Jump to content
Alonzo

Combat Box by Red Flight

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Alonzo said:

 

Why do you think the sectors are wrong? I think they are correct but since they are simulated radar triggered by players flying around, it's hard for even the map maker (me) to know if they are being triggered correctly. Are the sectors off the map or something?

Because some of my team mates has the game in english and we played in the same time, they tell me complete different sectors what i saw, so the messages are not correct, trust me.

And not only "enemy aircraft detected by radar in" messages, but also "enemy plane spotted or near" messages are wrong.

Edited by =[V]P=vad-asz
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

I'm in the UK and I ping 80 to CB - a friend in Serbia pings 96. We found the server browser doesn't accurately portray ping compared to the tools running on the server box itself - you probably ping better than you think 😁

Thats interesting, mine reports circa130 to CB and cannot imagine even my Scotland location would give that bigger difference. Of course, perhaps the divide routes it from London to Dunfermline via Timbuktoo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 56RAF_Stickz said:

Thats interesting, mine reports circa130 to CB and cannot imagine even my Scotland location would give that bigger difference. Of course, perhaps the divide routes it from London to Dunfermline via Timbuktoo.

 

Yeah my ping according to the game is 120 but the server tool reads 80-85

Edited by Talon_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2019 at 11:57 AM, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 

I am hoping that when the FC aircraft are finished we can get the promised Li-2/C47 done and both sides can have some transport/evac type missions.

I find any defence less big plane in Combat box is dead right after leaving the airbase. 

Late war scenario with alternative spotting on simply is hopeless for a general purpose aircraft. So I personally would not use it with current missions on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LuseKofte said:

I find any defence less big plane in Combat box is dead right after leaving the airbase. 

Late war scenario with alternative spotting on simply is hopeless for a general purpose aircraft. So I personally would not use it with current missions on. 

 

Combat Box has been running Expert spotting for 24h as announced on our Discord channel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Talon_ said:

 

Combat Box has been running Expert spotting for 24h as announced on our Discord channel.

Ok then Good then I just rqan into 3 vulchers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, =[V]P=vad-asz said:

Because some of my team mates has the game in english and we played in the same time, they tell me complete different sectors what i saw, so the messages are not correct, trust me.

And not only "enemy aircraft detected by radar in" messages, but also "enemy plane spotted or near" messages are wrong too.

 

Alonzo, I believe the problem is due to a discrepancy in the localization indexes (bottom of pg. 50 in the manual) between the .eng file and the .ger file (and perhaps the other language files). The fix at the bottom of pg. 50 did not work so I'm looking at how to fix that. I may be interrupted by some "real work" that will take up the remainder of today though, so it may take some time.

17 minutes ago, JimTM said:

 

Alonzo, I believe the problem is due to a discrepancy in the localization indexes (bottom of pg. 50 in the manual) between the .eng file and the .ger file (and perhaps the other language files). The fix at the bottom of pg. 50 did not work so I'm looking at how to fix that. I may be interrupted by some "real work" that will take up the remainder of today though, so it may take some time.

 

Solution (for missions in one language only, NOT for translated missions) :

 

1. Delete all the language files except .eng (i.e., delete .fra, .ger, .pol, .rus, and .spa)

 

2. Save the mission

 

    The language files are regenerated with the localization indexes in sync.

 

I'm still not sure why the pg. 50 solution ("Clear and Reenumerate Localization Indexes") does not work.

Edited by JimTM
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, JimTM said:

 

Alonzo, I believe the problem is due to a discrepancy in the localization indexes (bottom of pg. 50 in the manual) between the .eng file and the .ger file (and perhaps the other language files). The fix at the bottom of pg. 50 did not work so I'm looking at how to fix that. I may be interrupted by some "real work" that will take up the remainder of today though, so it may take some time.

 

Solution (since your mission is for one language only) :

 

1. Delete all the language files except .eng (i.e., delete .fra, .ger, .pol, .rus, and .spa)

 

2. Save the mission

 

    The language files are regenerated with the localization indexes in sync.

 

I'm still not sure why the pg. 50 solution ("Clear and Reenumerate Localization Indexes") does not work.

Thanks !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =[V]P=vad-asz said:

Because some of my team mates has the game in english and we played in the same time, they tell me complete different sectors what i saw, so the messages are not correct, trust me.

And not only "enemy aircraft detected by radar in" messages, but also "enemy plane spotted or near" messages are wrong.

 

Hmm, that's very weird. You see messages in English, though, right? Just with the wrong sectors? That sounds like the translation files somehow do not get updated if I move or change a target (sometimes we move an objective or a radar zone, so I change the description text).

44 minutes ago, JimTM said:

 

Alonzo, I believe the problem is due to a discrepancy in the localization indexes (bottom of pg. 50 in the manual) between the .eng file and the .ger file (and perhaps the other language files). The fix at the bottom of pg. 50 did not work so I'm looking at how to fix that. I may be interrupted by some "real work" that will take up the remainder of today though, so it may take some time.

 

Solution (for missions in one language only, NOT for translated missions) :

 

1. Delete all the language files except .eng (i.e., delete .fra, .ger, .pol, .rus, and .spa)

 

2. Save the mission

 

    The language files are regenerated with the localization indexes in sync.

 

I'm still not sure why the pg. 50 solution ("Clear and Reenumerate Localization Indexes") does not work.

 

Aha! I will put this on my TODO list for the weekend. I'm away from home to limited access to the editor.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

 

Hmm, that's very weird. You see messages in English, though, right? Just with the wrong sectors? That sounds like the translation files somehow do not get updated if I move or change a target (sometimes we move an objective or a radar zone, so I change the description text).

 

Aha! I will put this on my TODO list for the weekend. I'm away from home to limited access to the editor.

Yes, messages are in english, but with wrong sectors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

 

Hmm, that's very weird. You see messages in English, though, right? Just with the wrong sectors? That sounds like the translation files somehow do not get updated if I move or change a target (sometimes we move an objective or a radar zone, so I change the description text).

 

Aha! I will put this on my TODO list for the weekend. I'm away from home to limited access to the editor.


I don't mean to fanboy or anything here but can we just appreciate for a second that Alonzo manages this server so responsively? Dude regularly does fixes while he's on holidays, late at night, etc. While dealing with all his RL obligations. And he does it for free. A gentleman and a scholar.
 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:


I don't mean to fanboy or anything here but can we just appreciate for a second that Alonzo manages this server so responsively? Dude regularly does fixes while he's on holidays, late at night, etc. While dealing with all his RL obligations. And he does it for free. A gentleman and a scholar.
 

 

Yes, a big salute to Alonzo and to all the other server admins that work to make MP possible, for free!  :salute:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there any plans to put a few targets at much further distances? (For both sides) 

 

Seriously, you only have 10 patrons? When I get home from work I'll add another. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about attacking the brigde at remargen, ME 262 and FW 190 attacked with bombs, The first jet airstrike in history has begun. German Arado Ar 234 medium bombers and Messerschmitt Me 262 fighter/attack jet aircraft are launching a last-ditch airstrike on this key target in a desperate attempt to halt the allied advance.

Edited by steven197106

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest deleted@117422

More missions set in the new Rhineland map would be 👌

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

today i played and destroyed  transport , hangar , parked plane , got killed , all declared but no score , whats the reason ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dog1 said:

today i played and destroyed  transport , hangar , parked plane , got killed , all declared but no score , whats the reason ?

 

Combat Box scores are weighted so as to discourage death 😅 if you don't die you'll keep your points! Bailing and ditching reduces your multiplier, landing on an airfield is the best for points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talon

thats strange , yesterday i died but got my 3 parked planes points in that mission . thats what sparked my question today .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I flew 4 times bomber yesterday and only one got passed 1 k limit of my airbase. 3 got shot down within 1 k flying. While I was flying the successful one I witnessed a 1 hour chat about airbase attack. 

I blame the lack of safety on fighters on my side, but some of the remarks really stunned me. 

One said it should be legal to strafe bombers in base. 

In real war it is. But ask yourself. Do you want bombers to fly in server? 

Or do you want a plain dogfight server? 

I like to take a obsolete plane into enemy air, I like the risk and don't mind getting attacked while trying. But it is damned frustrated getting shot down right outside parameters of aaa in your airbase. I fly both sides for balance, so if you fighter protect your airbase. Guaranteed action and discussion of vulching will be utter pointless. It is those suppose to protect airbases to blame for vultching not those who do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for letting us try the expert visual setting on the server, my personal opinion is that I do prefer expert setting compared to the alternative visual setting. I do fly in VR not monitor.

 

Alonzo I do have a question, have you got a lot of objects (like static aircraft, etc) added to the airfields as I always seem to get a bigger frame rate hit at the airfields during take off and flying over them?

 

keep up the good work btw <S>.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How was said before,  its to much work,  and the few Who made this server. The people I work on the server own free time,  have families and their own jobs, as has been said here. Please be patient.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The expert visibility setting is much better for me than alternate one. Felt great flying yesterday. I'm going to jump to your server during the weekend to enjoy it.

Thank you for your hard work on providing us with a great il2 server.

S!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

I flew 4 times bomber yesterday and only one got passed 1 k limit of my airbase. 3 got shot down within 1 k flying. While I was flying the successful one I witnessed a 1 hour chat about airbase attack. 

I blame the lack of safety on fighters on my side, but some of the remarks really stunned me. 

One said it should be legal to strafe bombers in base. 

In real war it is. But ask yourself. Do you want bombers to fly in server? 

Or do you want a plain dogfight server? 

I like to take a obsolete plane into enemy air, I like the risk and don't mind getting attacked while trying. But it is damned frustrated getting shot down right outside parameters of aaa in your airbase. I fly both sides for balance, so if you fighter protect your airbase. Guaranteed action and discussion of vulching will be utter pointless. It is those suppose to protect airbases to blame for vultching not those who do

 

I believe that depends on you as well. If you just take off without communicating to other people on your side where you are going and request cover, I'm afraid not many fighters stay around the air base to cover people taking off. Try to let people know in the chat your intentions first before taking off and I'm sure some fighters will be more than happy to cover and escort you for the mission.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SCG_Riksen said:

 

I believe that depends on you as well. If you just take off without communicating to other people on your side where you are going and request cover, I'm afraid not many fighters stay around the air base to cover people taking off. Try to let people know in the chat your intentions first before taking off and I'm sure some fighters will be more than happy to cover and escort you for the mission.

 

Sometimes I do but only when climbed to altitude on so called safe distance. 

I do not expect fighters to follow that long. Nor do I think they got the fuel for it. 

But you are correct. I should ask fir assitance far more. But my point is, not taking organized squads into it. Lone fighter pilots can add  a lot more to their kill list by protecting bases and targets. If my fat ass is about to take off it will make any enemy very keen and target fixated , thus being a pretty easy target if smart. 

Flying around looking for trouble alone in a fighter, is a waste of time much of the time and end up iften on my radio as I am wounded. 

I try to say doing mission objective can be lucrative for fighters too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LuseKofte said:

 

Sometimes I do but only when climbed to altitude on so called safe distance. 

I do not expect fighters to follow that long. Nor do I think they got the fuel for it. 

But you are correct. I should ask fir assitance far more. But my point is, not taking organized squads into it. Lone fighter pilots can add  a lot more to their kill list by protecting bases and targets. If my fat ass is about to take off it will make any enemy very keen and target fixated , thus being a pretty easy target if smart. 

Flying around looking for trouble alone in a fighter, is a waste of time much of the time and end up iften on my radio as I am wounded. 

I try to say doing mission objective can be lucrative for fighters too

Honestly on Combat Box I have rarely encountered vulching or airfield attacks in the past, so when I fly fighter sorties I don't often think of covering my airfields. In the future if I am flying fighters solo I will make an effort to stick around my airfield for five or ten minutes to provide cover for those behind me before beginning my patrol. Most of the time I fly fighter-bomber sorties though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the airfields are too close to each other. 

I have to fly the opposite direction of target to gain enough altitude to turn for it. 

It also bring along the “vulching”

But I really do not mind their opportunistic mentality. Fighter pilots should act on it.

I simply ask for the same opportunistic thinking when it come to defence.

My few kills in a fighter have been while a enemy was fixated on fat targets    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On airfield attacks, historical accuracy, and gameplay:

 

Historically, airfields were dangerous targets, with up to 300 AA guns at each. When a squadron was given an order to attack an airfield, it was a very grave mission indeed -- on average 30-40% of pilots would be killed, and that's when an entire squadron attacks. Unfortunately due to technical limitations we cannot make airfield AA as lethal as it would be in real life.

 

While we strive for the game to be historically inspired, true history was pretty stark. In 1945 the Luftwaffe was heavily outnumbered, with little fuel, and virtually no experienced pilots. As anyone who has flown with a numbers balance will attest, odds like this are not very much fun. But this is a game, and it's intended to be fun and hopefully somewhat balanced.

 

We updated the ruleset this week. Attacking enemy planes on the ground is now against server rules. It's no fun to be shot during startup or taxi. But at the same time, airfields are not "safe" -- this is a wartime simulation. If you are in the air, you are a valid target. If you are climbing out from takeoff, be on the lookout for enemy aircraft. The map shows enemies within 10km of an airfield, there are warning messages, flak and air raid sirens. You can always despawn and choose another airfield. If you are on landing approach, consider an "overhead break" to get you to the field and down faster. If you are flying a bird that is vulnerable down low, such as a 262 during takeoff or landing, you might need to call for an escort.

 

We would also urge players to reconsider airfield vulching in general. If the other side is outnumbered and spawn camped, they'll stop playing, and you won't have anyone to shoot at anyway. In the long run, that's no fun for anyone.

Edited by Alonzo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me new rule (no strafing) is without sense, because it will be many claims of players already taking off that they wouldn't be high enough to be attacked. Strafing is so deadly option which shouldn't be forbidden as the percentage of being survived or undamaged is about 15-20%. With three airfields to use we can avoid strafing easily. Just my two cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, [CPT]CptJackSparrow said:

Has anyone kicked around the idea of adding some turbulent air? The constant glass smooth conditions are kinda stale, in my opinion of course.

 

We do have turbulence, depends on the map. Less cloud = less turbulence, in general. Which map did you feel was too smooth? (I'm a bit surprised because people usually complain about how bumpy Combat Box maps are! 🙂 )

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

 

We do have turbulence, depends on the map. Less cloud = less turbulence, in general. Which map did you feel was too smooth? (I'm a bit surprised because people usually complain about how bumpy Combat Box maps are! 🙂 )

The first time I flew on combat box I thought my control inputs were borked because my plane was bouncing and the slip indicator was moving randomly. I had just never run into turbulence on any other server! I like the variety. IIRC Battle over Einhoven has less turbulence when I flew it but all the other ones seem to have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC it was the snowy map with the new aircraft. (I'm sure that is as vague and simplistic as I can make it hah) the air was smooth as glass. From deck to 31k feet. I think it was a stalingrad map that was used? I'll get specifics this weekend. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, [CPT]CptJackSparrow said:

IIRC it was the snowy map with the new aircraft. (I'm sure that is as vague and simplistic as I can make it hah) the air was smooth as glass. From deck to 31k feet. I think it was a stalingrad map that was used? I'll get specifics this weekend. 

Is that the one with the 262 fuel trains? Because I think that is one of the smoother maps. Operation Paravane has a lot of turbulence I find (and is coincidentally one of my fave maps).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alonzo said:

We updated the ruleset this week. Strafing enemy planes on the ground is now against server rules. It's no fun to be shot during startup or taxi. But at the same time, airfields are not "safe" -- this is a wartime simulation. If you are in the air, you are a valid target.

hi Alonzo - and thank you for the work and time you put in

Disregarding the reality, this is not very precise rule. So from wheels down on runway, taxiing to/from slot you are not a valid target? And you only mention strafing - what about bombing (ie I spawned in Wednesday and 30secs later a stick of bombs dropped 200yards away), I would bet I could drop from 200feet on a spawn site far better than I could shoot at it, and I bet there is many could do it from 6km also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Blackmessiah1975 said:

For me new rule (no strafing) is without sense, because it will be many claims of players already taking off that they wouldn't be high enough to be attacked. Strafing is so deadly option which shouldn't be forbidden as the percentage of being survived or undamaged is about 15-20%. With three airfields to use we can avoid strafing easily. Just my two cents.

 

People who know what they're doing will never get hit by ground AA, especially in the superfast new planes. As it is, there are 8-10 High skill fast-firing AA guns at every player field, and you can see the server begin to lag when they all open up on someone. I agree that players can use a different field, and probably should if their field is under attack.

 

That said, this is the rule. If someone is on the ground, they are not a valid target. If they're coming into landing or chose to continue a takeoff and are in the air, shoot them as you like. This is to stop the extremely frustrating situation where someone is spooling up their engine and gets shot.

 

Play by the rules, or play elsewhere. That goes for all the other stuff too: cheating, using racist, homophobic or religion-based slurs in chat, and generally being a douchebag. Be nice, enjoy the server. 

 

3 minutes ago, 56RAF_Stickz said:

hi Alonzo - and thank you for the work and time you put in

Disregarding the reality, this is not very precise rule. So from wheels down on runway, taxiing to/from slot you are not a valid target? And you only mention strafing - what about bombing (ie I spawned in Wednesday and 30secs later a stick of bombs dropped 200yards away), I would bet I could drop from 200feet on a spawn site far better than I could shoot at it, and I bet there is many could do it from 6km also.

 

If a player is on the ground, they are not a valid target. I've changed the wording to 'attacking' because you are right, 'strafing' leaves things open to bombing etc.

 

The excuse "I was bombing parked planes, not player planes" doesn't work -- if you attack (deliberately or otherwise) a player who is on the ground, that's against the rules. Offenders will be warned, then temp banned, then banned for longer.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

Is that the one with the 262 fuel trains? Because I think that is one of the smoother maps. Operation Paravane has a lot of turbulence I find (and is coincidentally one of my fave maps).

 

Indeed that is the one sir. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...