PWCG for BOS Discussion

[PhilthyPlane]

@PatrickAWlson thanks for the detailed reply. To be clear, I'm not talking about the waypoints for takeoff, form-up, patrol area etc. Only the en route waypoints and the IP (your 'Ingress' or 'Target Approach' waypoint?)

 

I'm approaching this from the perspective of both a pilot and an (amateur) historian who has spent a lot of time trying to understand the operational details of how these sorts of missions were planned and flown. In almost all cases the en route legs would have been planned straight from A to B without minor course changes unless at a prominent visual fix. Major course changes could be introduced for tactical reasons, e.g. to avoid flak or for deception. But, once again, turning points would be selected from prominent visual fixes. The Initial Point (IP) is particularly critical as this sets up the whole attack run. A really good fix (i.e. easily recognisable and hard to mistake) is essential at the IP, and moreso the lower you go as your field of view reduces greatly. You could use an offset IP in theory but I don't think this was commonly used in this era.

 

It's true that DR ('Deduced Reckoning') turns were used, but generally only by bombers with navigators or where there was no alternative, e.g. over water. A good fix is necessary at some point though as the errors in DR nav are significant and compound over time, especially with multiple turns.

 

In summary, if some changes could be made to just the en route part of the mission pathing and the IP waypoint to use prominent visual fixes, this would go a long way to making mission routes more realistic. That may well, of course, be easier said than done...

 

Finally, @Highwayman thanks for letting me know about the ability to move waypoints - I'll have to check that out.

 

Thanks, Philthy

 

[LF_Juanitkm]

Hello Patrick. I would like to ask you if you plan to translate the APP to Spanish. If it is not too complicated I offer to help you or to do it myself little by little. thanks.

[PatrickAWlson]

3 hours ago, juanitkm said:

Hello Patrick. I would like to ask you if you plan to translate the APP to Spanish. If it is not too complicated I offer to help you or to do it myself little by little. thanks.

 

Unfortunately I do not support internationalization at this point.  The menu system would be a fairly straight but lengthy process.  The more complex text, like victory descriptions and documents in general would be much more difficult.  Text that makes it into the mission files is the most difficult of all.  Great Battles code quite literally falls on its face if you give it unexpected text.  It just fails with no error output, leaving me guessing as to what went wrong.

 

This is something that I may try to do gradually.  What that would mean to non-English speakers is that they would have to endure a mix of English and their native language, and over time more and more would be translatable.  If I try to do it all at once I will never even start.

[LF_Juanitkm]

well sorry.  but I am very grateful to you that you are translating it little by little.  perfect for me.

[PatrickAWlson]

On 10/16/2021 at 12:29 PM, juanitkm said:

well sorry.  but I am very grateful to you that you are translating it little by little.  perfect for me.

 

Taking this to its own thread

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

Latest PWCG, I did one of the iconic missions, how do I read the results in the PWCG, there is no mission results title any where when I finished the mission.

[PatrickAWlson]

5 hours ago, 71st_AH_Mastiff said:

Latest PWCG, I did one of the iconic missions, how do I read the results in the PWCG, there is no mission results title any where when I finished the mission.

 

Short version is you use the in game flight report. 

 

For the iconic missions created from the PWCG main menu, there is no PWCG Combat Report.   The missions are not part of a campaign.  They are just fun one off missions to fly.  

 

PWCG does run the iconic missions in campaigns, but only on the proper date.  Putting the iconic missions on the main menu lets you fly them any time, but those are not part of a campaign.

[ghostly_doggo]

Hi everyone, question real quick. I've been playing as the British as a spitfire pilot in squadron 66 and when ever we get tasked with a attack mission as in rail or armor or troop my flight promptly goes and bombs the nearest enemy bridge everytime without fail, leaving me to complete the task by myself and usually getting shot down by flak in the process. Wondering if anyone else has had this issue. The other question is why can't we join a squadron with the MK. XIV instead of the MK. IXe. 

[co199]

1 hour ago, ghostly_doggo said:

Hi everyone, question real quick. I've been playing as the British as a spitfire pilot in squadron 66 and when ever we get tasked with a attack mission as in rail or armor or troop my flight promptly goes and bombs the nearest enemy bridge everytime without fail, leaving me to complete the task by myself and usually getting shot down by flak in the process. Wondering if anyone else has had this issue. The other question is why can't we join a squadron with the MK. XIV instead of the MK. IXe. 

 

I'm not sure on the AI issue - I think that might be a game logic issue rather than a PWCG issue, but Pat would have to expound on that. On the MK XIV, 66 Squadron will have those introduced roundabout November of '44. If you want to fly them from the start 41 Squadron flies them, but you need to start in November of '44 instead of September. 

[Stonehouse]

XIV is only available to one or two squadrons and after a certain time period. When you are creating the campaign fiddle about with the start date. I think Nov 1944 is when 41 squadron shows up with XIVs and also your current squadron should start to receive XIVs as replacement aircraft after Nov 1 1944.

[PatrickAWlson]

41 Squadron has the Griffon from Sept 1944

66 Squadron has the Griffon from November 1944

[Stonehouse]

Pat - I've tried a search but can't see a prior request although it probably is there somewhere.

 

Is there any chance of getting the weather as shown in the mission generation pages echoed in the in game mission briefing text please? 

 

I often generate the mission beforehand and then put together a small briefing graphic or 1 pager for the other guys flying the mission with me but somehow half the time I forget to note down the weather details during the generation steps and so without resorting to the mission editor (I try not to do that because it may result in me getting spoilers about the mission I don't want to know) they can't be determined and the weather brief is a nice thing to include in the overall mission brief. I'm guessing I am probably not the only person who would find it handy to have the met report come through to the actual game briefing.

Edited November 1, 2021 by Stonehouse

[Theodore_Morgan]

Hey everyone, i really need help. I can´t find a way to disable enemy/friendly markers on the map. Is it a default thing in PWCG?

I use custom realism with everything unticked, also hud off, tecnochat off..So AI aircraft appearing like they have a gps is kind of silly.

Any ideas?

 

 

 

 

 

[PatrickAWlson]

Any HUD markers are an in game thing.  Not sure exactly how to get there but there is some ability to control what does and does not appear.

[Theodore_Morgan]

Thanks, unfortunately i couldn´t find a solution. It would be nice if it was like in official career mode where "Last seen position" with a marker on map was shown like in intercept missions.

 

I also haven´t been able to make rendezvous escort AI activate and actually escort me. Any tip?

Cheers!

Edited November 12, 2021 by 2dLt_Schonfeld

[Stonehouse]

4 hours ago, 2dLt_Schonfeld said:

Thanks, unfortunately i couldn´t find a solution. It would be nice if it was like in official career mode where "Last seen position" with a marker on map was shown like in intercept missions.

 

I also haven´t been able to make rendezvous escort AI activate and actually escort me. Any tip?

Cheers!

 

It isn't very intuitive. The places to look are under flight interface and easiest way for the other place is to go into quick missions and then bottom right you will see a Realism button. Click that and you will get the other settings. eg of mine, note you can leave object markers on since you can toggle these with the I key by default. Also worth noting this mod [MOD] Icons - Mods - IL-2 Sturmovik Forum (il2sturmovik.com). There are various options to chose from - I tend to like the simple black dot that fades to blue or red when you are within a realistic range at which you would identify the type of target. Has no distance or name or type info. 

 

There is a similar button for MP and I believe this is separate from SP settings. Pretty sure in MP you inherit the host's settings though. Sorry forgot to say that I think the setting you want is navigation markers

 

<edit> Sorry just reread your post and realised you say you have custom realism set up.  Perhaps you have MP custom settings but not SP?

 

Edited November 12, 2021 by Stonehouse

[Theodore_Morgan]

7 hours ago, Stonehouse said:

 

It isn't very intuitive. The places to look are under flight interface and easiest way for the other place is to go into quick missions and then bottom right you will see a Realism button. Click that and you will get the other settings. eg of mine, note you can leave object markers on since you can toggle these with the I key by default. Also worth noting this mod [MOD] Icons - Mods - IL-2 Sturmovik Forum (il2sturmovik.com). There are various options to chose from - I tend to like the simple black dot that fades to blue or red when you are within a realistic range at which you would identify the type of target. Has no distance or name or type info. 

 

There is a similar button for MP and I believe this is separate from SP settings. Pretty sure in MP you inherit the host's settings though. Sorry forgot to say that I think the setting you want is navigation markers

 

<edit> Sorry just reread your post and realised you say you have custom realism set up.  Perhaps you have MP custom settings but not SP?

 

 

Hey Stonehouse, thanks for your reply. The "I", "H" key does not hide the GPS marker in the map for me. It does show/hide virtual instruments bottom left side and other things. And yes, i have custom realism set with only Spectators ticked on after cliking on PWCG Missions. I´m not aware of a MP custom settings.

Abou the mod, it sounds interesting. I will definitely check it out.

 

 

Edited November 12, 2021 by 2dLt_Schonfeld

[Stonehouse]

It's definitely navigation markers that control the enemy/friendly aircraft symbols on the map as I had to turn that on in MP as one of my friends cannot do dead reckoning nav for quids and without the markers get so lost so often the mission is ruined. He just can't get his head around it so we decided to turn on nav markers so he can see where he is on the map but a side effect is that you see friendly and enemy markers.

[RFG_Hisl]

Hello,
I seem to remember that you could reduce the information at the waypoints on the map. For example, the course indication in degrees; numbering e.t.c.
Unfortunately, I can no longer find the setting.
Thanks a lot 

[PatrickAWlson]

I use icon mods that reduce the size and information displayed, so I'm not sure if that is how I got the simple look that I have.  Planes have either a relatively small red or blue square and that's all.  Waypoint markers are hidden behind cockpit structures rather than bleeding through.

 

I almost never use the mini map anymore.  i just toggle the larger one on and off.

[RFG_Hisl]

I don't use the mini map either.

I wanted to reduce the number of these details in order to make everything a bit clearer.

I'm pretty sure that was possible in previous versions of PWCG.

Thank you for your answers!?

[depapier]

I'm a very big fan of Il2BoX and the way devs turned it around from its rough beginnings. And I certainly enjoy its career but it was turning into a job because of predictability of missions (nothing out of ordinary ever happens) and problems with AI. The latter is getting improved constantly, but the mission model for career seems to have been settled upon. So, for a while now I would install Il2BoX, fly a bit, get frustrated with predictability and uninstall, going back to WOFF, BMS etc. I did try PWCG some years ago and something didn't click.

 

But I've tried it now and.. just wow. Every mission seems alive? I understand that a lot has went into making this and these aren't just quick missions, but wow. Absolutely hats off. There are moments when I feel lost like a cog in a bigger machine of battlefield that does its own thing and I can only try to survive. Then there are moments when i feel like its my chance to press luck and take the initiative. Amazing work!

 

Only one thing I really want to ask: what are the settings the author uses? I get that all high isn't something the il2box engine is able to shovel, but scouring the threads I could only piece a few bits together. So, Pat, if you can - could you please make a post with settings you use - once for fighter and once for attack aircraft. Would love to know ones for bomber as well, but I have a feeling that a bomber pilots career is down to luck and weather in the absence of too much tinkering with engines, as in rl.

[PatrickAWlson]

@depapier

 

First, thanks.

 

I generally just use simple config.

Fighter:

Air: medium

Ground: medium:

AAA: Medium

Structure: Medium

CPU: Medium

 

Attack or Bomber:

Air: low

Ground: high:

AAA: Medium

Structure: Medium

CPU: Medium

 

I don't mess too much with advanced configuration, probably because I developed it so the simple settings tend to produce the advanced values that I want.

[ITAF_Civetta]

Hi all...

Sorry if this question is already wrote by someone else, but what does the number near aircraft mean? For example +4 or +18...It drive me crazy eh eh

 

[Nocke]

We have been doing PWCG coops for quite some tine now, and having quite some fun.

The host is sharing the screen, via discord, while setting up the mission, so we can decide together adjustments to waypoints, if to take AI pilots, and so on.

I have been thinking about how to do this if one wants to have humans on both sides - you then do not want the other side to see what you are planning.

Do you see a chance to make it somehow possible that two opposing sides could each set up their stuff for a mission, without the other seing it?

A possibility could perhaps be an option such that each side can just choose the pilots (not always everybody flies), but the mission itself is opaque to everybody?

Ideally there would maybe be a server with two clients, one for each side, setting up together the mission - but I guess that can get complicated.

Anyways - I guess you already have your thoughts about this?

Thx, also for all the fun we are having with your program!

[PatrickAWlson]

2 hours ago, ITAF_Civetta said:

Hi all...

Sorry if this question is already wrote by someone else, but what does the number near aircraft mean? For example +4 or +18...It drive me crazy eh eh

 

 

It is a code that will appear on the fuselage of a plane that supports the new dynamic markings system.  Not only does the plane have to support the code but the skin has to be blank to take the code.  SO, mostly it means nothing right now except for P-51s.  it might mean more in the future.

[PatrickAWlson]

18 hours ago, 216th_Nocke said:

Do you see a chance to make it somehow possible that two opposing sides could each set up their stuff for a mission, without the other seing it?

 

I have thought of this quite often without a great solution.  I do not play online so apologies in advance for my ignorance. Is this the scenario?

- Allied side is on one channel

- Axis side is on the other

- Neither can hear what the other is saying.

- Allied should be able to view the briefings for all allied units, axis vice versa.

 

The only fair way to do it is to disable mission editing for all sides.  PWCG cannot and will never be able to handle editing a mission on multiple machines.  To do that the editing process would have to take place on a server, which means network code, which I will not add to PWCG.  The best security is not transmitting or receiving anything.

 

So lets say we disable editing.  The mission is what it is.

PWCG does have the ability to show a briefing without edits.  If you accept a mission and then return to the briefing you will see this.

PWCG does not have the ability to read and write a mission in its internal (JSON) form.  It can only write a 1C .mission file and cannot read that back in.

Let's say we disabled editing and added the ability to export a mission to a file.

Now I need to disable viewing for the opposite side based on the reference character. 

If I did that then a campaign and a mission could be generated and shared.  Each side could do their own briefing.

 

This would by no means be cheat proof.  In fact, cheating would be beyond easy.  It would depend on each side honoring the spirit of the campaign.  The person running the campaign would have to generate the mission and then post ...probably the whole campaign zipped up ... to somebody on the other side.  The person on the other side would have to set their reference pilot properly and then go into the briefing.  They would then see the appropriate side based on reference pilot.

 

That's probably about as sophisticated as I could get given the no network code limitation of PWCG.

[Nocke]

Thx for your thoughts. I am just thinking aloud, too.

It could perhaps already work to allow the users only to select the pilots for a mission. Block all GUI pages except the pilot selection page, all else is fixed and automatic, default.

Briefing could be in the in mission briefing only.

Afterwards one could do the after-action stuff again on a shared screen.

[Duce_de_Zoop]

I want to try "hedgehopping" for immersion, but I'm not sure if I'm able to. I see that you can edit the altitude for waypoints, but "Target Final" is locked at whatever is auto-generated. I can always lead the flight myself and take them to low altitudes, but as I'm still the most junior person in my squadron it doesn't feel right doing this every mission. 

 

Is there a work around for this? Something in configuration maybe to fly low? I get flying too low might mess with the AI, but is there a way to get like 300m cruising altitude? 

[PatrickAWlson]

The target WP is only locked for different forms of ground attack.  If it is a low altitude attack mission that altitude is pretty low, and is necessary to allow a proper attack.  If you set every thing else to a very low altitude what you should get is a hedge hopping mission with a pop up to deliver ordnance.

[=WH=PangolinWranglin]

Hi. Is there a way to turn off the usage of custom skins? I dug through the settings and couldn't find anything. Also the support for the decal system is in, right? I wanted to see it in use on a P-51 career but the generator was using custom skins and I assume that when a custom skin is used, the decal system is disabled for that plane in PWCG. 

 

Also it would probably be a lot of work to do but having a generic skin for some (if not all) of the different squadrons in PWCG that the decals can then be applied to would be pretty neat to see. 

[Duce_de_Zoop]

 

1 hour ago, =WH=PangolinWranglin said:

Hi. Is there a way to turn off the usage of custom skins? I dug through the settings and couldn't find anything. Also the support for the decal system is in, right? I wanted to see it in use on a P-51 career but the generator was using custom skins and I assume that when a custom skin is used, the decal system is disabled for that plane in PWCG. 

 

Also it would probably be a lot of work to do but having a generic skin for some (if not all) of the different squadrons in PWCG that the decals can then be applied to would be pretty neat to see. 

 

Personnel -> Skin Management -> Select "None" for each pilot. It'll take like five minutes tops.

[=WH=PangolinWranglin]

1 hour ago, Duce_de_Zoop said:

 

 

Personnel -> Skin Management -> Select "None" for each pilot. It'll take like five minutes tops.

I went into personnel and they were all already set to none, so I made another mission and it still gave all the P-51s skins again so I'm not really sure where else to look now. ?

[Duce_de_Zoop]

22 hours ago, =WH=PangolinWranglin said:

I went into personnel and they were all already set to none, so I made another mission and it still gave all the P-51s skins again so I'm not really sure where else to look now. ?

 

Did you check the Squadron/Non-Squadron boxes and check in there? Lotta skins are hidden there. If that doesn't work I'm not sure what the issue is. 

[Stonehouse]

Small bug report plus a hopefully easy request. Doing a Typhoon campaign for 193 SQN, I noticed in 193 Squadron.json that the skins are still pointing at Spitfires from before the release of the Typhoon and also that some of the role percentages are off eg ROLE_FIGHTER is 70. Typhoons were all about ground attack by this time period for the most part.

 

As there are some generic blank skins in the stock skin set for the right period of time (eg typhoonMkIb_skin_03) and the Typhoon does support tactical codes could this feature be enabled please in an upcoming PWCG release?

 

I've gone into the editor and set the codes manually and the result looks great in mission so I know it works from an IL2 viewpoint. 

 

<edit> @PatrickAWlsonbeen mucking around trying to get it working as it seems like it is only PWCG config required and this time there is a stock skin unlike the last time I mentioned this for the 352nd FG. Anyway in the spirit of saving you effort so you can focus on more important things please find the amended 193 squadron json and typhoon json attached. Also corrects the Spitfire reference. Hope it helps you in some small way.

193 Squadron.zip

 

typhoonmkib.zip

Edited December 6, 2021 by Stonehouse

[=WH=PangolinWranglin]

On 12/5/2021 at 4:46 PM, Duce_de_Zoop said:

Did you check the Squadron/Non-Squadron boxes and check in there? Lotta skins are hidden there. If that doesn't work I'm not sure what the issue is. 

Yeah mine is set the same way for each pilot, but it's still generating with a custom skin on it. I'm really not sure why at this point.

[PatrickAWlson]

17 hours ago, =WH=PangolinWranglin said:

Yeah mine is set the same way for each pilot, but it's still generating with a custom skin on it. I'm really not sure why at this point.

 

If no specific skin is assigned PWCG might choose to use a custom skin.

[=WH=PangolinWranglin]

2 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

If no specific skin is assigned PWCG might choose to use a custom skin.

Is there a way to tell it not to, out of curiosity? Or force PWCG to not use custom skins at all while still using the dynamic decal system?

[PatrickAWlson]

6 hours ago, =WH=PangolinWranglin said:

Is there a way to tell it not to, out of curiosity? Or force PWCG to not use custom skins at all while still using the dynamic decal system?

 

Not at the moment.  Was about to tell you that it was too complicated but then I thought of something.  I can add a "use squadron skin"  button on the skin management page that would force PWCG to use the squadron skin.  That would mostly be useful if the squadron skin used the decal system, but it would work either way.

[-332FG-Stravinsky]

Is there a way of adjusting the Spotter Radius setting on units assigned to waypoints?

I reckon it makes it easier to encounter action, but my squad and I would rather spot our bandits by ourselves without being spoiled by the map.