Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PatrickAWlson

  1. The A3 flies pretty much like the rest. It's a little smaller and lighter than the later Antons. Slower in absolute terms but faster relative to the planes it is likely to meet. So no, it's pretty much an FW. Keep it fast and watch out for the stall. FW has been my favorite WWII plane for decades. I think it is one of the most fun planes to play in a campaign because the mission mix is so interesting. You can fly fighters and get in a fair dose of ground attack, or you can fly ground attack and freelance looking for trouble after you drop your bombs.
  2. Mp or SP? Which side? What do you want to do with it? My favorite of the lot is the FW190 A3, but I'm a FW 190 fan. Fun fighter at its height relative to the competition. Does ground attack too. But t's not going to do you much good if you want to fly Russian
  3. The host is just a user who may have one or many pilots. The only requirement should be that there is one human pilot in the mission. It looks like PWCG is requiring the host to participate, which I do not want. Presumably the host will want to usually fly but it should not be a requirement. I'll look into improving this process.
  4. I would say not the A8, simply because the FW190 A has some pretty nasty stall characteristics. Not sure if those are also present on the D9. 109 is IMHO the best choice as it combines limited engine management with relatively gentle handling characteristics and good effectiveness against almost any opponent. I personally love the 190 As for their fighting style and versatility. Those little planes could do anything. However, by late 1944 the A8, while still very competitive, was getting to the lower end of the performance spectrum.
  5. Or a better variety of generic lumpy shapes under a net
  6. There are lots of different answers. 1. Pick the one that you like best. 2. If you are an end to end campaign flyer pick the one that you are using in your campaign. 3. if you are into multiplayer pick the one that will be available on servers and bring you success. 4. If you are really new to the game pick a relatively easier plane to use. If it was me and my motivation was #3 I would choose the FW 190 D9. If my motivation was #4 I would choose the Bf109 K4. But that's me.
  7. Kind of disagree. There are SP campaigns: 1C, PWCG, and static that all make use of the Ju52, as well as just flying over scenery. I have the Ju52 and I have fun flying it. I would very much like to have an allied counterpart for PWCG and to fly an iconic plane.
  8. I agree with the OP. Sure, I can do things to determine what is what, but a good UI should make that information obvious. This does not rate as #1 in the long list of the world's problems, but IMHO the critique is legit, especially for a store front. You should never make it hard for other people to give you money
  9. I want to differentiate between what I know and what I think might be happening ... I know that mission logs frequently do not record who shot down a plane. Frequently. Did I mention, very, very frequently. I know that it is entirely possible for the after mission display to show victories that are not recorded in the logs. I know that the logs are spit out real time as a sequence of events. I know that if the plane limps away and crashes later it will be recorded as a loss without a victor. I think this is fine. I know that players have reported seeing planes shot down and not having them recorded as victories. This is what I would like to see improved. I think that there is a cross thread timing issue that causes the log to be spit out before all of the relevant information is available. Therefore no victor. I think this is why sometimes the logs are accurate and other times they are not. Proposal: Instead of debugging a complex timing issue please spit out a set of summary logs when the mission is finished. At that point all of the information has been collated so no timing problems. Simply generate a summary set of the AType:3 events.
  10. What Sketch said but even a bit worse than that. The logs have a specific record for a vehicle being destroyed. That record has an identifier for the victim which is always populated and a record for the victor, which, for airplane, is frequently not populated. Ground objects that are destroyed always have the victor populated so PWCG trusts the logs for ground kills. Airplanes are a different story. First, the logs frequently do not match up with the after mission display, so the display might tell you that you shot down 2 planes but the logs may not record you as the victor for any. That is true not just for the player but also for AI bots as well. I would like to say that this only happens when a damaged airplane limps off and crashes later. While this will almost always result in the "no victor" log I also have lots of reports from people who saw the plane crash and still no victor was recorded. So along comes PWCG and I can't trust the logs. So I developed the claims system, which very much leans towards the player. Claims will be denied if every airplane that crashed has a clear victor and that victor is not you. However, if there are planes that went down without a victor, and PWCG cannot match your claims to a specific event, then PWCG will give you credit for one of the enemy unknowns. A bit more ... Even if the logs became perfect tomorrow I would keep the claims system. The result would be that over claims would be denied because PWCG would know that you did not shoot them down. Under claims, which IMHO is the most immersive aspect of this system, would still work. This way if you saw a plane limp away and chose not to claim it you would not receive credit for it, which is a good thing. For claiming, claim like you would in real life. If you saw it crash, claim it. If you didn't see it crash, don't claim it. If you do this the results will be very realistic. If you want to help please help me lobby for a change. I posted this under bugs ...
  11. As a stop gap I use the closest available static plane that is under a net. Not ideal but usually not too bad. @Banshee Been begging for infantry for awhile. RoF had an infantry mod and I used it extensively. It was simple enough - each unit was a section. If you damaged it the visual became fewer men and then when the unit was destroyed it disappeared. Again, maybe not perfect but really not bad, and that was flying in a WWI plane at 100MPH. The lack of perfection is less noticeable flying at 300 MPH.
  12. I'm hoping that providing a mission file will help. I have never seen it but ... hopefully ... a given mission will produce consistent results. If it's not a mission problem then the issue is somewhere in their multithreaded multiplayer code - somehow player contexts are getting out of synch.
  13. I am going to post something in the bugs section. Hopefully 1C will look at this. Can you post the mission and eng files? I doubt that they . will be able to do anything without them.
  14. In the bit of research that I have done it seems that VVS markings were largely arbitrary and pretty much at the commander's discretion. One unit might have numbers, the other not. Consistent painted markings may be there on every plane in the squadron or not. Individual markings might be present or not. Upon arrival of a new commander the paint jobs might change ... or not. There are some general patterns. White, red, black, and yellow seem to be the colors of choice (or availability). Markings are generally pretty straight forward: painted nose or tail or a band for units. Maybe the same for individuals or slogans ... gotta love the slogans. Markings generally do not cover most of the plane. There are probably plenty of exceptions too. So, within reason, you can do whatever the heck you want
  15. It does not. This is on the to-do list. The right way to do it is to parse the startup.cfg file and look for changes to the log dir. Then look in both the standard location and the configured log dir for log sets. PWCG already parses the startup.cfg to determine if the mission logs flag is set, so this would be an extension of that functionality. To do ...
  16. PatrickAWlson


    What do you see next to your pilot? Is there still an injured icon? Can you zip up the campaign and post it? It is crossing some sort of date boundary. If you are a Russian pilot the end of the war is (I think) January 1944 because we don't have any more battles. Allied and German pilots it's the end of the war.
  17. It is still the case that there are a limited number of pilots per squadron. As of 6.0 you can use multiple squadrons and this is the recommendation. If everybody wants to fly 109s put the players in different squadrons. PWCG will generate a flight for every human pilot. I would say no more than 6 players per squadron as every human will be included and that would jm up the runway ... but you can try it. As of 6.0 it is possible for a player to have multiple personas. PWCG will insure that you do not add two personas for the same player to a mission. There are no limitations on personas, so a player could have a German Stuka pilot and a Russian Yak pilot. He just can't be both in the same mission. Still can't remove pilots from the roster once they are created. I can put that on the backlog. It is still the hosts responsibility as of today. I have been developing a server that users can connect to. This code exists right now. It needs to be packaged before I can release it. Players will be able to issue player requests (can I join), pilot requests (please make this persona), and see the chalkboard from the point of view of a persona. Obviously more is planned but that is a useful start. Once this is in place the player can do the work and the host will simply approve the request in the coop admin screen in PWCG, reducing the workload on the host. Everything minimally necessary to run a campaign is in PWCG. This was done purposely as some people may not be comfortable running an outward facing server on their machine. The upcoming online piece is a server that the host can run and players can connect to. As it develops it will allow players to see the campaign more and more as the host can. It's unusual but possible. I saw enemy activity in every mission that I have created. Time and place could be a factor. What squadron and what date?
  18. Probably not soon because I have PWCG select payloads in the code. That would cause conflicts with a user created config. To avoid excessive clicks you can configure the flight leader and then press the synchronize payloads button on the left. The synchronize payloads button will set every plane to the lead plane's payload.
  19. No, because PWCG doesn't know which products you own. You could create the missions but the game would refuse to let you fly them. In the case of Kuban it is effectively the end of the war in the east (in game terms) so a Russian career would be over. A German career could be advanced into 1944 (use the Leave feature) and moved to the west if you own Bodenplatte.
  20. Thanks for the report. PWCG 6.0.1 is out with a fix to this problem
  21. PWCG 6.0.1 is out with a fix to this problem
  22. Bug fixes ... PWCG 6.0.1 Added a bit more AAA around airfields Fixed No escorts for player Fixed Return to pilot perspective broken Fixed Friendly planes lost are assigned as victories to squadron mates. Fixed Errors during leaves and transfers. Fixed Too many spots in coop mission - should only be players Fixed PO2 has wrong display name I don't know. The requirements for PWCG are a mission folder and log files. Without log files PWCG is dead in the water. If there is a way to make a DServer spit out log files then yes, PWCG will work with it ... maybe ... might take a few tweaks. I might have to do something to make the log file location configurable in PWCG.
  23. @Tenko Now wouldn't it be a cruel joke if they implemented that but made it flyable by German pilots only
  • Create New...