Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SAS_Storebror

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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!
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. ...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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. I can definitely rule that out from my testing results. Nevertheless I agree that more tests are necessary. So far, the only reliable solution to me was to give the nearest airfield object a suitable taxi chart. Actually this corresponds to AI's behaviour when it comes to picking up the landing taxi chart of choice (when AI RTB decision is active). In that case it will also be the chart of the closest airfield to the aircraft at the time of landing decision. The distance to the actual chart, the location of the landing command MCU etc. don't matter in that case either. You've outlined that correctly in your summary by the way Mike
  22. Sorry to say but that part isn't correct (or at least seems not to be correct anymore). I have just checked this, because if it was correct, I could have massively simplified a training mission, but unfortunately the truth is: AI planes invariably choose the airfield which is closest to their spawnpoint for taxi to takeoff calculation. If that airfield has no suitable chart (i.e. no chart at all, or the initial park point is too far away from spawn position, like 1km off or so), the planes will run in circles for an arbitrary time, and then take off in an arbitrary direction. The location and/or direction of the takeoff command seems to be completely irrelevant. Mike
  23. Still banging my head on this... Last weekend I've performed some more tests @home. Some things I've found out are: If "ServerIP" gets set to any specific value, it has to be an IP address that exists locally on the PC, otherwise DServer will throw a "mission load error". If "ExternalIP" is set to "1", DServer will always use the PC's IP address assigned by the router locally. For instance, the PC in question has the local IP "" and external IP "84.46.***.***". It is reachable from the internet on the external IP (e.g. running a webserver on the same PC works and it can be reached from e.g. a mobile phone). Port Forwarding on the router and Windows Firewall are configured correctly. Ports 8991 (remote console), 28000 (game itself) and 28100 (Downloader) are configured for both TCP and UDP protocols. This is my current testing SDS file (it doesn't matter where it's stored by the way, I've tried). It's based on the one we run on our public server, only difference is that this test file has just one single mission configured and it's using a different login. The login is double-checked and if you alter a single bit of it, DServer will not register to the Master Server anymore: // Generated by dserver // credentials login = "********************" password = "**********" // server info ranked = 0 mode = 1 banTimeout = 900 lobbyTimer = 60 coopQuorum = 0 allowMouseJoy = 1 ServerName = "The Flying Ass Clowns TEST" TacviewRecord = true serverDesc = "IL-2 Great Battles TEST Server operated by The Flying Ass Clowns" // connection settings protection = "" maxClients = 50 maxClientPing = -1 ExternalIP = 1 ServerIP = "" DownloadLimit = 50000 UploadLimit = 50000 DownloaderPort = 28100 TCPPort = 28000 UDPPort = 28000 // remote console settings RconStart = 0 RconIP = "" RconPort = 8991 RconLogin = "mastergubi" RconPassword = "elephant" // mission rotation data ShutdownLoads = -1 [rotation] random = false file = "Dogfight\FAC Training No38 Winter\FAC Training No38 Winter" [end] // preset and advanced settings preset = 1 // preset: server related killNotification = 1 friendlyFireReturn = 0 finishMissionIfLanded = 0 lockPayloads = 1 lockSkins = 0 lockFuelLoads = 0 lockWeaponModes = 1 penaltyTimeout = 10 respawnTimeout = 1 coalitionChangeTimeout = 10 finishMissionTimeout = 1 missionEndTimeout = 1 idleKickTimeout = -1 tdmPointsPerRound = 2000 tdmRoundTime = -1 coalitionsBalancer = false // preset: mission related objectIcons = true navigationIcons = true aimingHelp = false courseWeaponsAimingHelp = false padlock = true simpleDevices = true allowSpectator = true easyFlight = false autoCoordination = false autoThrottle = false autoPilot = true autoThrottleLimit = true autoMix = true autoRadiator = true noMoment = false noWind = false noMisfire = false noBreak = false invulnerability = false unlimitFuel = false unlimitAmmo = false engineNoStop = false hotEngine = true This is the router config (you see every entry twice, one is for UDP, one for TCP, left is the PC's internal IP): These are the firewall settings. Additionally the "DServer.exe" is also configured in the firewall to have access to each and everything: This is the SDS with manually configured IP: This is what DServer.exe shows when loading that SDS: Same thing with "External" checked: DServer again is happy: But what does it help when the Server doesn't get listed? This is the Server list, our publically hosted normal server is listed, the locally hosted test instance isn't: Mike
  24. As written in my post right above yours: So yes, I've tried that and it didn't help. Can't confirm that. On our working public DServer, the SDS file is in a completely different location than the remaining parts of the game and it works fine. Nevertheless, I've tried with the SDS in the "bin/game" folder and as expected, it doesn't change a thing. Thanks for your suggestions gents but the mystery is still unsolved. Mike
  25. Thanks for your feedback @Cynic_Al but see, I've tried that in the very beginning already and after the complete reinstall as well, to no avail: Mike
  • Create New...