers! Mike
  15. Sorry for the late reply. Meanwhile I can confirm your observations, the external visibility indeed seems to have a distance component as well. I still can't really figure as to how it works exactly. Sometimes you can see friendlies only, regardless how close enemy planes are to your own position - sometimes you can't even "see" the enemy plane you're just chasing at 300m distance when hitting Ctrl+F2. In other situations you can see them on the other end of the map. Same thing, but not to the same extent (perceptive talking) comes true for friendly planes. All in all I find this rather confusing and I'm asking myself how server admins are supposed to keep an eye on the activity on their servers without being able to even see all planes on their own team, let alone the enemy team. Frankly speaking, the old 1946's difficulty settings where external views were completely independent from distance, icon visibility, map visibility or the like, and you could toggle either friendly or enemy externals at will, came much more handy and intuitive to me than this undocumented and uncontrollable thingy thing. Cheers! Mike
  16. Thanks Fazer_Beam, looks quite comprehensive. It appears we both didn't manage to achieve the "Fighter Sharpshooter" medal yet. I'm wondering whether anyone ever managed to do so. I for one could swear that I've killed much more than the required 20 enemy plane crew members throughout my campaign flights. Maybe the game counts different than human beings do? Maybe it counts crew member kills under very special circumstances only? kendo, I see the Dev's intention to implement a new Career mode with new medals and stuff, yet I fail to see how this should wipe the achievements gathered before and at the risk to repeat myself, I would fail to see any benefit in doing so either. Cheers! Mike
  17. Couldn't find anything on the forums like dev diaries or the like to backup that statement. Where's the message that says that the current achievements and rewards would be wiped? What would be the reason or benefit of doing so? Sure, a new campaign could use differend awards, but how does this render existing achievements and rewards invalid? Either case, the question was about the existing achievements and rewards. There sure exists some kind of comprehensive list of available ones, so if anyone knows of a way to get it I'd be pleased. Cheers! Mike
  18. Dear all, A while ago I've started to create a list of available "Medals and Badges" (that's what they were called at that time) aka "Achievements and Rewards" available in the Campaign Profile. The list has always been incomplete and with the availability of further campaigns, informations seems to lack for the achievements and rewards available. Or did I just miss the obvious? It'd be really great to have a full list of all available achievements and rewards. Cheers! Mike
  19. I'm using that Server through RDP connection only as well (it's hosted elsewhere, not a rig in my house), so that should be no issue. That did the trick on one of the machines at least, albeit with a catch: First I did exactly what you said, plus what I did before already, so... Uninstall all traces of BoS, in fact I've even uninstalled Steam completely. Reinstall BoM from IL2_setup_BoM.exe, target folder "C:\Games\1C Game Studios\IL-2 Sturmovik Battle of Moscow". Start the Launcher and let it grab it's files from the net (6GB, nice for repetitive tests ). Start the Mission Editor, save untouched "MyMission" file. Result: Empty .list file. And just out of curiosity, I did this the next time: Uninstall all traces of BoS/BoM again. Reinstall BoM from IL2_setup_BoM.exe, target folder "C:\Games\1C Game Studios\IL-2 Sturmovik Battle of Moscow". Start the Launcher and let it grab it's files from the net. Start the Game and login once to sync local profile. Exit the Game. Start the Mission Editor, save untouched "MyMission" file. Result: .list file gets created successfully. So... out of further curiosity, I tried this: Uninstall all traces of BoS/BoM once more. Reinstall BoM from IL2_setup_BoM.exe, target folder "C:\Games\1C Game Studios\IL-2 Sturmovik Battle of Moscow". Start the Launcher and let it grab it's files from the net. Start the Mission Editor, save untouched "MyMission" file. Find the empty .list file. Start teh Game and login once to sync local profile. Start the Mission Editor, save untouched "MyMission" file. Result: Empty .list file. Preliminary conclusion (pending comparative test on last affected system): If you run the Mission Editor right after installing BoS/BoM, it will mess up something so that .list files will remain empty whatever you do thereafter. You have to run the Game first and sync your online profile before you start the Mission Editor for the first time. So the steps have to be "Install the Game, run the Game, run the Mission Editor". If you have started with "Install the Game, run the Mission Editor" once (like I did on some of my PCs), you have signed a reinstall of BoS/BoM. Thanks a lot for your help! Cheers! Mike
  20. So you want to say that e.g. Shift+F2 and Ctrl+F2 only work when the "other" plane has a certain distance to yours? Sorry to say, but Shift+F2 works regardless the distance (tested!) and Ctrl+F2 never works, again regardless the distance. Once again, here is the map how friendly and enemy external views currently work ("+" = works, "-" = doesn't work) Friendly Enemy Normal Difficulty + + Custom Difficulty + - Expert Difficulty - - The issue reported here is that in "Custom" difficulty there's no way to change this behaviour, even though the word "custom" would suggest that there's something to customize Cheers! Mike
  21. The fact that the .list file is empty is an error in itself and I expect the Mission Editor internally to detect some kind of error, it's just that we have no log to see what error exactly it's stumbling upon. My Win 10 machines are all fully updated and therefore all use Fall Creators Update too. Partly Avast Pro and partly Windows Defender is simply what it says: 2x Windows 10 with Avast Pro 1x Windows 10 with Windows Defender 1x Windows 7 with Windows Defender 1x Windows Server 2016 with Windows Defender Initially the status was this, green=working, red=empty list file: 2x Windows 10 with Avast Pro 1x Windows 10 with Windows Defender 1x Windows 7 with Windows Defender 1x Windows Server 2016 with Windows Defender After copying the "1C Game Studios" folder from one of the non-working (!!) Windows 10 PCs to the Windows 7 PC and adding access rights for standard users to the folder, the status changed to: 2x Windows 10 with Avast Pro 1x Windows 10 with Windows Defender 1x Windows 7 with Windows Defender 1x Windows Server 2016 with Windows Defender After changing nothing, yesterday the status changed to: 1x Windows 10 with Avast Pro 1x Windows 10 with Avast Pro 1x Windows 10 with Windows Defender 1x Windows 7 with Windows Defender 1x Windows Server 2016 with Windows Defender So what remains is two Windows 10 PCs, both use Fall Creators Update and are fully updated, one uses Avast Pro, one uses Windows Defender. Using Steam or "Dev" (IL2_setup_BoM.exe) version makes no difference. Moving or copying the Battle of XXX folder to another location/drive/whatever makes no difference. Running the Mission Editor as Admin makes no difference. Adding Access permission like e.g. "full control to everyone" makes no difference. (Re-)installing Visual C++ 2008 runtimes makes no difference. Stripping all files but the .msnbin and reloading->resaving the mission makes no difference. It's as easy to reproduce as this: Run STEditor.exe Don't touch anything, proceed directly to step 3... Save the mission (File->Save), with it's default name "MyMission" to the "data/Missions" folder. On the "good" systems, this gets me a 276 byte ".list" file. On the "bad" systems, the ".list" file remains empty. Cheers! Mike
  22. Thanks again for the suggestion. I have different Antivirus on these systems, partly Avast Pro, partly Windows Defender. Tried to turn off all of them, no change. Empty .list file. As of today, the single Win 10 system that creates .list files with content still seems to work fine. Let's see how long it will last... I'm afraid only the Devs could shed some light on this, e.g. by telling us how to enable some kind of debug log on the Mission Editor - after all I would consider an empty .list file as an error and I'd expect the program to create some kind of debug output when that happens. Cheers! Mike
  23. Ah sorry forgot to tell: I've tried that weeks ago already, doesn't change a thing unfortunately. Tried it again to be on the safe side just now, no change, .list file stays empty where it was empty before. Nevertheless, thanks for the suggestion. Cheers! Mike
  24. Thanks for the suggestion Habu but I'm afraid that's not the case. I've had the whole BoS folder copied to a different location already, and as described here, I can actually get the Windows 7 PC to create a .list file successfully by copying the "1C Game Studios" folder from one of the non-working (!!) Windows 10 PCs - which I did to the "Program Files (x86)" folder by the way. That process initially leads to the STEditor.exe crashing on start with a native Windows Exception (don't ask me what it was... at least I remember there was no single word in it about the reason of the crash). I have then changed folder permissions for the fresh copy of "1C Game Studios" folder so that standard users have full access rights and with that setting everything works fine. On the Windows 7 PC. Not on any other. Now comes the next odd thing: Today, one of the 3 Windows 10 PCs (one with a Steam Installation of BoS) suddenly decided to create .list files with content again. I didn't change anything, didn't touch anything. Last thing I did in fact was to edit another mission yesterday evening (.list file 0 bytes), then fly around with a friend online in BoS for 1.5 hours, then shutdown the PC. Today in the morning, turned on the PC, edit yesterday's mission again, save it... *bang* - .list file has 522 bytes. Don't ask me how long this will last. Went to another Windows 10 PC for testing. Still no joy, .list file is 0 bytes again. This issue really leaves me speechless, I neither have the slightest clue what causes it nor what "cures" it (at least temporarily it seems). Cheers! Mike
  25. Okay that's understood. Well at least you can fly around at the edge of Battlefield Area and see a part of Moscow City from high above at least. Which doesn't explain why areas are populated with static objects at locations far from visible distance - the further end of the map is more than 37km away from the edge of the Battlefield Area, so except for the off occasion that a Mission Builder puts some Camera Actor on there, no one will ever see. Cheers! Mike
  • Create New...