IL2 Great Battles Easy Mission Generator

[=FI=Genosse]

Any news on the ServerGenerator? Any updates on it available? Still deactivating AI fighters when nobody is around like in version 5?

 

 

 

[SYN_Vander]

57 minutes ago, =FI=Genosse said:

Any news on the ServerGenerator? Any updates on it available? Still deactivating AI fighters when nobody is around like in version 5?

 

 

 

I have removed that already in v78. I will update the server generator as well, thanks for reminding.

6 minutes ago, SYN_Vander said:

I have removed that already in v78. I will update the server generator as well, thanks for reminding.

 

Done, I have uploaded the new server generator version. Download here: https://sites.google.com/view/il2-great-battles-emg/emg-for-servers

the file now follows the version of the EMG, so now v79.

Edited October 29, 2023 by SYN_Vander

[=FI=Genosse]

Much appreciated, Vander!

[percydanvers]

21 hours ago, SYN_Vander said:

New version released.

 

Version 79
-Added pre D-Day front "Normandy" to the Channel map.
-Added Hanriot HD.1, Nieuport 17 GBR and La-5F
-Fixed bug where targets could sometimes overlap

 

Download here: https://sites.google.com/view/il2-great-battles-emg/home

 

Thank you for your amazing work!

[kraut1]

On 10/28/2023 at 1:36 PM, SYN_Vander said:

 

 For post 6 june front you need to use the "Normandy:" map template.

I will release the new version shortly, so you can improve on that.

Hi Vander,

just for your info: I have started with the additional Invasion frontlines from 06.06.44 - to ca. 25.07.44 for "Normandy" map template.

First front 06.06.44 "D-Day early morning" (Invasion Fleet near the coast) is working.

 

Edited November 1, 2023 by kraut1

[SYN_Vander]

3 hours ago, kraut1 said:

Hi Vander,

just for your info: I have started with the additional Invasion frontlines from 06.06.44 - to ca. 25.07.44 for "Normandy" map template.

First front 06.06.44 "D-Day early morning" (Invasion Fleet near the coast) is working.

 

 

Do realize that all the allied airfields will then be on the map? Perhaps I can change in the code to make the underlying terrain based on actual mission date...

[kraut1]

22 hours ago, SYN_Vander said:

 

Do realize that all the allied airfields will then be on the map? Perhaps I can change in the code to make the underlying terrain based on actual mission date...

Yes indeed, this would great! I have already made a small test with the Normandy Template with the terrain text lines from the Channel Template.

If it is not possible to change the code we could define 2 alternative Normandy templates to be activated with 2 small batch files (I know, it's primitive). I am using batch files with my Nederland Mod to activate alternative planes.json files.

But changing the code would be the best solution!

Added later: Date for terrain change could be ca. 10th June to ca. 15th June.

A-1 St. Pierre: ca. from13th June P47 and later P38 Squadrons

B-3 Sainte-Croix-sur-Mer: RAF Typhoons from 10th June

B-4 Beny-sur-Mer: RAF / RCAF Spitfire / Typhoon Squadrons  from 15th June

 

But it will be always a compromise because some of the advanced allied airfields were more far away from the invasion beaches and constructed later.

Update 02.11.2023:

And the static block elements of these airfields have to be considered too in some way.

(for my tests I have removed all axis / allied planes, cars from Static ...Airfield Groups in France. In south England allied plane and cars can stay, no problem)

These Airfield objects of SYN_Airfields could be moved into 1 group for each allied advanced AF, at 6th june all deactivated and with the MCU date trigger activated from the date when the AF was in service.

 

But even it is not 100% perfect we will have a new version of EMG with which we can create interesting invasion missions!

Edited November 2, 2023 by kraut1
Update 02.11.2023 in GREEN

[kraut1]

21 hours ago, SYN_Vander said:

 

Do realize that all the allied airfields will then be on the map? Perhaps I can change in the code to make the underlying terrain based on actual mission date...

Concerning all advanced allied french airfields on the late map I made a small test with the early summer terrain with the close to beach airfields:

The terrain change I made only to the maps.json, 2 alternative maps.jsons activated with small batch files:

I created 1 test missions for A1 St Pierre and 1 for B-11 Longues and both worked with Spitfires and light bomber A20.

 

So I would suggest to use the early summer terrain for minimum 1 or 2 weeks after D-Day and then the summer terrain.

I think this could make sence because I suppose that these advanced airfields were at first very primitive, extended later while already in operation.

And If we don't use too many static objects for these airfields they will not disturb during the D-Day missions, when the terrain was still under Axis control.

Added later:

And one last idea: If you change only change in the EMG code one date: the general EMG "switch date" from spring to summer to ca.15th June (current date a bit early from 31th May to 01st June), we could define as normal spring and summer for the Normandy Template in the maps.json

In this case NO alternative maps.json / batch files are required

 

d-day-early-summer-test-missions.zip

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by kraut1
added later (in red)

[kraut1]

@SYN_Vander

Hi Vander,

here the current status of the fronts.

For the landing at the beaches I think either front c or front d, not both.

I suppose that the number of fronts should not be too high.

I think 2 further fronts end of june / early july will be enough.

After that we have the existing fronts Operation Cobra and Falaise.

front e 6th june evening

[kraut1]

@SYN_Vander

Hi Vander,

I have completed my Drafts for the new fronts:

EasyMissionGenerator_v79_Normandy_new_fronts_v01.zip

When you have time available please have a look at them and inform me which fronts you want to use for EMG.

I will make some further tests how to deal with the static objects for the advanced airfields and how to define some mission targets for special battles with Radar_[x] groups / objectives.

Best wishes

 

(and some test missions, only to see how the front looks in the game)

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/m4unn01v5krwa0e7n3lod/test-missions-to-see-front-line-in-game.zip?rlkey=gld7u5gvlgtb7i7flcyku13wh&dl=0

Edited November 7, 2023 by kraut1

[Stonehouse]

@SYN_Vander

When you have a moment, I had a question for you about the templates. I noticed that any static blocks that are placed near AAA guns are spawned in a mission start and the guns themselves appear and disappear when targets trip the "close" and "away" triggers. I have been attempting without any success to somehow get the static blocks (eg sandbags) to be linked to the guns spawning/despawning as the empty emplacements break the immersion factor a bit. I'm getting the impression that it is not possible to control the static blocks.

 

I noticed then that you use spawn and delete triggers rather than activate and deactivate triggers. Is this because many spawned in but deactivated objects impact performance more than spawning/despawning multiple objects? 

 

I would have thought deactivated objects are like fairly much like statics from a performance viewpoint, but I take it that is not the case and therefore it is best not to add too many statics to the AAA groups if you want to avoid "empty nests"?

 

Edited November 7, 2023 by Stonehouse

[SYN_Vander]

8 hours ago, Stonehouse said:

@SYN_Vander

When you have a moment, I had a question for you about the templates. I noticed that any static blocks that are placed near AAA guns are spawned in a mission start and the guns themselves appear and disappear when targets trip the "close" and "away" triggers. I have been attempting without any success to somehow get the static blocks (eg sandbags) to be linked to the guns spawning/despawning as the empty emplacements break the immersion factor a bit. I'm getting the impression that it is not possible to control the static blocks.

 

I noticed then that you use spawn and delete triggers rather than activate and deactivate triggers. Is this because many spawned in but deactivated objects impact performance more than spawning/despawning multiple objects? 

 

I would have thought deactivated objects are like fairly much like statics from a performance viewpoint, but I take it that is not the case and therefore it is best not to add too many statics to the AAA groups if you want to avoid "empty nests"?

 

 

The empty nest problem I don't know how to fix. I think most (online) maps & missions do this.

About spawn/delete: I'm afraid I don't know the rationale anymore LOL. I think it was because with spawn/delete you can keep spawning them for long multiplayer missions, but then again that's also possible by repairing them...  If activate/deactivate performs better then it can easily be changed as I only have to change the generic FLAK groups.

[Stonehouse]

4 minutes ago, SYN_Vander said:

 

The empty nest problem I don't know how to fix. I think most (online) maps & missions do this.

About spawn/delete: I'm afraid I don't know the rationale anymore LOL. I think it was because with spawn/delete you can keep spawning them for long multiplayer missions, but then again that's also possible by repairing them...  If activate/deactivate performs better then it can easily be changed as I only have to change the generic FLAK groups.

 

Ok thanks for the reply, Vander.

I hadn't considered long MP missions, but I see that you need to as EMG does that. My only thought was that activate/deactivate would have the gun spawn in at mission start.... but thinking more about that - this would mean all the AAA_50m and other AAA helpers would do the same thing everywhere at mission start too.

 

So, lots of deactivated objects across the map......last night it was late, and I was only thinking about the AAA at objectives but shifting to activate/deactivate would be global unless you created objective only generic groups that use activate/deactivate and kept other stuff on spawn/delete. If it turned out there was any performance issue for activate/deactivate then it would cause you grief as currently you only spawn/delete a limited set of objects. Maybe an interesting experiment someday but I reckon you've better things to use your spare time on.

[kraut1]

Hi Vander,

I like to use as often as possible random settings for mission generation.

But when I select for (west) allied bomber (lead)AI  flights plane type "any", B25 / B26 bombers are never choosen by random for AI flights.

Only A20, Mosquito with "any". B25 and B26 are selectable and they work when I select them, but not with "any".

Could you please change this for the next revision.

Thanks in Advance!

[Stonehouse]

On 11/8/2023 at 7:50 AM, SYN_Vander said:

 

The empty nest problem I don't know how to fix. I think most (online) maps & missions do this.

About spawn/delete: I'm afraid I don't know the rationale anymore LOL. I think it was because with spawn/delete you can keep spawning them for long multiplayer missions, but then again that's also possible by repairing them...  If activate/deactivate performs better then it can easily be changed as I only have to change the generic FLAK groups.

 

Sorry @SYN_Vander, another question. I understand that the AAA_50m ambient AAA density is controlled by vehicle density settings. However, I'm noticing that in a mission to say bomb a bridge in NE Normandy that 70% of the ambient AAA is a long, long way away SW from where I am operating. Totally random is good but is there any way to skew things such that more of the ambient AAA is within the general area (say 100-150 km or approx 3-5 large map squares of the created flight path) of the mission? Ideally it would probably be good to have two passes for ambient AAA. One to "switch on" AAA_50m locations completely at random and another that randomly switches it on within a reasonable area around the mission route.

 

I know airfield AAA is always added to the mission, can I use that to force AAA near say major towns that are not part of the mission, but you are likely to fly over so that I get more of a tailored ambient AAA layer on top of your completely random one? EG say I want most large towns to have a AAA element without specifying them as objectives so that you get some ambient flak if you over fly too close to a large town/port etc. 

 

<edit> actually it seems that airfield AAA is only always added if the airfield is available to fly from - and then it adds the AAA from the airfield helpers but not the airfield objective helpers. I get this as it allows to you to add a bit of AAA to the airfield if desired when it is a mission objective while keeping some defenses even when it is just when being used as a player or AI base. It unfortunately does mean airfields not designated as active fields in EMG don't have any ambient AAA which feels odd in mission.

Could you think about idea of always spawning the helpers at airfields even when they are not an objective and not an active EMG base please?

 

I'll try the above anyway I guess while I wait for you to comment.

 

<edit> nope that didn't work......I think EMG only sees helpers under airfield if it corresponds to an actual airfield reference point. So......I think at the moment all I can try is to add additional AAA helper to an airfield helper group and then move it out to the place I want AAA to be available at. 

 

An EMG enhancement which might be good would be to add a helpers_ambient_defenses similar to helpers_aaa but anything under helpers_ambient_defenses is always added to the mission.  This way you could add a layer of stuff like AAA to major cities that aren't objectives and be sure it would be included in the mission. As long as the current spawn/delete method is used this shouldn't impact performance.

Edited November 9, 2023 by Stonehouse

[kraut1]

5 hours ago, Stonehouse said:

 

 EG say I want most large towns to have a AAA element without specifying them as objectives so that you get some ambient flak if you over fly too close to a large town/port etc. 

 

Yes, good idea if this would be implemented.

What I do sometimes with the current Easy Mission Generator versions:

For all static front templates, e.g.: my Nederland41-44:

I add target objective groups to the STATIC group in the template.

In general all objects appear in each mission. And you can use spawn / despawning

For templates with moving fronts you can place target objects in the Radar_[front] groups.

e.g.: For Papua New Guinea / front F (lines_F) all objects of the group Radar_F appear in the mission.

In this case combined with random spawning.

 

[Stonehouse]

4 hours ago, kraut1 said:

For all static front templates

 

I'll have a look at your template and see if I can get that workaround going for my case. Thanks kraut1 

[Stonehouse]

14 hours ago, kraut1 said:

Yes, good idea if this would be implemented.

What I do sometimes with the current Easy Mission Generator versions:

For all static front templates, e.g.: my Nederland41-44:

I add target objective groups to the STATIC group in the template.

In general all objects appear in each mission. And you can use spawn / despawning

.....................................

 

 

 

Ok that will work. I see what you have done, so I would essentially have to cut and paste the units making up the helper composition into the static group at all the positions I want that set of units to appear. Probably grouped under an individual group as is logical to keep it neat. eg Carentan_ambient_flak or something similar.

 

It definitely would be better if EMG would treat helpers in the static group (or add a new group for ambient objects you want to always be in mission as I said previously) as it does elsewhere. EG adding the "flak_axis_1" helper to the static group results in the appropriate unit composition being imported into the mission at the position and orientation of the helper. That would keep it all consistent with using the generic template for source of units.

Edited November 9, 2023 by Stonehouse

[Stonehouse]

20 hours ago, Stonehouse said:

<edit> actually it seems that airfield AAA is only always added if the airfield is available to fly from - and then it adds the AAA from the airfield helpers but not the airfield objective helpers. I get this as it allows to you to add a bit of AAA to the airfield if desired when it is a mission objective while keeping some defenses even when it is just when being used as a player or AI base. It unfortunately does mean airfields not designated as active fields in EMG don't have any ambient AAA which feels odd in mission.

Could you think about idea of always spawning the helpers at airfields even when they are not an objective and not an active EMG base please?

 

@kraut1 fyi. Found out that airfield AAA not always spawned as I thought.

[kraut1]

5 minutes ago, Stonehouse said:

 

@kraut1 fyi. Found out that airfield AAA not always spawned as I thought.

Thanks, I have to admit that I have not the detail knowlede concerning AAA that you have.

I am working currently on the advanced allied airfields in france of the Normandy Map.

In the existing v79 only the advanced airfields that were defined as active airfields were at the same time defined as "airfield target objects".

For the new version I want to define the advanced but not for player use activated airfields as "parked planes" targets.

I  don't really know in detail how it works, but from my understanding an airfield has activated AAA guns:

-according to the Airfield definition

-and / or by the target objective "Airfield" definition

-and / or by the target objective "parked planes" definition

So from my flying experience normally each EMG airfield is defended by some AAA guns.

 

Concerning your planned custom AAA batteries: I am sure that it is possible to realize some of them. If there are problems, please contact me.

[Stonehouse]

34 minutes ago, kraut1 said:

I  don't really know in detail how it works, but from my understanding an airfield has activated AAA guns:

-according to the Airfield definition

-and / or by the target objective "Airfield" definition

-and / or by the target objective "parked planes" definition

 I think it works as follows:

• If the airfield is available as a location in the EMG GUI as an active airfield and not selected as the mission objective: You get the objects defined under the airfield helpers group
• If the airfield is as above and also selected as the mission objective: You get the both the objects defined under the airfield helpers group plus the stuff under the airfield objective helpers group corresponding to the airfield in question.
• If the airfield is not an active airfield but is chosen as a mission objective then as above.
• If the airfield is not an active airfield and is not chosen as the mission objective no objects spawn. ie some airfields are defined in EMG Normandy which are not active and not an objective. EG Saint Andre de lEure

EG stock v79 EMG

 

Saint Andre defined as below but not an active field and also not included as an objective airfield

 

 

Bridge attack mission (both Axis and Allied, player Allied) generated on stock EMG templates for Operation Cobra. Pics below taken with objects filter set to include all objects. As you can see nothing has been allocated to Saint Andre in this mission. 

 

 

 

Airfields that do get objects are the active ones

 

 

In summary the conclusion is either it is random chance that Saint Andre gets populated, or it never does as it is not defined as either an objective or an active field. 

 

Not sure if this is a bug or a design choice Vander has made.

 

I believe airfields should always be populated with the objects under the airfield helpers group specific for that airfield regardless and if selected as an objective then the objects under the objective helpers group for the airfield should also be populated. It breaks immersion to fly over an enemy field and not get fired at or see some sign of use. Maybe a field like Saint Andre is so far south an Allied player isn't likely to go there but there are Allied ALGs that are the same. Flying a Luftwaffe mission is very likely to go past or over these ALGs.

Edited November 9, 2023 by Stonehouse

[kraut1]

28 minutes ago, Stonehouse said:

 

I believe airfields should always be populated with the objects under the airfield helpers group specific for that airfield regardless and if selected as an objective then the objects under the objective helpers group for the airfield should also be populated. It breaks immersion to fly over an enemy field and not get fired at or see some sign of use. Maybe a field like Saint Andre is so far south an Allied player isn't likely to go there but there are Allied ALGs that are the same. Flying a Luftwaffe mission is very likely to go past or over these ALGs.

Hi, thanks for the hint.

In general Vander has already defined ST. Andre... as a real EMG airfield, but ist is not mentioned in the maps.json. - I will check

I have just placed an airfields objective there.

Static objects seem to be there:

In the the real active EMG Airfields I found this:

 

And now it is there:

https://ww2.dk/Airfields - France.pdf

Let's see if it works:

It works and it is already populated

I have only added the target definition as an Airfield

 

I will add the settings in this post soon:

For you in Advance:

ztest-St_Andre.Mission.zip

EasyMissionGenerator_v79_Normandy_new_fronts_v03.zip

current draft for new Normandy fronts / settings (target objectives to be updated)

 

[Stonehouse]

1 hour ago, kraut1 said:

Hi, thanks for the hint.

 

PS I am forced to use your static group approach for such airfields or perhaps activate via the json using your example.

 

I think objective locations present another difficulty as it stands too. eg a port objective only has objects if it is selected as an objective. At least some or all of the AAA should be in mission even if the objective is not selected I believe. For example, I get an airfield attack on Le Havre airfield. However, as it is not the port nor the main railyard as the objective nothing will spawn there. Often either the ingress or egress from attacking the airfield has to go near the harbour and so I should come under attack from the AAA there even if nothing else spawns. So, if I want ambient flak there, I have to use the static group approach but then I have to adjust the objective group to have less defenses (you'll see that I have done this for airfields that are active or a possible objective ie moved all the AAA to the airfield helpers.)

 

Particularly because the static approach (while a good workaround) involves multiple objects it is much less user friendly than the helper/unit group template approach. The standard EMG ambient flak doesn't give the necessary tailored experience as it is often seemingly nowhere near the mission area.

 

I also use the ww2dk references....I noticed that Dieppe was not an active airfield by early 1944 - there are some others too. It had been deliberately spoiled due to fear of Allied invasion. Unfortunately, some that were active in 1944 are not depicted in the map. Especially satellite fields.

 

In case it's any use to you (JSGME format. Assumption that you have EMG installed in path \IL-2 Sturmovik Great Battles\EasyMissionGenerator). I plan to do the channel and Rhineland templates as well eventually.

EMG AAA attack range - other templates WIP.zip

 

<edit> sorry forgot to say that you should use this mod beta version with the above templates. Otherwise you'll find all the missions are suicide.

 

Edited November 10, 2023 by Stonehouse

[Stonehouse]

@kraut1 I was looking at maps.json - Saint Andre is there as an active airfield but it is in time frame B not A. I now understand why you posted the snip from ww2dk.  So it is more complicated than I thought for airfields. Dieppe St Aubin for example was abandoned in early 1944. So, unless it was used as a dummy airfield and a flak trap (don't think it was) then it shouldn't have defenses unless it is in "The Channel" era and therefore the Channel template - which is when it is an active airfield. However, it is in the Normandy template as an objective airfield which is really confusing.

 

So, an EMG bug?

 

Unless Vander is using it to try to represent Dieppe - Rouxmesnil-Bouteilles (this is not shown on the IL2 map) which was a LG apparently operational in June 1944 and seemingly the only airfield close to Dieppe still around then. WW2DK reckons it never had units based there and was just a satellite field for Dieppe St Aubin as this was the main airfield. 

 

I think it should be removed from the post Channel templates. If it was possible it should be set up as an abandoned/returned to farm land airfield. It probably should not have been represented on the game map unless the devs added it just for people to use for pre 1944 missions. 

 

Anyway - so statics is not the way for airfields unless there is evidence that the field was used as a dummy field after it was abandoned by the Luftwaffe. In which case you could have it only as an objective airfield and not an active EMG airfield in time frames post abandonment but use statics for the AAA so it is always there.

 

However, airfields like St Andre that were there from pre D-Day should always be an active EMG airfield. I'm going to review and update the template I'm working on to match ww2dk using your stuff as a guide. Hopefully I won't break something.

Edited November 10, 2023 by Stonehouse

[Stonehouse]

@kraut1 May be useful to you. Axis airbase info in Excel. Surprising how many of the in-game Luftwaffe airfields were deliberately spoiled and unusable by 1944. 

 

 Book1.zip

 

 

[kraut1]

3 hours ago, Stonehouse said:

1 hour ago, Stonehouse said:

@kraut1 May be useful to you. Axis airbase info in Excel. Surprising how many of the in-game Luftwaffe airfields were deliberately spoiled and unusable by 1944. 

 

  Book1.zip 11.2 kB · 0 downloads

 

 

I'm going to review and update the template I'm working on to match ww2dk using your stuff as a guide. Hopefully I won't break something.

Hi Stonehouse,

Thanks very much for the Luftwaffe Airfield Info.

For my current work on the Normandy fronts I try to use as many as possible of the existing settings, templates, because the intention is that Vander integrates some of the new fronts in the "official" Easy Mission Generator. And because of that I try not to change everything and I try to solve most issues with the existing EMG functions.

 

Concerning your work on a template with historical correct airfields:

Maybe you want to try to add a historical small satellite or improvised airfield /Feldflugplatz that is not existing on the IL2 GB Normandy map?

If you find a sufficient flat area on the map you could try to define a EMG Airfield by copying and existing EMG Airfield definition to the new location.

Examples: My Kokoda Airfield in a Valley in the Papua New Guinea (Kuban) mountains or in Nederland41-44: Haamstede and Katwijk.

Take off / landing is a bit more difficult, but for me very interesting and chellanging.

This could be interesting for Normandy June/July44 too because the current Luftwaffe Airfields are far away and I have read somewhere that some camoflarged "Feldflugplätze" where used.

Maybe Barville, Avranches ,Le Val-Saint-Père or Argentan. 

For the integration into the "official EMG" I suppose this is not acceptable, but for a modification it could be done.

Edited November 10, 2023 by kraut1

[Stonehouse]

@kraut1

Updated with ALG info

Book1.zip

 

Useful site although you'd need to cross check the detailed squadron info for the FGs, BGs and Wings as I saw some typos etc.

 

Advanced Landing Grounds – Battle of Normandy – D-Day Overlord (dday-overlord.com)

 

[kraut1]

@SYN_Vander

Hi Vander,

In this post are my final front line drafts and  settings with detailed description und further suggestions / proposals for you.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/86260-settings-for-new-easy-mission-generator-normandy-fronts-updated-101123/

If you have time please review it.

After your decision which fronts to be integrated to Easy Mission Generator I could (if you want) continue with target objective definitions.

Best wishes

[Stonehouse]

On 11/11/2023 at 1:53 AM, kraut1 said:

final front line drafts

FYI updated again to include UK airfield service dates, now covers all airfields on Normandy map.

Book1.zip

Edited November 13, 2023 by Stonehouse

[kraut1]

6 hours ago, Stonehouse said:

FYI updated again to include UK airfield service dates, now covers all airfields on Normandy map.

Book1.zip 12.79 kB · 1 download

Thanks very much!

I found something about (maybe already in your book with another name):

And what I found out last week, that is importent for west allied EMG missions:

Each EMG airfield has a default nationaly:

The effect is that when selecting a US airfield for a mission for all allied planes the US skins are selected by EMG, and the same for GB.

But there is no influence on the automatic plane selection for ambient or random (any). planes

Because of that I have renamed Beaulieu to USAAF-Beaulieu and Tangmere to RAF-Tangmere.

The advanced AFs in france have already A...(american) or B...(british) in name.

 

 

[Stonehouse]

4 hours ago, kraut1 said:

Beaulieu to USAAF-Beaulieu and Tangmere to RAF-Tangmere

There were quite a few shared stations where USAAF and RAF/Commonwealth units were operating out of the base in the same time period. So, sounds like EMG can't handle this currently.

 

Note there are actually 3 different Beaulieu's it seems representing different fields over time, each in a slightly different location. I've been using this site as my source for service dates. 

Beaulieu III - Airfields of Britain Conservation Trust UK (abct.org.uk)

 

3 Beaulieu's

 

Note also that some fields are known by slightly different names. eg Apuldram is apparently the modern name for Appledram and the field is mislabelled in game as Apuldram.

 

You sometimes have to search by area/map and then compare the game airfield location. Bognor is one of these, it took me a little while to find that the game Bognor is actually a pre-invasion ALG rather than a formal airfield. Bognor Regis is the formal airfield which opened in 1946.

 

The site does mention the different services that used the field ie USAAF, RAF etc but doesn't give the detail of the units themselves.

 

 

Edited November 13, 2023 by Stonehouse

[SYN_Vander]

For those that want to fly the Fe.2b in EMG, extract and overwrite this file in \data directory of the EMG install folder:

 

planes.zip

[Spidey002]

On 10/29/2023 at 11:54 AM, SYN_Vander said:

-Fixed bug where targets could sometimes overlap

Interception targets are still overlapping. Killing a plane in one flight completes multiple interception missions. 

[SYN_Vander]

24 minutes ago, Spidey002 said:

Interception targets are still overlapping. Killing a plane in one flight completes multiple interception missions. 

Indeed. It's a different issue though, because of how the counting logic works for aerial targets. The issue I solved was where sometimes ground targets would overlap.

Edited November 27, 2023 by SYN_Vander

[Stonehouse]

@SYN_Vander

 

I've no idea how hard it is for you to implement it but is there any chance of allowing AAA helpers or helpers generally be properly processed if under the static blocks section of the map template please? 

 

I've been slowly continuing on with creating the modded version of the Normandy map and while I am pretty sure I can sort out more historically correct AAA for airfields and objectives, doing AAA for towns/cities/ports is going to be very laborious (which I know is not your problem) as I will have to place actual unit compositions all over the map

eg copy and paste the units/triggers etc that make up helper say AAA_1 or AAA_2 etc for the appropriate nationality.

 

If I could put AAA helpers under the static group and have them correctly interpreted by EMG it would make it much simpler as well as make it work regardless of the front lines and ownership - which I figure would help both you and Kraut1 as it would tend to make it easier to depict different time periods with less rework as well as get more realistic AAA than the current random AAA_50m markers. 

 

[SYN_Vander]

1 hour ago, Stonehouse said:

@SYN_Vander

 

I've no idea how hard it is for you to implement it but is there any chance of allowing AAA helpers or helpers generally be properly processed if under the static blocks section of the map template please? 

 

I've been slowly continuing on with creating the modded version of the Normandy map and while I am pretty sure I can sort out more historically correct AAA for airfields and objectives, doing AAA for towns/cities/ports is going to be very laborious (which I know is not your problem) as I will have to place actual unit compositions all over the map

eg copy and paste the units/triggers etc that make up helper say AAA_1 or AAA_2 etc for the appropriate nationality.

 

If I could put AAA helpers under the static group and have them correctly interpreted by EMG it would make it much simpler as well as make it work regardless of the front lines and ownership - which I figure would help both you and Kraut1 as it would tend to make it easier to depict different time periods with less rework as well as get more realistic AAA than the current random AAA_50m markers. 

 

 

I'm not sure if I understand what you are asking? Do you want to replace the AAA_50m markers with AAA_1 etc? Or something different? Or do you want to make them period specific, or country specific?

 

 

[Stonehouse]

15 hours ago, SYN_Vander said:

 

I'm not sure if I understand what you are asking? Do you want to replace the AAA_50m markers with AAA_1 etc? Or something different? Or do you want to make them period specific, or country specific?

 

 

 

Being able to have the random AAA be AAA_1 or AAA_2 etc would certainly be useful but I'd like to be able to place AAA_1 etc helpers under the static group and have EMG interpret them and end up with AAA positions in the generated mission where the helper was placed. Perhaps this would work already? I know that putting mg_50m markers outside their proper group is ignored so I perhaps mistakenly assumed the AAA_n helpers would be ignored as well unless they were under their appropriate group. 

 

This would allow flak defenses to be placed at towns and cities and ports that were not objectives but where you would logically expect them. Resulting in a more realistic environment to fly in. Currently if you fly over a non-objective enemy held town/port etc you don't receive any flak unless by pure luck there was an AAA_50m marker that was chosen at random to be populated near the area. 

 

An example:

Le Havre port could be an objective and Le Havre airfield could also be an objective. However, while it is easy to set up flak that is always going to appear if Le Havre airfield is not an objective (I can put helpers under the airfield group) it is not possible to have guaranteed flak via the helper system at Le Havre port unless it is an objective. I can place AAA_50m helpers at the port but it is entirely random as to whether anything spawns there. Kraut1 suggested hand placing actual units/triggers etc under the static group to ensure something spawns at the port - this works. But this method becomes very labor intensive and mistake prone when you consider this approach over the whole battle area (as defined by the red and blue lines). 

 

I'm guessing it might also help you and Kraut1 if you could place helpers under static because then as front lines moved according to time periods and towns etc changed owners the helpers would automatically reflect the new ownership without you needing to rework anything.

 

<edit> I just tried an experiment and placed a AAA_1 helper under the static group in the Normandy template and EMG did not translate it to Flak_axis_1 as I hoped. 

Edited December 3, 2023 by Stonehouse

[SYN_Vander]

6 hours ago, Stonehouse said:

 

Being able to have the random AAA be AAA_1 or AAA_2 etc would certainly be useful but I'd like to be able to place AAA_1 etc helpers under the static group and have EMG interpret them and end up with AAA positions in the generated mission where the helper was placed. Perhaps this would work already? I know that putting mg_50m markers outside their proper group is ignored so I perhaps mistakenly assumed the AAA_n helpers would be ignored as well unless they were under their appropriate group. 

 

This would allow flak defenses to be placed at towns and cities and ports that were not objectives but where you would logically expect them. Resulting in a more realistic environment to fly in. Currently if you fly over a non-objective enemy held town/port etc you don't receive any flak unless by pure luck there was an AAA_50m marker that was chosen at random to be populated near the area. 

 

An example:

Le Havre port could be an objective and Le Havre airfield could also be an objective. However, while it is easy to set up flak that is always going to appear if Le Havre airfield is not an objective (I can put helpers under the airfield group) it is not possible to have guaranteed flak via the helper system at Le Havre port unless it is an objective. I can place AAA_50m helpers at the port but it is entirely random as to whether anything spawns there. Kraut1 suggested hand placing actual units/triggers etc under the static group to ensure something spawns at the port - this works. But this method becomes very labor intensive and mistake prone when you consider this approach over the whole battle area (as defined by the red and blue lines). 

 

I'm guessing it might also help you and Kraut1 if you could place helpers under static because then as front lines moved according to time periods and towns etc changed owners the helpers would automatically reflect the new ownership without you needing to rework anything.

 

<edit> I just tried an experiment and placed a AAA_1 helper under the static group in the Normandy template and EMG did not translate it to Flak_axis_1 as I hoped. 

Ah I get it. You would like to replace/add to the randomly generated AAA by properly placed AAA, of the right type as well.

 

There is of course the possible impact on performance, but let’s ignore that for now. 
 

How about:

 

In the AAA template group you can now also add AAA_1, AAA_2 etc. These will always be activated and use the correct type. If any AAA_50m markers exist it will still activate a random number of them.

This will be backward compatible with existing templates.

 

[Stonehouse]

3 hours ago, SYN_Vander said:

Ah I get it. You would like to replace/add to the randomly generated AAA by properly placed AAA, of the right type as well.

 

There is of course the possible impact on performance, but let’s ignore that for now. 
 

How about:

 

In the AAA template group you can now also add AAA_1, AAA_2 etc. These will always be activated and use the correct type. If any AAA_50m markers exist it will still activate a random number of them.

This will be backward compatible with existing templates.

 

 

I think as long as it uses your spawn or activate (I find the terminology confusing in the IL2 space, it's much more clearly defined in DCS) /delete method there is minimal performance impact. From reading a lot of threads here regarding this it seems if the unit/group is placed but with AI deactivated and then it is activated/deactivated by trigger there is a definite impact as it takes some finite amount of resources per unit/group. Your method apparently does not.

 

Yes - if EMG treated any AAA_1, AAA_2 etc helpers found under the helpers_aaa group as something to be always activated and use the appropriate collection of objects from the generic template and continue to treat AAA_50m as now that would be great.

 

Thank you for considering the idea. I hope it is a simple change to implement it.

[SYN_Vander]

On 12/3/2023 at 12:26 PM, Stonehouse said:

 

I think as long as it uses your spawn or activate (I find the terminology confusing in the IL2 space, it's much more clearly defined in DCS) /delete method there is minimal performance impact. From reading a lot of threads here regarding this it seems if the unit/group is placed but with AI deactivated and then it is activated/deactivated by trigger there is a definite impact as it takes some finite amount of resources per unit/group. Your method apparently does not.

 

Yes - if EMG treated any AAA_1, AAA_2 etc helpers found under the helpers_aaa group as something to be always activated and use the appropriate collection of objects from the generic template and continue to treat AAA_50m as now that would be great.

 

Thank you for considering the idea. I hope it is a simple change to implement it.

 

I have made the change, so it will be in next version. It works quite well. You can have a mix of fixed and random AAA or only one or the other.

Also, if you use fixed AAA you can avoid excessive AAA at a certain location. For instance, if you have a target inside a city and you already placed fixed AAA around it, then you can leave out the AAA markers in the objective group altogether.