PWCG 17.1.1 Oh, your squadron needs a plane.

[PatrickAWlson]

23 minutes ago, Highwayman said:

Hey Pat,

 

Just for a little fun we've been enjoying some Flying Circus in between our main IL2 campaigns, but I've noticed that every mission generated has out aircraft taking off WITH the wind and not into it. Curious to know if this is intentional or purely co-incidental? Our landing direction (approach) always comes from the opposite of our take off with the default waypoints, so at least we will be landing into the wind.

 

It is intentional.  The takeoff runs are mapped to allow the planes to get into the air without accidents.  Unfortunately, it is not necessarily true that taking off in the opposite direction will give positive results.  

[Vishnu]

Curious.....Does PWCG generate missions for the HS 129 in the battle of Stalingrad, as they were used there.   Maybe I'm missing the time period.

[PatrickAWlson]

12.2.5
Tank and Train Busters: tanks and trains now considered separate victory categories
- Tank and train victories weigh more heavily into medals and promotions
- Tank and train victories have separate counts on the first page of the pilots journal
- Tank and train victories have their own detailed section in the pilots journal
Added columns for tank, train, and ground to chalkboard
Added summary to Squadron Log
- How many pilots lost
- How many air, tank, train, and ground victories
Expanded summary to Pilot Log
- Air and ground victories scored in aircraft type
- Number of Air and Tank victories summarized by vehicle types
Add skin configurations for Spitfire XIV
Added skin pack from 41 Squadron Riksen for Spitfire XIV
- PWCG Skin Pack 16

- Available for download on PWCG Site
Fix 41 Squadron withdrawal erroneous date for Spitfire MK XIV
Fix 66 Squadron withdrawal erroneous date for Spitfire MK XIV

 

 

 

39 minutes ago, Vishnu said:

Curious.....Does PWCG generate missions for the HS 129 in the battle of Stalingrad, as they were used there.   Maybe I'm missing the time period.

 

Not at the moment.  They first appear at Kuban in April 1943 with 4.(Pz)/Sch.G.2

Edited June 6, 2021 by PatrickAWlson

[Redwo1f]

Thanks Pat! Love the continued work on this. ?

 

Suggestion - You should start sticking an upload date beside new skin packs.

[Varibraun]

14 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Added summary to Squadron Log
- How many pilots lost
- How many air, tank, train, and ground victories
Expanded summary to Pilot Log
- Air and ground victories scored in aircraft type
- Number of Air and Tank victories summarized by vehicle types

 

Love it - THANK YOU!! 

 

Also...great title for this particular patch including this feature.

Edited June 6, 2021 by Varibraun

[justin_z3r0]

21 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

12.2.5
Tank and Train Busters: tanks and trains now considered separate victory categories
- Tank and train victories weigh more heavily into medals and promotions
- Tank and train victories have separate counts on the first page of the pilots journal
- Tank and train victories have their own detailed section in the pilots journal
Added columns for tank, train, and ground to chalkboard
Added summary to Squadron Log
- How many pilots lost
- How many air, tank, train, and ground victories
Expanded summary to Pilot Log
- Air and ground victories scored in aircraft type
- Number of Air and Tank victories summarized by vehicle types
Add skin configurations for Spitfire XIV
Added skin pack from 41 Squadron Riksen for Spitfire XIV
- PWCG Skin Pack 16

- Available for download on PWCG Site
Fix 41 Squadron withdrawal erroneous date for Spitfire MK XIV
Fix 66 Squadron withdrawal erroneous date for Spitfire MK XIV

 

 

 

 

Not at the moment.  They first appear at Kuban in April 1943 with 4.(Pz)/Sch.G.2

Thanks Pat!

[migmadmarine]

Does the Flying circus version have the option to start with the aircraft rather than running and oriented on the runway? Hope at some point you can set the mission up to face the aircraft into the wind.

[PatrickAWlson]

12.2.6
Fixed front line fire and smoke

[Vishnu]

Looking everywhere.  I know there's a regiment that flew the Spit vb in Kuban,   I played before.   For the life of me I can't find it..... eek and thanks

[Madov]

That would be the 57th Guards Fighter Air Regiment which spent a lot of its time flying out of Krasnodar.

[Vishnu]

10 minutes ago, Madov said:

That would be the 57th Guards Fighter Air Regiment which spent a lot of its time flying out of Krasnodar.

Awesome! Thank you!

PAT!!! Love the smoke!!! WOOOHOOO!!!

[Stonehouse]

Useful for this sort of thing 

 

 

[Stromboli]

Thanks Again Pat for the Smoke.

[Nocke]

12.2.6 is really almost perfect! We are enjoying our coop campain immensely, missions are very varied, and very interesting. Thx again!

But of course we suckers are never completely satisfied, so here comes a question or proposal:

Could you make it such that, when ground attacking, one could have continuity of ground stuff between two missions, in certain cases? It could be great to be able to do a recon sortie first, take some pictures, and then go out in a second one to destroy the stuff!

[PatrickAWlson]

5 hours ago, 216th_Nocke said:

12.2.6 is really almost perfect! We are enjoying our coop campain immensely, missions are very varied, and very interesting. Thx again!

But of course we suckers are never completely satisfied, so here comes a question or proposal:

Could you make it such that, when ground attacking, one could have continuity of ground stuff between two missions, in certain cases? It could be great to be able to do a recon sortie first, take some pictures, and then go out in a second one to destroy the stuff!

 

Been asked before and I have not done it yet because it is a lot of work.  Recent history with trying to make structures report damage also shows that the game can't handle structural damage reporting on a large scale.

 

In a recent version I added entities to certain structure types throughout the map so they would report damage.  It killed performance.  I had to scale it back to only those structures within a target area.  So the ability to report damage on everything is not possible.  Could I track damage on your targets?  As long as you stick to mission specified targets then yes, that is possible.  

 

Then there is the amount of effort involved:
I would have to keep track of the damage level of every structure in the game. 

I would have to invent a repair schedule for ground objects and apply it to every object.

PWCG damages buildings close to the front.  That damage should also be recorded.  One thing about PWCG is the fact that things happen that are not related to the player's actions.  Any change in this area would have to keep that feel.

 

I'm thinking out loud ... 

1. Limit damage tracking to object types that currently report damage

2. Create a repair rate for each of those structures

3. After each mission calculate battle damage as well as reported damage

4. Rewrite structural damage application to use the recorded values and do not calculate them on the fly.

5. Rewrite the smoke algorithm to use recorded battle damage.

6. Reassess out of mission battle damage whenever the front lines move.

 

So - it's a lot of work to make it seamless and believable.  Never say never, but its more than a weekend to pull something like that off.

 

 

 

Quick question: If I spent 80 hours of my life coding something like this, would more than three people even notice?  

[justin_z3r0]

1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Been asked before and I have not done it yet because it is a lot of work.  Recent history with trying to make structures report damage also shows that the game can't handle structural damage reporting on a large scale.

 

In a recent version I added entities to certain structure types throughout the map so they would report damage.  It killed performance.  I had to scale it back to only those structures within a target area.  So the ability to report damage on everything is not possible.  Could I track damage on your targets?  As long as you stick to mission specified targets then yes, that is possible.  

 

Then there is the amount of effort involved:
I would have to keep track of the damage level of every structure in the game. 

I would have to invent a repair schedule for ground objects and apply it to every object.

PWCG damages buildings close to the front.  That damage should also be recorded.  One thing about PWCG is the fact that things happen that are not related to the player's actions.  Any change in this area would have to keep that feel.

 

I'm thinking out loud ... 

1. Limit damage tracking to object types that currently report damage

2. Create a repair rate for each of those structures

3. After each mission calculate battle damage as well as reported damage

4. Rewrite structural damage application to use the recorded values and do not calculate them on the fly.

5. Rewrite the smoke algorithm to use recorded battle damage.

6. Reassess out of mission battle damage whenever the front lines move.

 

So - it's a lot of work to make it seamless and believable.  Never say never, but its more than a weekend to pull something like that off.

 

 

 

Quick question: If I spent 80 hours of my life coding something like this, would more than three people even notice?  

I would notice and probably enjoy for ground attack campaigns quite a lot. An update of that magnitude would certainly warrant another donation to the cause. 

But that said - I'm really liking 12.2.6. and really appreciate all the effort you put into this on a constant basis!

[Varibraun]

1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Quick question: If I spent 80 hours of my life coding something like this, would more than three people even notice?  

 

If this is a poll, I unfortunately have to report that I would not notice.  Since this is an incredibly time intensive "hobby" for you, I would much rather you spend those 80 hours enjoying flying yourself (or at least on different PWCG items ).   I am sure our mud moving brethren feel very differently (LOL...see Justin above who just beat me to the first answer), but I hardly see what is happening on the ground when it isn't shooting at me or I am aiming at one single target that appears really small in my sights. 

 

My focus in PWCG are the unpredictable missions and their results on the dynamic pilots and squadrons themselves, including the background simulation.  I find that background simulation within the history of the logs fascinating and even more so since you added the tally.  In my ongoing eastern campaign, I was surprised how well the dominance of the LW squadrons in the early war reflects right in those new stats.  Down the line, a small feature I would like to see now that we have those stats is a way to drill down to see them for all the squadrons in the Intel Report regardless of whether we have an active pilot in the squadron.  A new squadron ranking board (like the aces) would be cool too. 

Edited June 12, 2021 by Varibraun

[coconut]

I don’t think persistence of damage is specially what Nocke was asking for. Instead, I think he meant to tie the results of one mission into the next, eg attack a target you spotted in the previous mission. A mission could have hidden objectives that when flown over become the primary objective in the next mission. Maybe even a spotting report similar to the claim report: “spotted enemy column moving in 1023.4”

[Nocke]

Basically what Coconut says, just keeping it simple to do. I would not even mind if damage was not carried over.

I was thinking in putting just the same ground objects in 2 consecutive missions, so you can find again in the second what has been there before. Of course it would be lovely to carry over more, like damage, but I very well understand that that is much more work for you.

Oh and while writing and just having had another exciting mission in PWCG: How about using mph and feet in the waypoin editor when one flies english or american?

[Oskar_GD]

06.06.2021 в 13:39, PatrickAWlson сказал:

12.2.5
Tank and Train Busters: tanks and trains now considered separate victory categories
- Tank and train victories weigh more heavily into medals and promotions
- Tank and train victories have separate counts on the first page of the pilots journal
- Tank and train victories have their own detailed section in the pilots journal
Added columns for tank, train, and ground to chalkboard
Added summary to Squadron Log
- How many pilots lost
- How many air, tank, train, and ground victories
Expanded summary to Pilot Log
- Air and ground victories scored in aircraft type
- Number of Air and Tank victories summarized by vehicle types
Add skin configurations for Spitfire XIV
Added skin pack from 41 Squadron Riksen for Spitfire XIV
- PWCG Skin Pack 16

- Available for download on PWCG Site
Fix 41 Squadron withdrawal erroneous date for Spitfire MK XIV
Fix 66 Squadron withdrawal erroneous date for Spitfire MK XIV

 

 

 

 

Not at the moment.  They first appear at Kuban in April 1943 with 4.(Pz)/Sch.G.2

 

Excellent job.

 

It's need to add to  Squadron Log too

- How many planes lost

[Highwayman]

8 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Quick question: If I spent 80 hours of my life coding something like this, would more than three people even notice?  

I have to say I would, and it would lend a lot more immersion, purpose and satisfaction to ground attack and bomber campaigns, and also the potential for a fully dynamic tracked ground war, hey who knows, maybe you'll invent a method to slow down time, and subsequently find the time to create tank battles to feature as part of that ongoing ground war, whilst simultaneously solving world hunger ?

 

I get giddy just thinking about the possibilities of tying the destruction of factories and logistical units (bridges, trains and convoys) into the resupply of units and the availability of munitions (bombs & rockets) for your own units.... Lose a factory in Dusseldorf to an Allied Bombing raid? Sorry, we don't have any rockets for your fighters to use for 3 turns... ?

 

I however agree with the sentiments of others. The tool is awesome as it is, your commitment to something that you give away to a community for free is amazing, although I hope that you're getting more than a few bucks on your donations page. So don't spend countless hours trying to shoe horn something into the code that doesn't have a driving reason to do so in your own mind.

 

 

Edited June 13, 2021 by Highwayman

[PatrickAWlson]

3 hours ago, 216th_Nocke said:

Basically what Coconut says, just keeping it simple to do. I would not even mind if damage was not carried over.

I was thinking in putting just the same ground objects in 2 consecutive missions, so you can find again in the second what has been there before. Of course it would be lovely to carry over more, like damage, but I very well understand that that is much more work for you.

Oh and while writing and just having had another exciting mission in PWCG: How about using mph and feet in the waypoin editor when one flies english or american?

 

The structures are not randomized, so as long as a structure is actually included it will be the same structure in the same place.  What does happen is, if the mission is in a different location, the same structures may not be included.  That is just a mission size thing.  Still, for any given area of the map it will always be the same structure in the same place.

[Nocke]

Good to know,thx! I guess "structures" also includes AAA?

[Retnek]

19 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Quick question: If I spent 80 hours of my life coding something like this, would more than three people even notice?  

On the long run - yes. Trying to enable such details pushes the game more into the direction of a simulation. It's a long way to go, step by step. Those of us attracted by realism and history would enjoy such mission-consistency very much. Like your "Iconic missions" I'd love to see a set of "typical mission series" running over a week or so. F.e. "preparation of an offensive" with

day 1&2: fighter sweeps for air superiority / airfield-runs for the attackers
day 3&4: (armed) recon / anti-AAA-runs for the attackers
day 5&6: ground pounding in the target area, interdiction sorties at the flanks
day 7: supporting the ground offensive itself

For me just a set of "plausible mission series" would be a great step ahead. Other tactical standards might be "disturbing enemies offensive preparations", "interdiction of communication (traffic) lines" or "try to confirm reports about a tank-division in our area". Such sets could be offered like a single mission, too. If your group isn't in the mood for the suggested mission set - scrub it.
For me such sets of "story-framework" alone would add to immersion enormously. The master class: if you're able to conserve the results of a mission and carry them forward into the next it becomes a mini-campaign. That would be a new level of immersion.

Edited June 13, 2021 by Retnek

[PatrickAWlson]

3 hours ago, 216th_Nocke said:

Good to know,thx! I guess "structures" also includes AAA?

 

AA and structures are related.  AA placement is not precisely pre-determined as structures.  It is heavily influenced by the map as it is concentrated around certain structures like airfields, bridges and railways,  AA is also present around truck convoys, battles, and the front lines in general. 

[TheSNAFU]

50 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

AA and structures are related.  AA placement is not precisely pre-determined as structures.  It is heavily influenced by the map as it is concentrated around certain structures like airfields, bridges and railways,  AA is also present around truck convoys, battles, and the front lines in general. 

I will say that the AA is now plentiful which adds a lot to the immersion. Flak bursts and tracers light up the sky in many instances. That said it comes at a price as in almost every low cap mission me or one of my mates gets hit hard and has to try and make it home. Much more deadly now. It’s not a bad thing really. Overall this new version is very very good. I like the new tracking of destroyed ground targets. 

[Varibraun]

5 minutes ago, TheSNAFU said:

Overall this new version is very very good.

 

+1, I can't upvote this enough!

21 hours ago, Varibraun said:

In my ongoing eastern campaign, I was surprised how well the dominance of the LW squadrons in the early war reflects right in those new stats. 

 

Here is the example of what I mean - I have an active pilot in this squadron - I./JG51, but I am mostly flying Soviet in this campaign (currently in Dec 1942).  So these results have been achieved mostly in Pat's algorithms.  Bravo @PatrickAWlson! 

 

[Q_Walker]

Hello, been quite awhile since I last used PWCG and there has been quite some change, all of it good! I was wondering when I look at the equipment for the squadron, it shows the serial number like before, but now it also shows an ID Code section as well with something like "1+" or "13+". I am flying in a German unit and I know that markings haven't been added to any German planes yet, what are the ID codes for then?

[PatrickAWlson]

12 minutes ago, Q_Walker said:

I am flying in a German unit and I know that markings haven't been added to any German planes yet, what are the ID codes for then?

 

At the moment nothing.  @Murleen implemented a numbering system that works across services.  it will be there when the time comes.

[PatrickAWlson]

12.3.0
Iconic missions for AAA trucks
- From PWCG main screen go to iconic missions
- Choose an AAA truck
- PWCG generates a mission in an AAA truck.
Added capability to create iconic missions for AA trucks
Reduced probability of planes prematurely jettisoning munitions
Fixed typo

 

The AAA trucks thing is something that I thought I could pull off.  Unfortunately, a full campaign was several bridges too far, but I did manage to get the iconic missions to generate AAA truck missions.  The missions are standard PWCG missions with a post processing part.  The campaign is made on the fly for a plane, the mission gets generated, then the player flight gets removed and the truck gets dropped into place near friendly troops.  All air activity is routes to the player's area.  

 

They are fun.  You will have ground targets as well.  I had more luck with those than hitting anything flying. Just remember that you are in a truck.  Taking on a panzer column head on is not a great idea.

 

You can play as German or Western allied as well as Russian.  it's still a Russian truck with Russian crewmen, but it works.

[PatrickAWlson]

During development I played several AAA truck missions.  For me the most fun are Market Garden and the Kerch invasion.  I changed the mission parameters for truck missions to bring planes closer and have them linger longer (there's a limerick in there somewhere).  I am still hopeless as far at actually hitting one.  My most successful mission was when I flanked a group of tanks and knocked out two of them, surviving the mission.  Most missions ended with my demise.  Note to all: do not engage tanks head on in a truck with a 25mm gun - not a good idea.  However, if you flank them you can kill up to medium tanks with it.

 

The Kerch invasion was fun.  Drove to the shore and engaged the landing craft.  Died when the tanks unloaded.  Should have flanked and waited for the light tanks to unload, then focus on them.

[SCG_motoadve]

Back to PWCG after a while, best way to play single player in IL2 IMHO.

I remember in the configuration we were able to change weather clear, cloudy, overcast etc.

Is that option gone now? I used to like it a lot.

[PatrickAWlson]

2 hours ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Back to PWCG after a while, best way to play single player in IL2 IMHO.

I remember in the configuration we were able to change weather clear, cloudy, overcast etc.

Is that option gone now? I used to like it a lot.

 

I wrote too much logic around weather to keep it configurable.  If you haven't played PWCG in awhile things have changed a bit.  Weather is calculated first and there are a lot more clouds, rain, and snow.  With weather calculated, mission generation is responsive to weather, pushing many missions down lower in bad weather.

[dburne]

Been away from PWCG for a bit.

Have installed this 12.3.0 clean, deleted all previous PWCG files/folders.

 

Starting a new Spit Mk IX campaign.

Click to create mission and next screen only gives me option for scrub mission or next map?

What to do?

 

Edit: Disregard I think I worked through it ok. Duh! I am so stupid at times.

 

 

Edited June 15, 2021 by dburne

[PatrickAWlson]

15 minutes ago, dburne said:

Been away from PWCG for a bit.

Have installed this 12.3.0 clean, deleted all previous PWCG files/folders.

 

Starting a new Spit Mk IX campaign.

Click to create mission and next screen only gives me option for scrub mission or next map?

What to do?

 

 

 

 

Next Map is the right choice.  Unless you want to scrub the mission, then it's the wrong choice  

[dburne]

1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Next Map is the right choice.  Unless you want to scrub the mission, then it's the wrong choice  

 

Yeah thanks I had a brain fade.

 

Ok now let me ask - just completed a nice long mission, and got an error when I went to complete the report that no log file was found.

I think I must have picked the wrong mission to fly in the game.

Is the latest mission created not in the first spot in mission list in game? If no, is it the one in last slot?
I want to make sure I don't do that again.

 

Thanks,

[PatrickAWlson]

It tends to be the last spot as the mission name is <campaign name>_YYYYYMMDD.  The game lists in alphabetical order which will make the latest YYYYMMDD last in the list.

[dburne]

57 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

It tends to be the last spot as the mission name is <campaign name>_YYYYYMMDD.  The game lists in alphabetical order which will make the latest YYYYMMDD last in the list.

 

 

Ok thanks, I will make sure and pay better attention.

[grcurmudgeon]

They are also in the PWCG folder in the game UI. When you go to Missions it gives you a list of folders, you pick PWCG, and they will be in there. If PWCG did not find a log file, make sure you flipped the log flag in the settings INI file for the game.

[PatrickAWlson]

12.3.1
Enhanced iconic missions to allow the player to crew any appropriate TC vehicle.
Extended ground unit spawn distance from 5km to 15km/8kmfor BoS/FC
 

I made some enhancements to the ground vehicles in iconic missions.  Now you can drop in the AA trucks and any other drivable TC vehicle. it was fun dropping in a Tiger to face the T70s landed at Kerch.  OK, kind of sad, but fun anyway.  Need to try the same with a Mk III.