PWCG for BOS Discussion

[PatrickAWlson]

20 hours ago, -332FG-Stravinsky said:

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.

 

There is not, however, spotters are only ever used in intercept and low altitude CAP missions to emulate radio control when the mission would have known enemy air activity.  They are not used for other mission types.

 

You can turn off the enemy icons on the mini map but I'm not sure exactly what the settings are.

 

 

[slipper]

Hi Pat

 

Would it be possible to add more objects to missions at all please? Thinking of more populated airfields, fortifications in trenches on Arras map, convoys (static and moving), trains (static and moving), moving infantry etc

 

 

regards

 

slipper

[PatrickAWlson]

2 hours ago, slipper said:

Hi Pat

 

Would it be possible to add more objects to missions at all please? Thinking of more populated airfields, fortifications in trenches on Arras map, convoys (static and moving), trains (static and moving), moving infantry etc

 

 

regards

 

slipper

 

Probably not really.  There are battles in every mission.  In battles tanks are the only thing that can move, and they do.  There is no moving infantry.  Every mission already has moving trucks and trains.  The higher you set ground activity the more there are.  At high levels in PWCG I am absolutely blasting through stated maximums for units, so I don't think that I can add more without breaking the game.

 

I am already getting complaints about too much stuff at airfields.  Even though taxiing is currently "as is", some people still use it.  Airfields have quite a few boxes, static trucks and planes, and AA.  Again, not sure that I can add much more.

 

More fortifications for WWI are a possibility but I am going to wait on the FC2 map.  Unlike the WWII battles, which happen very far away, the new WWI map will be a larger version of the same area and will effectively supersede the Arras map.

[slipper]

2 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Probably not really.  There are battles in every mission.  In battles tanks are the only thing that can move, and they do.  There is no moving infantry.  Every mission already has moving trucks and trains.  The higher you set ground activity the more there are.  At high levels in PWCG I am absolutely blasting through stated maximums for units, so I don't think that I can add more without breaking the game.

 

I am already getting complaints about too much stuff at airfields.  Even though taxiing is currently "as is", some people still use it.  Airfields have quite a few boxes, static trucks and planes, and AA.  Again, not sure that I can add much more.

 

More fortifications for WWI are a possibility but I am going to wait on the FC2 map.  Unlike the WWII battles, which happen very far away, the new WWI map will be a larger version of the same area and will effectively supersede the Arras map.

 

 

Ok thanks Pat, Is that the same argument for adding extra static trains, tanks, trucks, objects near the front line, or just behind it?

[PatrickAWlson]

5 hours ago, slipper said:

 

 

Ok thanks Pat, Is that the same argument for adding extra static trains, tanks, trucks, objects near the front line, or just behind it?

 

Statics are not that big of a deal.  They have no AI associated with them so they don't really take up much in the way of resources.  However, they are stationary.

[slipper]

3 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Statics are not that big of a deal.  They have no AI associated with them so they don't really take up much in the way of resources.  However, they are stationary.

 

Yes that would be fine Pat, if you could implement it. After all, for a large part of the time vehicles of any type are stationary ?. Was thinking of things like, a column of trucks, tanks or carts parked alongside a road, or near a wood. Trains and coaches parked at a station or on sidings. Trucks, tanks, fortifications, with or without attached smoke near frontlines etc. What do you think?

 

Cheers 

 

Slipper

 

 

[PatrickAWlson]

5 hours ago, slipper said:

 

Yes that would be fine Pat, if you could implement it. After all, for a large part of the time vehicles of any type are stationary ?. Was thinking of things like, a column of trucks, tanks or carts parked alongside a road, or near a wood. Trains and coaches parked at a station or on sidings. Trucks, tanks, fortifications, with or without attached smoke near frontlines etc. What do you think?

 

Cheers 

 

Slipper

 

 

 

Once again, yes and no.  I can add statics, however, if I do not attach entities to them they do not appear in logs and therefore cannot be counted as victories.  Anything with an entity attached does use CPU.  I tried attaching entities to valid structural targets to give credit for bridges and the like.  It turned the game into a slide show.  I am pretty sure the same would happen if I dropped static vehicles with entities all over the front.

 

So I could do it without entities, but then they would be decorative only.  Worse, players will shoot things up and report back that they are not getting credited with ground victories.  

 

My best description of what an "entity" is is that it is an additional data set that adds more information to an object.  Country of ownership, AI parameters, etc.  No entity, no logging.  No logging, no credit.  Add an entity and the game uses CPU to process it, which takes away from CPU to do other things.

 

So I think that I am once again in "the game needs to perform better" territory.  This is very familiar territory.  I have tons of code in PWCG to balance getting things into the game and still make the missions perform reasonably well.  If performance was better I could eliminate that code, make my life easier, and produce better missions with activity across the entire front.  At the moment the game can't handle that.  That is not a knock on the game either.  Asking it to perfectly emulate activity across a large section of front is not a reasonable ask.  Just the current state of the state.

 

 

[slipper]

1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Once again, yes and no.  I can add statics, however, if I do not attach entities to them they do not appear in logs and therefore cannot be counted as victories.  Anything with an entity attached does use CPU.  I tried attaching entities to valid structural targets to give credit for bridges and the like.  It turned the game into a slide show.  I am pretty sure the same would happen if I dropped static vehicles with entities all over the front.

 

So I could do it without entities, but then they would be decorative only.  Worse, players will shoot things up and report back that they are not getting credited with ground victories.  

 

My best description of what an "entity" is is that it is an additional data set that adds more information to an object.  Country of ownership, AI parameters, etc.  No entity, no logging.  No logging, no credit.  Add an entity and the game uses CPU to process it, which takes away from CPU to do other things.

 

So I think that I am once again in "the game needs to perform better" territory.  This is very familiar territory.  I have tons of code in PWCG to balance getting things into the game and still make the missions perform reasonably well.  If performance was better I could eliminate that code, make my life easier, and produce better missions with activity across the entire front.  At the moment the game can't handle that.  That is not a knock on the game either.  Asking it to perfectly emulate activity across a large section of front is not a reasonable ask.  Just the current state of the state.

 

 

 

Thanks again Pat, for a very comprehensive answer  .

 

I must say I am fairly new to Great Battles, as my old computer could not cope with it. Therefore the mission editor is a mystery to me at the moment, and I was not aware of all the issues involved when adding further objects.

 

May take a look at the mission editor myself over Christmas and maybe I can add some objects to my personal copy of your PWCG generated mission.

 

regards

 

slipper

[Lord_Pyro]

Is there currently a way to scale the UI up for a bit? Using the generator on a TV screen makes it very hard to read stuff.

[PatrickAWlson]

14 minutes ago, KGJ54Lord_Pyro said:

Is there currently a way to scale the UI up for a bit? Using the generator on a TV screen makes it very hard to read stuff.

 

You can  set the size yourself instead of letting PWCG auto size.

 

MainMenu->Configuration->GUI

Let PWCG Auto Size = 0

PWCG Screen Height = number of pixels

PWCG Screen Width = number of pixels 

 

When I test I have it set to 1080 x 1920 so it doesn't take the full screen.

[Lord_Pyro]

Thanks for the tip I too changed the fontsize to somethings like in the 30-50s. That helped very much

[Wulfkai]

will the p-51B be an attacker or a fighter pwcg wise?

[PatrickAWlson]

9 hours ago, Wulfkai said:

will the p-51B be an attacker or a fighter pwcg wise?

 

PWCG has roles for planes (what they can do) and roles for squadrons (what they really do).  The plane will be both fighter and attack.  The squadrons will be primarily fighter, unless somebody can point me to P51B units that were primarily attack.  

 

For WWII units, I make every squadron have some attack role.  For eastern Front 109 units it is only 10%, but you still get some attack missions.  Some P47 units in Bodenplatte are over 50% attack while some are slightly over 50% fighter.  All of the P51 units are primarily fighter - I think something like 70% or 80%.  I suspect the P51B units will be the same.

 

In PWCG, and I suspect the 1C career as well, the Luftwaffe is not the defeated force it really was.  Allies have an advantage, but the LW is far less of a spent force than it was in real life.  With that in mind, Allies fly a lot more fighter missions and encounter a lot more fighter opposition than they did in real life.

 

[Leffe7]

Hi there
I started using PWCG with v13.3.0.
Since I updated the files to v13.6.0. I can't create any new campaign (both single or coop). I complete all necessary files, but the button "Create Campaign" is still greyed out.

I can still load my old careers from 13.3.

Any idea on this? Thanks.

[PatrickAWlson]

15 minutes ago, Leffe7 said:

Hi there
I started using PWCG with v13.3.0.
Since I updated the files to v13.6.0. I can't create any new campaign (both single or coop). I complete all necessary files, but the button "Create Campaign" is still greyed out.

I can still load my old careers from 13.3.

Any idea on this? Thanks.

 

Try updating planes owned.   That is the only reason the new campaign buttons would be greyed out.

[raizde2]

is it possible to create a campaign in moscow 1941 for example but where I fly a tempest?

[PatrickAWlson]

28 minutes ago, raizde2 said:

is it possible to create a campaign in moscow 1941 for example but where I fly a tempest?

 

No.  I bend history a little, but making a 1944 British plane available in a 1941 Russian battle is a little much  

 

[raizde2]

4 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

No.  I bend history a little, but making a 1944 British plane available in a 1941 Russian battle is a little much  

 

 

Just wanted to play something a bit different was thinking of building an insanely hard iron man campaign, but to compensate I would have a better plane LOL

[Varibraun]

14 minutes ago, raizde2 said:

Just wanted to play something a bit different was thinking of building an insanely hard iron man campaign, but to compensate I would have a better plane LOL

 

Actually, the Hurricane might get you close to what you are seeking in a Moscow campaign if you arm it with the cannon.  It is a tight turning killer when armed with the Hispanos, but you have to be at your best to survive the early war LW advantages in PWCG.  I still have a living Hurricane Squadron Commander with 85 kills in one of my Ironman campaigns that started in Moscow. 

[PatrickAWlson]

1 hour ago, Varibraun said:

 

Actually, the Hurricane might get you close to what you are seeking in a Moscow campaign if you arm it with the cannon. 

 

I put new code in place awhile back to prevent the selection of non historical payloads. 4x cannon would not be available in the Moscow time frame via PWCG. OTOH, suppose there is nothing stopping anybody from changing the payload once they are in game.

 

[raizde2]

Running PWCG 13.3.0 (the last ones gave me some trouble so I decided to go back to this one at least until I finish a few campaigns I have.

 

Is it normal to have a mission to protect my airport (with path around it quite close) and the mission box quite a bit away not having my airport inside it? I guess then the enemies won't show up... since from what I understand the enemies will be flying inside the mission box and since my airport is outside, they won't come?

 

I guess I set the parameters off, or because my airport is quite close to the end of the map?

 

mission box 80 km

max dist away 70

min dist 10

 

I guess if I put the max dist less than 40 (80/2) then it fixes it?

 

 

Nevermind the enemies actually  flew outside of the mission box and came, or at least they were flying in that direction when I intercepted them while flying towards the mission box looking for them.

 

Edited December 22, 2021 by raizde2

[1Sascha]

Total PWCG-n00b here, trying to set up coop missions/campaigns.

 

I'm sure I'll run into many more questions, but here's my first one:

 

When it comes to "real" player names (not the in-campaign LW- or VVS-/Allied pilots'-/character-names), do I have to use their exact in-game handles/usernames? Does that impact anything "important" like being able to join a mission or some after-action-report stuff?

 

Or is that feature just for the user who runs the campaign to keep track of who he flies with/against and who he'll assign to which "role" in the mission?

 

Example: If I had a buddy who has the IL-2 handle of "1337-Madskilzzzz-Fritz014563-FTW", would I need to use that exact name or could I just call him "Fritz" in the campaign generator's roster?

 

S.

[Guest]

Deleted.

lol, thought it was a new thread. FFS. ?

Edited April 16, 2022 by Hetzer-JG51

[PatrickAWlson]

5 hours ago, 1Sascha said:

Total PWCG-n00b here, trying to set up coop missions/campaigns.

 

I'm sure I'll run into many more questions, but here's my first one:

 

When it comes to "real" player names (not the in-campaign LW- or VVS-/Allied pilots'-/character-names), do I have to use their exact in-game handles/usernames? Does that impact anything "important" like being able to join a mission or some after-action-report stuff?

 

Or is that feature just for the user who runs the campaign to keep track of who he flies with/against and who he'll assign to which "role" in the mission?

 

Example: If I had a buddy who has the IL-2 handle of "1337-Madskilzzzz-Fritz014563-FTW", would I need to use that exact name or could I just call him "Fritz" in the campaign generator's roster?

 

S.

 

You can use whatever name you want for the players.  PWCG associated a human with the virtual pilot.  The purpose is to prevent two virtual pilots associated with a single actual person from flying a mission.  What you call the person doesn't matter - sort of.  I would keep the name as alpha characters and not go over the top, so just Madskillzzzz or Fritz or whatever.  Don't overcomplicate it.

On 12/22/2021 at 6:32 PM, raizde2 said:

Running PWCG 13.3.0 (the last ones gave me some trouble so I decided to go back to this one at least until I finish a few campaigns I have.

 

Is it normal to have a mission to protect my airport (with path around it quite close) and the mission box quite a bit away not having my airport inside it? I guess then the enemies won't show up... since from what I understand the enemies will be flying inside the mission box and since my airport is outside, they won't come?

 

I guess I set the parameters off, or because my airport is quite close to the end of the map?

 

mission box 80 km

max dist away 70

min dist 10

 

I guess if I put the max dist less than 40 (80/2) then it fixes it?

 

 

Nevermind the enemies actually  flew outside of the mission box and came, or at least they were flying in that direction when I intercepted them while flying towards the mission box looking for them.

 

 

The mission box is generally where most of the action is.  In the case of a scramble mission there are specific flights targeting wither your field or nearby stuff, so the box doesn't really matter.

 

[1Sascha]

37 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

You can use whatever name you want for the players.

Thanks!

 

Just to make sure: Not using their *exact* IL-2 handle won't affect anything in the MP-lobby, mission or AAR, correct?

 

S.

[Picchio]

Does anyone know if there is an archive somewhere, containing the past versions of PWCG?

[PatrickAWlson]

4 hours ago, 1Sascha said:

Thanks!

 

Just to make sure: Not using their *exact* IL-2 handle won't affect anything in the MP-lobby, mission or AAR, correct?

 

S.

No effect at all. 

3 hours ago, Picchio said:

Does anyone know if there is an archive somewhere, containing the past versions of PWCG?

 

There is not and I do not support older versions.

[greybeard_52]

I notice that in the "Mission AI" option there are 5 levels (from 0 to 4), and also in the "AIlevel" of the generated mission I find values from 0 to 4. In the game there are only 4 levels (Novice, Average, Veteran, Ace): what is the fifth?

[PatrickAWlson]

2 hours ago, greybeard_52 said:

I notice that in the "Mission AI" option there are 5 levels (from 0 to 4), and also in the "AIlevel" of the generated mission I find values from 0 to 4. In the game there are only 4 levels (Novice, Average, Veteran, Ace): what is the fifth?

 

Zero means player.

[raizde2]

Been doing a new campaign and the AI still seems too passive. I also see lots of squads in the air just circling around instead of doing something, but maybe because I find them before they start their objectives?

 

Reference:

On AQMG:

- enemies (on strong or overwhelming, haven't played on other options lately): agressive, effective, sometimes strange but funny (had bombers thinking they were fighters and started chasing me and attacking me LOL)

- my squad passive but they follow orders and so they actually can become a bit more agressive, less effective than the others but stil ok

 

On the game career:

- enemies: agressive, effective

- my squad passive most of the times, rarely effective, sometimes and dependent on the planes they are using they actually become agressive and/or effective, most of the times they don't follow orders that well except go home... lol

- other friendly squads: agressive and effective.

 

PWCG:

- enemies: passive most of the times, rarely effective... I haven't been shot by anything except a few hole from gunners, for 30+ missions on this new campaign

- my squads: super passive, most of the times they only fly above me not doing anything if I'm the leader, they rarely listen to orders and when they do they forget them quite fast... like I order to attack, when they do, they spread out like they are going to attack but then 30 seconds after they are again flying in a row above me just following me while I'm attacking 4 planes... not effective at all, in all 30+ missions I have 80+ planes shot down, all my squadmates have 2 total...

If I'm not the leader, they follow the waypoints, if enemies almost colide with them, yes they engage... but not effective. It feels a bit scripted that they only attack at a certain waypoint, so if I'm the leader and see the enemies sooner and fly towards then it feels like it affects how my squad reacts and since they didn't meet them at the right location they go passive?

- other friendly squads behave like the enemies... better than my squad but still nothing special

 

I would love to see the AI of the PWCG behave more like I see on AQMG. Hope this feedback helps with maybe and improvement on the mission generation waypoints or priorities...

 

UPDATE: Not sure if it was the latest pwcg, if it was because of being a patrol instead of intercept, or because of this post but last mission while taking off there was 2 enemy planes chasing a squad that was coming to land near us and they flew towards us, my squad engaged (well one of them the  other 2 were still passive, and both enemies were just trying to shoot me down, both got crashed into the ground soon after... pitty they weren't shot down by my teammate, but still it was a better mission than the last 30 or so in relation to the AI.

 

Next mission: Patrol, not leader, we found bombers escorted by 1 f4 and 3 f2, we engaged the f4, took it down, the rest of the enemies were about 7Km away, and my leader and the other wingman just went back to the waypoints and kept on patrol instead of going for the rest of the enemies... I went alone against the rest of the enemies that were flying in a circle, the new leader on the f2 came for me, the rest just flew away, I managed to take it down and then land.

 

Edited May 30, 2022 by raizde2

[FodderMonkey]

1 hour ago, raizde2 said:

Been doing a new campaign and the AI still seems too passive. I also see lots of squads in the air just circling around instead of doing something, but maybe because I find them before they start their objectives?

 

 

 

Same issue.  I've stopped putting myself as Squad Leader, as the rest of the flight appears to perform better with AI leading the flight.   If I'm leader they just follow me around everywhere.  

[PatrickAWlson]

If I have to deal with anymore AI related issues - I quit.  PWCG does not control the AI beyond providing a skill level and a waypoint priority.  PWCG does not take planes off, does not land them, does not make the decision to fight for them (beyond setting the WP priority),  cannot prevent them from lawn darting a perfectly good plane - you get the idea.  Don't like the AI?  Start flooding the complaints board and posting missions.

 

 

 

 

[Stonehouse]

11 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

If I have to deal with anymore AI related issues - I quit.  PWCG does not control the AI beyond providing a skill level and a waypoint priority.  PWCG does not take planes off, does not land them, does not make the decision to fight for them (beyond setting the WP priority),  cannot prevent them from lawn darting a perfectly good plane - you get the idea.  Don't like the AI?  Start flooding the complaints board and posting missions.

 

 

 

 

Maybe for the sake of your sanity put this statement on the download page of your webpage - that is you only have skill and waypoint priority to work with and everything else about how the AI does things is game code. Maybe on that 1st post in the main PWCG thread too.....where the links to your site are. Like a disclaimer type thing. It might reduce the support calls on it a bit perhaps.

 

 

Edited May 31, 2022 by Stonehouse

[rfxcasey]

So what's going on with this, seems the link to Pat's page no longer works. I've used his generator for Rise of Flight and enjoyed it, has his BOS generator been replaced by the in game generator?

[Cybermat47]

1 hour ago, rfxcasey said:

So what's going on with this, seems the link to Pat's page no longer works. I've used his generator for Rise of Flight and enjoyed it, has his BOS generator been replaced by the in game generator?

 

This link should work: http://www.pwcampaignmanager.com/pwcg/pwcgbos/web/PWCGBoS.php

[rfxcasey]

54 minutes ago, Cybermat47 said:

 

This link should work: http://www.pwcampaignmanager.com/pwcg/pwcgbos/web/PWCGBoS.php

Thanks.

[rfxcasey]

On 9/18/2015 at 4:17 PM, Jason_Williams said:

Hello everyone,

 

This sub-forum is where we will discuss PWCG for BOS by Pat Wilson. There is still a ways to go on this project, but it is progressing. If we need anything from the community I will ask for it in this area of the forum. There are many bits of info and content the community may be able to help out with during development and after initial release.

 

You can learn more about PWCG for BOS by reading the following link and watching the included video.

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/19183-what-pat-wilson-campaign-generator-bos/

 

Jason

Yeah, this link at the  beginning of this thread takes me to a page with a link that appears to be broken (well, for me at least). Someone might want to update that.

[busdriver]

5 hours ago, rfxcasey said:

Yeah, this link at the  beginning of this thread takes me to a page with a link that appears to be broken (well, for me at least). Someone might want to update that.

 

Hmmm....you don't see this?

 

[PatrickAWlson]

There is a pinned "Get PWCG Here" thread with the correct link at the top.  The OP in this thread is a post from Jason.  I cannot edit it.

[kaizerhund4]

does the new version for BOS fix the train off the rails issue? i miss shooting moving trains