PWCG 6 Alpha 2 Available for Download

[Lezren]

I don't know why it happens, but every once in a while I get a mission that just doesn't work.  Upon loading the mission, it just places me in the middle of no where (no plane or AF) and no controls work (corrupted mission?).  I can't change the camera, can't do anything but exit/restart the mission, which restarting doesn't change anything.

 

Generally just creating another mission seems to solve this issue.  So I'm wondering if the mission is just corrupted.

 

6.0 alpha 2

 

 

Missions.zip Campaigns.zip

[Yogiflight]

1 hour ago, Lezren said:

I don't know why it happens, but every once in a while I get a mission that just doesn't work.  Upon loading the mission, it just places me in the middle of no where (no plane or AF) and no controls work (corrupted mission?).  I can't change the camera, can't do anything but exit/restart the mission, which restarting doesn't change anything.

 

I had the same thing happening, when i started a FW 190 campaign in march (I think) 1942 on the Kuban map.

Additionally, on the Kuban airfield Timashevskaya (or something like that) the Fw 190s speed up for taxing, that they constantly are sliding over the grass. One was standing crosswise and was rammed by the next one. I never saw the 190s taxi in that way, usually they taxi quite slow, like all other aircrafts, too.

Edited May 26, 2019 by Yogiflight

[ACS777]

Hello Pat

Downloaded it and tried it out today, missions went smoothly (used a BF110 for some ground attack missions in Kerch). Only one minor detail some of the ground AI ended up being placed in the water more likely due to my settings (I tend to crank up the density to "high") the happens when the front line crosses lakes and that was where they spawned. I also cranked up the aircraft numbers (minimum and additional, 7 and 8 respectively) to get some higher numbers of AI aircraft and there were no issues with the frame rates.  

Cheers 

[PatrickAWlson]

@Lezren That happens when the mission is generated but no human pilot is added.  Somehow it appears that PWCG is generating a mission but not including the human pilot, which puts you into spectator mode. Thanks for the report.

 

@ACS777 Unfortunately, been that way since 2009.  I do not have all of the water mapped out so I mostly don't know where water might be.  I try to do some things to mitigate it but every once in awhile units are going to be placed in water.  

[Murleen]

22 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

I had the same thing happening, when i started a FW 190 campaign in march (I think) 1942 on the Kuban map.

Additionally, on the Kuban airfield Timashevskaya (or something like that) the Fw 190s speed up for taxing, that they constantly are sliding over the grass. One was standing crosswise and was rammed by the next one. I never saw the 190s taxi in that way, usually they taxi quite slow, like all other aircrafts, too.

 

If you're able to reproduce this, a mission file and/or track would be useful.

 

I've seen some issues when I'm the flight leader for Spitfires, where my wingman will taxi into the back of me, and some issues with Yak-1b's taxing faster than Yak-1's, and similarly crashing. The AI seems to go quite quickly on long straight stretches of taxiway, and some planes are faster than others. I'll see if I can do anything to work around this, but I think it's really a game bug.

[Yogiflight]

On 5/27/2019 at 8:32 PM, Murleen said:

If you're able to reproduce this, a mission file and/or track would be useful.

I hope it works and helps. But it is not the mission, where they crashed into another, that one is overwritten.

Today I tried it again, but only one out of five was speeding up that much, that he was sliding over the grass.

On 5/27/2019 at 8:32 PM, Murleen said:

The AI seems to go quite quickly on long straight stretches of taxiway

Yes, that is my observation, too. It also happens on long straight parts of real taxiways, not only on the grass airfields. i suppose, to prevent this, you would have to put the taxi waypoints close together, so they taxi slowly from waypoint to waypoint.

Missions.zip

[busdriver]

First off...thanks for everything you do for your fellow SP 1GCCFPs...we appreciate your work!

 

First mission with Alpha, I./ZG 26 in Oct 1941. The only Config change I had made was to check Medium air activity, everything else was default settings. Observation: Russian armor was in the woods (not on a road). If I hadn't used icons I would not have known what the rest of my formation was bombing. There was no anti-aircraft fire. There were no soviet fighters patrolling near our target. I still managed to destroy my Bf-110 by hitting the tree tops, but we crawled out and made our way back to our forces. 

 

My 110 was the only loss, but like Columbar reported, I was apparently credited to a staffel mate.

 

[PatrickAWlson]

@busdriver Thanks for the report.  I can see how that happens with the recent changes.  Should not be too hard to fix.

[busdriver]

Second mission in I./ZG26 career. Lots of enemy air activity showed up just before we made the turn to 044. I made several mistakes including burning up my left engine then screwing up the switchology (failing to get the prop feathered) and inadvertently shutting off #2 very briefly at 200 meters height...woohoo! 

 

Something I forgot to report previously, is the actual cruise speed versus the planned mission cruise airspeed for the Bf-110. The planned airspeed is 380 kph, which seems reasonable if it doesn't require Combat Power to maintain it.

 

 

I found the actual enroute airspeed to be approximately 320 kph. IMO that is too slow. Even with full fuel and two bombs I had the power way back around 30% (I test with technochat called up) and the approximate ATA .7. With half fuel and two bombs the power required is obviously even less. This is a very uncomfortable feeling to me. I expect the nominal cruise with a combat load would require less power than the Combat Power setting. This is so a wingman doesn't have to hold Combat Power to stay in formation.

 

 

 

[Semor76]

8 hours ago, busdriver said:

I found the actual enroute airspeed to be approximately 320 kph. IMO that is too slow. Even with full fuel and two bombs I had the power way back around 30% (I test with technochat called up) and the approximate ATA .7. With half fuel and two bombs the power required is obviously even less. This is a very uncomfortable feeling to me. I expect the nominal cruise with a combat load would require less power than the Combat Power setting. This is so a wingman doesn't have to hold Combat Power to stay in formation.

 

 

 

 

Easy to change, if you didn´t know it already.

Go to: PWCG/BoSData/Input/Aircraft/bf110e2.JASON and change the cruise speed as you like. I set mine to 380kph too.

[Yogiflight]

2 hours ago, Semor76 said:

10 hours ago, busdriver said:

I found the actual enroute airspeed to be approximately 320 kph. IMO that is too slow. Even with full fuel and two bombs I had the power way back around 30% (I test with technochat called up) and the approximate ATA .7. With half fuel and two bombs the power required is obviously even less. This is a very uncomfortable feeling to me. I expect the nominal cruise with a combat load would require less power than the Combat Power setting. This is so a wingman doesn't have to hold Combat Power to stay in formation.

 

 

 

 

Easy to change, if you didn´t know it already.

Go to: PWCG/BoSData/Input/Aircraft/bf110e2.JASON and change the cruise speed as you like. I set mine to 380kph too.

380km/h is IMO for high altitude and bombing missions with the SC500 and even more the 12x SC50, too high. I use 380km/h for the Bf110 G2, but only 350km/h for the E2. And I change the travelling speeds for almost all aircrafts, so there is no mismatch.

@PatrickAWlson, would it be possible to have two travelling speeds for fighters, including the 110? A lower travelling speed for high altitude fighter missions, lets say above 4k, plus ground attack missions, and a higher travelling speed for fighter missions below 4k?

[TP_Tufty]

I have been running version 5.1.3 with no issues, its great.

 

Just tried version 6 alpha, and I cannot get it to run.

I do not get any screen showing at all. Java is up to date, version 211?

Win 10.

Cursor whirls a few secs then nothing.

 

 

Like I said, version 5.1.3 works just fine.

 

Any ideas?

Thx

Edited May 30, 2019 by Tufters
Spelling

[busdriver]

13 hours ago, Tufters said:

I have been running version 5.1.3 with no issues, its great.

 

Just tried version 6 alpha, and I cannot get it to run.

I do not get any screen showing at all. Java is up to date, version 211?

Win 10.

Cursor whirls a few secs then nothing.

 

 

Like I said, version 5.1.3 works just fine.

 

Any ideas?

Thx

 

Just throwing this out there...I'm terrible at troubleshooting...does your PWCG6Alpha folder look like this? I'm thinking file size of the app.

 

 

On 5/29/2019 at 2:09 AM, Semor76 said:

Easy to change, if you didn´t know it already.

Go to: PWCG/BoSData/Input/Aircraft/bf110e2.JASON and change the cruise speed as you like. I set mine to 380kph too.

 

Vielen Dank mien Freund.

 

I just wanted to make sure Pat was aware of the discrepancy. And I honestly had not checked in QM to see what would be a good cruise speed. IIRC from earlier testing it was 380 up to 400 kph if clean (no bombs). But perhaps as @Yogiflight posted, the G2 can cruise that fast whilst the E2 is a bit slower.

Edited May 31, 2019 by busdriver

[TP_Tufty]

Quote

 

Just throwing this out there...I'm terrible at troubleshooting...does your PWCG6Alpha folder look like this? I'm thinking file size of the app

Yea mine looks exactly the same.

Thx for trying busdriver.

[PatrickAWlson]

I just fixed something where PWCG was not creating all of the necessary folders.  It will be available in the next Alpha - this weekend.

[Taxman]

4 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

I just fixed something where PWCG was not creating all of the necessary folders.  It will be available in the next Alpha - this weekend.

Thanks Pat.  I have not d/led yet.  I do have a question this has to do with AA and AAA on ones own airfield, has the AA and AAA been increased?  I stopped flying PWCG because in the career version the AA and AAA protection is much better then I have in 5.1.3 or am I missing something? I have tried various settings for ground units in PWCG but nothing seems work in increasing AA and AAA.

 

Thanks 

[PatrickAWlson]

22 minutes ago, Taxman said:

Thanks Pat.  I have not d/led yet.  I do have a question this has to do with AA and AAA on ones own airfield, has the AA and AAA been increased?  I stopped flying PWCG because in the career version the AA and AAA protection is much better then I have in 5.1.3 or am I missing something? I have tried various settings for ground units in PWCG but nothing seems work in increasing AA and AAA.

 

Thanks 

 

it's on the backlog but I am not focused on SP improvements right now.  Once 6.0 is released I intend to do follow ons that incorporate some of the suggestions that have been posted in the past months.  Right now 6.0 is alpha quality code and not ready for improvements.

[TP_Tufty]

Thanks Pat, I’ll try the new version when its out.

 

Edited June 1, 2019 by Tufters
Missed wording

[Taxman]

4 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

it's on the backlog but I am not focused on SP improvements right now.  Once 6.0 is released I intend to do follow ons that incorporate some of the suggestions that have been posted in the past months.  Right now 6.0 is alpha quality code and not ready for improvements.

Ok thanks Pat.  BTW thank you for the great work you do do for BOX with PWCG.

[PatrickAWlson]

On 5/30/2019 at 9:48 AM, Tufters said:

I have been running version 5.1.3 with no issues, its great.

 

Just tried version 6 alpha, and I cannot get it to run.

I do not get any screen showing at all. Java is up to date, version 211?

Win 10.

Cursor whirls a few secs then nothing.

 

 

Like I said, version 5.1.3 works just fine.

 

Any ideas?

Thx

 

Can you post the error log?  It's rolling over and dying before it even gets to the main screen.  Usually that is something misconfigured that fails startup.

[TP_Tufty]

Hi Pat,

Doesn't get to writing a log even.

No error messages from java,

but javaw.exe is started.

then nothing.

Java version is win10 pc version 8, build 211?

Thx

 

[PatrickAWlson]

@Tufters Can you try something else?  Open a cmd window.  Navigate to the PWCGCampaign directory.  Start the exe from the cmd (just type PWCG).  

 

I am hoping that the cmd window will trap and display the problem.

[TP_Tufty]

 

doesn't seem to help identify the problem

strange, cos I never had a problem running the 5.xx.xx versions, or indeed any previous ones. 

Edited June 1, 2019 by Tufters
added more words

[TP_Tufty]

Well bizarrely, i just got it working.

All I did was rename 

PWCG.exe to PWCGBos.exe

(Inline with the previous versions)

and it worked. Maybe I had some leftover crud from previous versions , but it works a treat now.

The cold start is great!

All’s  well that end well.

 

Edited June 3, 2019 by Tufters

[dburne]

Pat,

I know you have your hands full with all you are working on at this time with Co-Op and all, I just wanted to mention the

issue with the program assigning so many ace enemy fighter pilots in my Spit Kuban Campaign still exists in this version.

Namely 109's and 190's.

[PatrickAWlson]

21 hours ago, dburne said:

Pat,

I know you have your hands full with all you are working on at this time with Co-Op and all, I just wanted to mention the

issue with the program assigning so many ace enemy fighter pilots in my Spit Kuban Campaign still exists in this version.

Namely 109's and 190's.

 

Acknowledged.  I think that I have to raise the bar and assign Ace Ai capability for 10 or more victories instead of 5.  Then make sure that an excessive number of pilots do not meet the criteria out of the gate.  

 

The LW will always have better pilots in the east.  By 1945 the difference should be much less, however, we can't get to 1945 in the east.  In 1943 the LW was still a very effective air force.  However, a lot of veterans and fewer aces is the goal, not a sky filled with aces.

 

[dburne]

2 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Acknowledged.  I think that I have to raise the bar and assign Ace Ai capability for 10 or more victories instead of 5.  Then make sure that an excessive number of pilots do not meet the criteria out of the gate.  

 

The LW will always have better pilots in the east.  By 1945 the difference should be much less, however, we can't get to 1945 in the east.  In 1943 the LW was still a very effective air force.  However, a lot of veterans and fewer aces is the goal, not a sky filled with aces.

 

 

 

Thanks much!

[dburne]

18 mission into my new PWCG Campaign in this Alpha Version, flying cold start Spit Kuban.

So far so good - only exception which is already known I believe is sometimes we start and taxi to runway and find ourselves under attack

from some enemy fighters before we even get clearance to take off or even set to take off.

Increases the pucker factor somewhat.

Edited June 15, 2019 by dburne

[PatrickAWlson]

@dburne I am still in the middle of the large rewrite of the front end of flight generation.  One significant change: the mission box will be a box created up front over some point of the front lines.  It is currently a box around the flight path of the first player.  There is already code in place to route flights into the mission box.  By changing the box as described it should move the box away from the player's airbase causing fewer  flights right over the player. 

 

If you are close to the front lines then this might still happen frequently, but bases further back will almost certainly experience less interference.  Even bases closer to the front should be helped, but somewhat less so.

[dburne]

54 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

@dburne I am still in the middle of the large rewrite of the front end of flight generation.  One significant change: the mission box will be a box created up front over some point of the front lines.  It is currently a box around the flight path of the first player.  There is already code in place to route flights into the mission box.  By changing the box as described it should move the box away from the player's airbase causing fewer  flights right over the player. 

 

If you are close to the front lines then this might still happen frequently, but bases further back will almost certainly experience less interference.  Even bases closer to the front should be helped, but somewhat less so.

 

Sounds good, thanks for all your efforts!!