Jump to content

New PWCG Issues Thread


PatrickAWlson
 Share

Recommended Posts

PatrickAWlson

@DD_Fenrir @-332FG-REDMAN

 

I have something in place.  Before this change I returned the first log set that matched the mission file name recorded by PWCG.  Now I read and parse the log set to make sure that it has spawns.  If it does not I go to the previous mission log set.  It got through both of your cases.

 

Fenrir: your campaign has already advanced beyond the reported date so the AAR cannot be rerun.  Redman: your campaign is still on the same date so you could try the AAR again if you have not done anything in the meantime (your campaign has to be on July 1st 1918).  Regardless, going forward this should handle the use case as provided.  Please not that if you actually do anything in the second mission PWCG will use it, but with no spawns it doesn't look like you are.

 

I have a lot of skinning work in the queue that needs tests and your fixes are embedded in that stuff, so it might be a a bit.  Still going to go for a release tonight.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

@DD_Fenrir Here's what I am seeing.  The mission produced two log sets August 9th.  Once at 13:11 and again at 14:58 (military time).  Generally, this means the mission was flown twice.  Under these circumstances PWCG will ignore the first flight and use the second.  

 

The first set of mission logs (missionReport(2020-08-09_13-11-57)) seems quite extensive - 203 log files. This seems to be the real mission.

 

The second set of mission logs ('missionReport(2020-08-09_14-59-53))  is FUBAR.  42 log files but no spawns at all.  In fact, nothing at all except AType:15, which is just an event that spews the game version.   PWCG is objecting because all of the things that should be there are not.  It can't find a single vehicle - nothing - because there is nothing there.

 

What I do not know is WTF is up with the second log set.  I suspect that you did not really fly the mission twice.  I am trying to understand what the game is doing so I can account for it, but if it insists on spewing garbage log sets life is going to be difficult.  My guess is that with the server running it is producing a crap log set.  I might be able to write some code to eliminate bad log sets but even the existence of such a log set is disconcerting.

 

BTW: your campaign was advanced to the 12th of October 1944.  The mission was Oct 10 1944.  I reset the campaign date to the 10th, eliminated the second log set, and the AAR processed just fine.  It would have worked if not for the garbage logs.

 

Can you tell me a little about how you run the game?  

 

 

We run on a Dserver, I Remote Login, I fire up PWCG, generate a mission once I know who's attending, run the mission with PWCG running in the background, fire up GBS co-op server using a batch file that automatically selects the most recently created mission and drop the RL connection.

 

Fly the mission joining as a client from my PC, re-log back into the Dserver via DL and do the admin.

 

Funny thing was that error did not occur during the AAR from August 9th - that processed fine. When one of the chaps "Bertrand Finknottle", who was late and didn't partake in the mission, jokingly suggested that it only progresses when he isn't in that I thought there might be a potential character limit issue, hence my post a few days ago.

 

"Bertrand" having not actually flown a mission that successfully passed AAR yet had no missions, kills or awards to his credit so I thought I could just retire him and create a new persona for our user called "Bert Finknottle" instead.

 

The error warning cam at the exact moment I hit 'Create Pilot' after completing the Pilot Name, assigning a user to him and attributing him to the appropriate Role/Pilot Rank/Squadron drop down steps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JG1_Wittmann

 

Here is the campaign zip fileGunter Wittmann202008121608722.zip       Other than  no contact with the enemy and friendlies not dropping ordnance there don't seem to be any other problems.    This occured only after I transferred squadrons and then the map changed from stalingrad to kuban

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PatrickAWlson
3 hours ago, -332FG-REDMAN said:

Thanks but still can't change Mission Limits in FC

 

That's the next problem.  My monitor is also 2560x1440.  I was unable to recreate the issue.  One thing you can try is telling PWCG to display at a different size.  

 

Main menu -> Configuration -> GUI

Set let PWCG Auto Size = 0 (zero)

Then set PWCG screen height and width

 

That said, why your page is getting shortened is a head scratcher

 

Edit: even more odd is that you do not seem to have the text entry boxes.  There is plenty of room to display them.  last resort is wipe PWCG (keep your campaigns and the coop directory) and reinstall.

Edited by PatrickAWlson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PatrickAWlson
41 minutes ago, -332FG-REDMAN said:

I did like you said but still no good with mission limits.

 

Is it only mission limits or every advanced config?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PatrickAWlson
Just now, -332FG-REDMAN said:

only mission limits in FC. BOS works fine. 

 

OK - didn't know that was Mission Limits FC only.  Thanks.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello, Patrick, I have 3 questions about the Advanced Config:

 

1. In Advanced Config, in the Flight section, there is an item Base Alt Period 1 (I have 3000 there) and a Random Additional Altitude item (I also have 3000 there).
As far as I understand, missions should be created at altitudes of 0 - 6000 meters. But in fact, a lot of missions are created at altitudes of 7-8 km. Is this a bug in the program?

 

2. If I want fighters to fly less frequently on ground attack missions, should I reduce the number of Allied Offensive Missions in the Fighter Mission Types? Right?

 

3. It is not clear what the numbers of Max Fighter Flights Per Side: Fighter Campaigns (3) and Max Fighter Flights Per Side: Ground Campaigns (1) mean in the Mission Limits section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI, just updated PWCG FC to V10.3.4. I'm running with monitor setting at 2560x1440. In the Advanced Config the only settings page that isn't working is Mission Limits. Every item is displayed on that page but there is no way to input any changes as at the end of each line the normal input space is blank. I have NOT changed any fonts either. V10.3.2 had the same problem. BTW, PWCG BOS V10.3.4 works just fine. Right now I'm manually going into the FC Mission Limits config file and making my changes, so no hurry on this as I know this stuff is a lot of work for you Pat.

 

Anyway this is a wonderful program that you've given us and it's the main reason I keep playing this game. Thanks.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Follow-up. Sorry, I meant to refer to 332PG-Redman's previous posts and his photo of the Mission Limits screen on Page 11 of this thread. His photo is exactly what I'm seeing too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Pat.

 

Good news; I think I sorted the issues with "Bertrand Finknottle". I was ultimately obliged to go and edit the Coop>User>Jabo,json and the Campaigns>Lightning Strikes>Personnel>102370402.json manually but we ran a test mission and it seems to have worked. Of note I edited "Bertrand" to "Bert" and things seem happier. I wonder if there is a 16 character limit somewhere in the flight/aircraft ID system of Il-2 and it causes issues when PWCG looks for data in the mission logs?

 

Bad news: Two missions in a row now we've had user personas KIA in mission but not registering in PWCG.

 

On the 10/10/44 mission (error file created 11th August 2020) 2nd Lt Casey Baker (user BluBear) collided with a Fw 190 and killed but not registered in PWCG 10.3.3

 

On the 12/10/44 mission (error file created 19th August 2020)1st Lt Dave Delta (user Delta) collided with a Fw 190 and killed but not registered in PWCG 10.3.4

 

Max Pilot Injury is set to '4' in Campaign Preferences.

 

Lightning Strikes202008111408627.zip Lightning Strikes202008191108814.zip Custom Squads.zip

Edited by DD_Fenrir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this is a PWCG thing or just an IL-2 GB thing in weakness of AI.

 

One thing I find irritating is when assigned a mission to bomb a target. Our flight of 4 P-51's are loaded up with two each 

500 lb bombs. There is a flight of P-47's assigned to rendezvous with us and provide cover.

On the ingress, a flight of 190's heads toward us. Well both the flight of P-47's, and the other three pilots in my flight, all go to engage them.

My three other pilots loaded down with bombs, head off to fight a flight of 190's the P-47's were already engaging, leaving me alone to continue on ingress and bomb the target.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PatrickAWlson
50 minutes ago, dburne said:

I don't know if this is a PWCG thing or just an IL-2 GB thing in weakness of AI.

 

One thing I find irritating is when assigned a mission to bomb a target. Our flight of 4 P-51's are loaded up with two each 

500 lb bombs. There is a flight of P-47's assigned to rendezvous with us and provide cover.

On the ingress, a flight of 190's heads toward us. Well both the flight of P-47's, and the other three pilots in my flight, all go to engage them.

My three other pilots loaded down with bombs, head off to fight a flight of 190's the P-47's were already engaging, leaving me alone to continue on ingress and bomb the target.

 

 

 

AI thing.  Any flight doing ground attack or escort is doing so on medium WP priority.  This means defend yourself but prefer to stick to the mission.  This is opposed to pure fighter missions where WP priority is low - i.e. be aggressive.  I'm not sure what triggers "abandon the mission and defend yourself" on medium priority.  I am guessing proximity.  

 

Why the AI would dogfight without jettisoning the bombs is another thing, but also not behavior that PWCG controls.

 

Mission makers pretty much have "low, medium, high" WP priority under their control  Any fine grain actions are AI.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

AI thing.  Any flight doing ground attack or escort is doing so on medium WP priority.  This means defend yourself but prefer to stick to the mission.  This is opposed to pure fighter missions where WP priority is low - i.e. be aggressive.  I'm not sure what triggers "abandon the mission and defend yourself" on medium priority.  I am guessing proximity.  

 

Why the AI would dogfight without jettisoning the bombs is another thing, but also not behavior that PWCG controls.

 

Mission makers pretty much have "low, medium, high" WP priority under their control  Any fine grain actions are AI.

 

 

 

Ok thanks for the info Pat, kind of what I figured it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a singleplayer ground attack mission flown by Bf-109s a squad member was shot and killed by a wingman who was immediately shot/killed as well by the Russian Flak battery both planes were just attacking. So far so good..

But in the AAR this wingman got an air victory credited for that and this led even to an Iron Cross II posthumously.

Perhaps just an isolated incident because I didn't have that before.

Playing the last version of PWCG and everything runs fine so far. :)

 

 

Falkentag20200819180869.zip

Edited by vonGraf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Murleen

 

Just a heads up. There is also P-51 taxi issues at LeCulot.

They typically come into play when there are three or more planes assigned to the mission.

I have attached the mission file that will show this. 4 planes, and wingmen 3 and 4 get tangled up somehow. One of them

made it almost to the runway but then just started doing circles on the ground rather than lining up on the runway for takeoff. The remaining wingman never made it to the runway.

The leader and myself did not get clearance to take off, so I went ahead as #2 and took off. The leader took off then shortly after, and he and I flew the mission.

 

 

dburne P-51 Bodenplatte 1945-02-04.zip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No105_Swoose

Salute!

 

Background: Still using PWCG version 9.2 because of the version 10.x  graphics problems with the debrief screens being compressed on my triple monitor setup you tried to help me with.  Flying Kuban fighter campaign with 273rd IAP.  Target was enemy troops IVO Askolay.

 

Problems:

1. I flew as flight leader Oriole 1 with seven other ships.  I was the only one to attack any targets despite frequent use of the "Engage nearest enemy ground unit" radio command.  This has also happened in a couple of Sturmovik ground attack campaigns I'm flying using PWCG, i.e. when I'm the flight leader I'm the only one who actually attacks enemy targets.  When I'm not the flight lead this is a non-problem and AI attack as they should.  The problem in the Sturmovik campaigns is that, because of attrition, I'm commanding the unit.  Unfortunately, without being able to use version 10.x, I can't change the flight order and make someone else the leader (or at least I don't know if there was a way to do this).  I realize the issue of AI failing to attack when I'm the flight leader may be a game versus a PWCG problem.

2. While attacking the targets I had the problem of the enemy targets disappearing, reappearing, and then often disappearing again.  Strange.  I think you said you may have fixed this in version 10 but I'm not sure.

 

Thanks for looking into this if you can.  I've attached the error log and .MIS file.

Battle of Kuban Fighter202008241608110.zip Battle of Kuban Fighter 1943-03-26.zip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Pb]RedeyeStorm

In the regular campaign you do not have to give any orders to attack ground targets when you are flightleader. They will attack on there own. Have you tried that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PatrickAWlson
2 hours ago, [Pb]RedeyeStorm said:

In the regular campaign you do not have to give any orders to attack ground targets when you are flightleader. They will attack on there own. Have you tried that?

 

I never give specific orders.  Ai has the attack area activated and that is enough.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Patrick.

 

Please make that in the Mission Report information about the player is highlighted in a different color (or font) - both in full and in abbreviated form of information.
It would also be nice if the information about other members of the player's squadron was highlighted in a different color.


It would also be very convenient if the information about the player was highlighted in a different color in the Squadron Log. Alternatively, in Squadron Log, you can make the "Highlight - Do not highlight" toggle button.

Edited by Kur12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PatrickAWlson
6 hours ago, Kur12 said:

Dear Patrick.

 

Please make that in the Mission Report information about the player is highlighted in a different color (or font) - both in full and in abbreviated form of information.
It would also be nice if the information about other members of the player's squadron was highlighted in a different color.


It would also be very convenient if the information about the player was highlighted in a different color in the Squadron Log. Alternatively, in Squadron Log, you can make the "Highlight - Do not highlight" toggle button.

 

Not that easy.  By the time things are written to the squadron log they are just text.  I have no idea whether they pertain to the player or not, and no real way of determining whether they do pertain or not.  A string name match is not enough.   The name of the player persona may or may not appear in the text.  PWCG supports many players.  Even within the scope of a single player campaign a player can fly as multiple personas.  These personas may be killed off.  It is even possible for the AI to have the same name as a persona.

 

Appreciate the suggestion but I don't see this one getting done any time soon (not trying to be rude, just honest).

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Patrick.


I mainly play on the map of Moscow 1941, and I noticed that there are a lot of easy targets for fighters - groups of bombers without fighter cover.
This really happened in history in the summer of 1941, both Russian and German bombers flew without cover, but this was not massive. But at PWCG this happens very often.
Is this intentionally conceived or are there technical difficulties in supplying bombers with cover fighters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PatrickAWlson
On 9/5/2020 at 4:21 AM, Kur12 said:

Dear Patrick.


I mainly play on the map of Moscow 1941, and I noticed that there are a lot of easy targets for fighters - groups of bombers without fighter cover.
This really happened in history in the summer of 1941, both Russian and German bombers flew without cover, but this was not massive. But at PWCG this happens very often.
Is this intentionally conceived or are there technical difficulties in supplying bombers with cover fighters?

 

It is mostly intentional.  It is not possible to assign a spawned escort flight to a spawned bombing flight.  Therefore any escort is really just another fighter flight that will not take its escort duties seriously.  Given the choice between an overwhelming swarm of fighters or an underwhelming escort presence I chose the latter.

 

Maybe one day I can do things with spawn that have, to date (11 years and counting) not been implemented.  Besides the issue above, you also cannot assign formation commands to spawned planes or really do anything that implies unit control with spawned planes.  Alternatives are do not spawn planes but rather enable them from the start.  That would kill CPU.

 

I have also begged for gunners to be enabled on planes with high priority waypoints.    Also apparently not happening.

Edited by PatrickAWlson
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Solo P-40 career over Moscow, had a high altitude "strategic intercept" against a group of what turned out to be 3 110s and 6 Ju-88s. The Ju-88s behaved as if they were fighters and attempted to get on our tails. I assume you'll want the mission files for this?

You ain't fighters 88s.rar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PatrickAWlson
2 hours ago, migmadmarine said:

Solo P-40 career over Moscow, had a high altitude "strategic intercept" against a group of what turned out to be 3 110s and 6 Ju-88s. The Ju-88s behaved as if they were fighters and attempted to get on our tails. I assume you'll want the mission files for this?

You ain't fighters 88s.rar 395.11 kB · 0 downloads

 

Yep.  No known cause.  

 

I am working on something that might improve AI behavior.  based on comments int he mission section and advise I got from @coconut.  it's a non trivial rewrite of the PWCG AI flight generation, but if it works it will allow me to apply formations to AI flights.  This, in turn, might be the answer to bombers behaving like fighters and possibly even the return of AI escorts.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fingers crossed for you man. I was very surprised to have a flight of three Bf-110s who seemed as though they were escorting the Ju-88s, but the illusion was rather broken by the 88's attempting to go on the offensive. 

Edited by migmadmarine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 часов назад, migmadmarine сказал:

Solo P-40 career over Moscow, had a high altitude "strategic intercept"

Patrick, can you enter a height limit in the settings (at least for some maps)? There was no high altitude "strategic intercept" over Moscow. The main battles were at altitudes of 2-3 km, and above 5 km, no one at all climbed, neither the Russians nor the Germans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PatrickAWlson
11 hours ago, migmadmarine said:

Fingers crossed for you man. I was very surprised to have a flight of three Bf-110s who seemed as though they were escorting the Ju-88s, but the illusion was rather broken by the 88's attempting to go on the offensive. 

 

The 88s flying like fighters is an AI thing.  It usually doesn't happen.  IMHO it should never happen, but sometimes it does. 

 

The 110s were escorting only in the sense that  they were flyinjg the exact same route as the 88s.  There was no "cover" command because you can't do it with spawned planes.  The 110s will never really try to cover the 88s but will rather attack the first enemy that they see.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Pat,

 

First off, love your work. This utility has breathed new life into IL-2 for our little group of virtual pilots.

 

My query is this, whenever we pull a bomber escort mission, we can never seem to get them to leave their rendezvous. they just orbit around and around. We've flown the flight paths exactly in a tight formation with all the players, at the assigned altitudes, but they never depart their loiter. We've also experienced it when we are to be escorted, and our escorts orbit and do not join us.

 

We have found that if we include an AI pilot in our flight, they always depart correctly, is there something that we're missing to get them to continue with their mission?

 

We're currently running 10.3.4, but have had the same issue since version 9 something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PatrickAWlson
3 hours ago, Highwayman said:

Hey Pat,

 

First off, love your work. This utility has breathed new life into IL-2 for our little group of virtual pilots.

 

My query is this, whenever we pull a bomber escort mission, we can never seem to get them to leave their rendezvous. they just orbit around and around. We've flown the flight paths exactly in a tight formation with all the players, at the assigned altitudes, but they never depart their loiter. We've also experienced it when we are to be escorted, and our escorts orbit and do not join us.

 

We have found that if we include an AI pilot in our flight, they always depart correctly, is there something that we're missing to get them to continue with their mission?

 

We're currently running 10.3.4, but have had the same issue since version 9 something. 

 

Do you have waypoint icons enabled?  The bombers will start moving once you trigger the rendezvous waypoint.  That means you have to hit all of the waypoints leading to the rendezvous.

 

I might be able to make the bombers trigger on a check zone instead of a waypoint.  Not a quick and easy change but should be possible.  Until then, see above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Pat,

 

It can sometimes be tricky to hit them all exactly, especially with the ingress, egress and rendezvous ingress and egress such as displayed in this screenshot from one of our missions are spread out. They're not always this extreme, but often have complete direction changes to go back to near where you took off from after flying out to the front lines, so a zone around their loiter area would be a great change in my opinion.

 

1640217587_WaypointsA.thumb.png.b0715b7bf1818f4cf2c6bfeec757f372.png

 

One other request when it comes to WayPoints, the generated mission always generates the waypoint for approach at the same end of the runway as the take off waypoint.

 

176390161_WaypointsB.png.756f0856dd9c684c9ccff4f279963570.png

 

Keep up the great work :)

Edited by Highwayman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Pat!

 

We have been running a very enjoyable coop campaign for quite some time, but for several missions now there are absolutely no germans (enemies ..)

showing up.

We did check that they have plenty of planes available in all squadrons.

I also increased the plane deletion radius to 150km to no avail and am running out of ideas why this could be.

If it could be helpful for you have a look at the error report - otherwise don't bother, we'll just start a new campaign and see what happens.

Thanks again for this great piece of software!

Kuban202009102109102.zip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No or almost no enemies is also my biggest problem with PCGW. The longer a campaign goes, the fewer enemy contacts i have and after few month in campaigns 3-4 missions without enemy contact are quite common. At this point i just abandon the affected campaign and start a new one.

Btw intelligence report says there should be enough enemy planes and pilots. Also i usually abort missions after max 2 kills to conserve enemy forces. No improvement.

10.2.1 adressed this, but imho not nearly enough.

 

Don´t get me wrong, i still like PCGW. But unfortunately the last few patches just concentrated on implementing skins (for me non-essential eyecandy) instead of taking care of important core issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Are the serious wounded squadron pilots excluded from the 'roster'? Maybe until they're in a better shape or recovered?

Saw this the first time, I think, that a wounded member isn't in the roster with the red cross over the Rod of Asclepius. 

 

Just in case there's the mission/campaign. And the name of the pilot:

Meckler.JPG.5a1ab6c9c307e163877d64f3bdfa500d.JPG

 

Krimsonne202010050410593.zip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • LukeFF pinned this topic

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...