New PWCG Issues Thread

[Hypertexthero]

Hello!

 

I love PWCG very much indeed so far, but while creating a mission with PWCG I get the following error. I am running IL-2 from Steam and have it installed on an external SSD. I have all planes and all maps.

`Failed to create binary mission file for "D:\SteamLibrary\steamapps\common\IL-2 Sturmovik Battle of Stalingrad\bin\resaver\MissionResaver.exe" -t -d "D:\SteamLibrary\steamapps\common\IL-2 Sturmovik Battle of Stalingrad\data" -f "D:\SteamLibrary\steamapps\common\IL-2 Sturmovik Battle of Stalingrad\data\Missions\PWCG\Hurricane 1941-10-01.mission"

Despite the error the mission file is created and I managed to fly the mission and submit a combat report, so I am not sure if this is expected behavior or something to be concerned about. Is the binary mission file generation necessary? Any advice is appreciated.

 

Update: I ran PWCG in Administrator mode and the error did not appear any longer!

Cheers!
Simon

PS. I have now attached an error report.

HyperHurricane202108141808761.zip

Edited August 16, 2021 by Hypertexthero
Solution.

[raizde2]

Hi,

 

Great Mod, gratz and thank you for all the hard work.

 

If I create a coop mission with 2 squads on the same airfield (parked or in the runway) they spawn in the same spot of each other making them stuck, so I need to start in the air. Is there a work around this?

 

Also, as you can see in the picture, I had the idea of flying a few missions in the italian airplanes, which gave me a few more medals, pushing some of my german medals lower in the case, also in the body it doesn't show up the italian medals. this is a small laptop screen, in a bigger screen does it show more medals in the case? Right now it shows perfectly 6 and 3 cut down, in a bigger screen does it show 12 or more? I think the golden medal on the top left might have pushed the other medals down or something, because on my other pilot it fits 9 medals in the case.

 

Have been wounded several times (never landed the airplane on those situations, always bailed or crash landed) and never got the wounded medal (Im still playing the moscow map, not sure if it matters), to get the medal do I need to land the plane or is it something else?

Edited August 13, 2021 by raizde2

[Panzerlang]

4 hours ago, raizde2 said:

Hi,

 

Great Mod, gratz and thank you for all the hard work.

 

If I create a coop mission with 2 squads on the same airfield (parked or in the runway) they spawn in the same spot of each other making them stuck, so I need to start in the air. Is there a work around this?

 

Also, as you can see in the picture, I had the idea of flying a few missions in the italian airplanes, which gave me a few more medals, pushing some of my german medals lower in the case, also in the body it doesn't show up the italian medals. this is a small laptop screen, in a bigger screen does it show more medals in the case? Right now it shows perfectly 6 and 3 cut down, in a bigger screen does it show 12 or more? I think the golden medal on the top left might have pushed the other medals down or something, because on my other pilot it fits 9 medals in the case.

 

Have been wounded several times (never landed the airplane on those situations, always bailed or crash landed) and never got the wounded medal (Im still playing the moscow map, not sure if it matters), to get the medal do I need to land the plane or is it something else?

 A bigger screen would allow you to see more.
You could use an editor to reduce the size of the medals, more would show in that case.

[justin_z3r0]

Hey Pat - Not really an issue per se. But wanted to let you know.

Upon landing a Grave in my 1944 184sqn tempest career - I found a parked Lagg. Are the Soviets' returning the favour and lend leasing the Brits with Russian designs?

[PatrickAWlson]

On 8/14/2021 at 2:30 PM, justin_z3r0 said:

Hey Pat - Not really an issue per se. But wanted to let you know.

Upon landing a Grave in my 1944 184sqn tempest career - I found a parked Lagg. Are the Soviets' returning the favour and lend leasing the Brits with Russian designs?

 

 

Perhaps in for a visit? 

 

I use approximations under netting.  Did not realize that the planes were that easily distinguishable under a net.

[justin_z3r0]

29 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Perhaps in for a visit? 

 

I use approximations under netting.  Did not realize that the planes were that easily distinguishable under a net.

All good. It doesnt affect anything. Just thought it was funny. A 'what if' scenario I guess.

[Highwayman]

On 8/14/2021 at 3:03 AM, raizde2 said:

If I create a coop mission with 2 squads on the same airfield (parked or in the runway) they spawn in the same spot of each other making them stuck, so I need to start in the air. Is there a work around this?

 

No, Pat mentioned this a while ago when a request was raised for escort scenarios with 2 separate flights. IIRC, the game itself sets the 'spawn' points for flights that start in parking and on the runway, so it wasn't possible to have both flights start in the same way. I believe Pat was looking at the option of having separate start settings for each flight, but it was just theoretical at that point.

[PatrickAWlson]

@raizde2 This will happen if two human crewed flights from different units are assigned to the same airfield.  Switching to air starts or transferring players to a unit not sharing the same field are the only workarounds that I have at the moment.  I might be able to code something to put the other player flight onto a different field if this happens, but that code does not exist at the moment.  

[flugkapitan]

Hi Pat,

 

I've encountered a small issue. I've got a career going in in Nov 1942 flying the Ju88 with I/KG51. Two of my last 3 mission orders have been to attack train and railroad facilities. On each of those 2 missions against the facilities I've received credit in the IL2 game for destroying the facilities, but I didn't get any credit for their destruction in PWCG.

 

Just wondering if this is something you could look into when you have the time.

 

Cheers,

Scott

[No105_Swoose]

1 hour ago, flugkapitan said:

Hi Pat,

 

I've encountered a small issue. I've got a career going in in Nov 1942 flying the Ju88 with I/KG51. Two of my last 3 mission orders have been to attack train and railroad facilities. On each of those 2 missions against the facilities I've received credit in the IL2 game for destroying the facilities, but I didn't get any credit for their destruction in PWCG.

 

Just wondering if this is something you could look into when you have the time.

 

Cheers,

Scott

I'll let Pat Wilson give you a definitive answer, but am writing to let you know I experience the same.  I play with icons on.  I've found that, in PWCG debriefs and post-mission bomb damage assessment, you only get credit for objects that have a target icon associated with them.  At an airfield that is usually just the antiaircraft guns.  Yes, in the in-game summary, you may get credit for destroying a flight control tower or airfield fuel supply, but it won't show up in the PWCG debrief.

Edited August 16, 2021 by No105_Swoose
Correct misspelled word

[flugkapitan]

Thanks for that information!

 

Cheers,

Scott

[DD_Fenrir]

@PatrickAWlson sorry to chase you but I got a lotta eager Dogz awaiting news on the status of our campaign and the below error has stoped us dead in our tracks…. Hope you can help.

 

Edited August 17, 2021 by DD_Fenrir

[PatrickAWlson]

36 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

@PatrickAWlson sorry to chase you but I got a lotta eager Dogz awaiting news on the status of our campaign and the below error has stoped us dead in our tracks…. Hope you can help.

 

 

I'm not sure what I am seeing or what the impact is.   Looks like the lookup of a name failed.  Can you press "Report Error" and post the zip?  Also, can you describe the impact?   Why is this halting the campaign?

[DD_Fenrir]

Thanks Pat,

 

It cannot generate an AAR as “no vehicles found in mission log” or something to that effect.

 

I had attached Error report to my previous to last post; linking via Safari doesn’t appear to work well, standby…

 

@PatrickAWlson corrected the link:

 

 

Edited August 17, 2021 by DD_Fenrir

[Stonehouse]

Very small bug for fixing at some point down the track. Time value in the journal and perhaps other places is getting the date instead of the briefed mission start time. Also not sure if "Pilots in mission:" is meant to have a value? Possibly it is one form fits all (ie offline and online) so in an online mission it might be populated? or perhaps it could be removed as there is a "This mission flown by:" section lower down in the body. Locality is also missing so possibly same comments apply?

Edited August 17, 2021 by Stonehouse

[Highwayman]

On 8/16/2021 at 11:40 PM, PatrickAWlson said:

@raizde2 This will happen if two human crewed flights from different units are assigned to the same airfield.  Switching to air starts or transferring players to a unit not sharing the same field are the only workarounds that I have at the moment.  I might be able to code something to put the other player flight onto a different field if this happens, but that code does not exist at the moment.  

 

@PatrickAWlson Could it be an option to assign 'parking', 'take off', 'air' as a start option for each group in the Generator? Kind of where the Waypoint section is that you can edit, maybe a dropdown to select the start type, but the campaign default is chosen as the initial value, as right now you can switch between the different flights by selecting their radio buttons on the left?

[JG1_Jaus]

Issue with PWCG for FC

 

I have been running some test coop missions with AI ground attack flights.   So far in four missions, comprising 16 individual sorties, only one Halberstadt has actually proceeded with the mission.   All others have crashed on or near takeoff (confirmed by debrief).

 

Is this a bug, or do I need to change a configuration?

[PatrickAWlson]

11 hours ago, JG1_Jaus said:

Issue with PWCG for FC

 

I have been running some test coop missions with AI ground attack flights.   So far in four missions, comprising 16 individual sorties, only one Halberstadt has actually proceeded with the mission.   All others have crashed on or near takeoff (confirmed by debrief).

 

Is this a bug, or do I need to change a configuration?

 

Need clarification:

AI flights are always air start.  Do you mean player flight with some AI pilots?

What does the crash on takeoff look like?  Running into trees at the end of the runway?  Getting airborne and falling out of the sky?

 

Best guess on the crashes is lighten the load.   Either reduce fuel or ordnance.

Second best guess is limit the number of AI pilots in the flight to three.  The first WP only kicks off when the flight is airborne.  Sometimes the AI will start swerving at very low altitude and crash if it does not have its WP.

Third best guess is the runway is too short or the orientation could be improved.

 

As for PWCG's influence on this situation: sometimes orientation can be changed for a particular field.  Load can definitely be kept lighter.  After that it's an AI decision.

[JG1_Jaus]

What precipitated this testing was a couple of missions with my squad where the human scout flights could not find the AI bombers to rendezvous with. 

 

The testing used a player pilot in the bomber flight and another player in a nearby scout flight.   For the first three tests I flew the scout to see if I could find the bombers enroute.  The player bomber seat was unoccupied (I assume this makes the AI take over?)   For the last test I joined the bomber flight, but the result was the same.   I watched the three other bomber either ground loop or lift off and then immediately begin a slow turning descent resulting in a crash.

 

If the waypoints don't kick in until the bomber flight is airborne,  does that mean a ground loop by one bomber will cause others already airborne to lose their waypoints?

 

Runway length and obstruction was not an issue.

 

I will try a lighter load to see if that helps.

 

 

[PatrickAWlson]

@JG1_Jaus Agree that lightening the load is the best bet.  I have seen WWII bombers suffer from the same issue.  If you put a full fuel load into a He-111 16 it can carry very little ordnance.  I drop the fuel load on that one to 30%.  Not sure what the range of a Halberstadt is but 70% fuel probably gets you through most missions.  Combine that with a lighter ordnance load and hopefully that does the job.

[JG1_Jaus]

Do you know what happens if not all of the bombers get airborne?  Does that mean the waypoints for aircraft already airborne will never be engaged?

 

[PatrickAWlson]

2 hours ago, JG1_Jaus said:

Do you know what happens if not all of the bombers get airborne?  Does that mean the waypoints for aircraft already airborne will never be engaged?

 

 

Not sure.  That decision process is internal to the game code.  From a mission perspective the first WP is triggered after the "on takeoff" event occurs.  I'm not 100% sure what the criteria are for the event to trigger.

[Highwayman]

20 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Need clarification:

AI flights are always air start.  Do you mean player flight with some AI pilots?

What does the crash on takeoff look like?  Running into trees at the end of the runway?  Getting airborne and falling out of the sky?

we had a Ju-87 mission last week, escorted by bf110’s and as we approached the rendezvous they asked for take off, but were not at an airfield, they’d spawned on the ground, in a forest and almost immediately called ‘wounded’ and then ‘bailing out’.

 

I didn’t generate and error log, and didn’t think of reporting it at the time as we’ve flown around 20 missions in 13.0.3 and this is the only time I’ve ever seen it, so I wrote it off. I will keep an eye on it and should it happen again, I’ll post the error log. 

[Highwayman]

Also, had a few of these in the debriefs and journals,

On 20/05/1942 near Translator Icon.
A MiG-3 ser.24 of 439th Fighter Air Regiment was brought down by OFw Live of I./St.G.42.
Szt Valeriy Balsunov was killed in action
OFw Live was flying a Bf 109 F-4.

Edited August 20, 2021 by Highwayman

[justin_z3r0]

Hi Pat,

 

Minor issue I found in Bodenplatte campaign.

After Dec 25 1944- the front lines stop appearing in game (no matter how zoomed in/out you are). I know zooming had something to do with it in a previous version but now it doesn't seem to matter.

In PWCG it shows fine though. Screenshots below for reference.

Dates before Dec 25 seem to be fine.

 

[Highwayman]

Hey, something that’s been bugging me for some time, and I’m not sure if it’s a game issue, or it is a PWCG problem, but all smoke from fires is always blowing North, regardless of the wind direction quoted in the mission briefing.

 

Only 1 mod in use, the cloud mod by Rowdyb00t, but I’m not aware of any issues cause by that either.

[PatrickAWlson]

6 hours ago, Highwayman said:

Hey, something that’s been bugging me for some time, and I’m not sure if it’s a game issue, or it is a PWCG problem, but all smoke from fires is always blowing North, regardless of the wind direction quoted in the mission briefing.

 

Only 1 mod in use, the cloud mod by Rowdyb00t, but I’m not aware of any issues cause by that either.

 

In game probably.  I don't think there is anything the mission makers can do to influence it.

[justin_z3r0]

On 8/21/2021 at 1:30 PM, justin_z3r0 said:

Hi Pat,

 

Minor issue I found in Bodenplatte campaign.

After Dec 25 1944- the front lines stop appearing in game (no matter how zoomed in/out you are). I know zooming had something to do with it in a previous version but now it doesn't seem to matter.

In PWCG it shows fine though. Screenshots below for reference.

Dates before Dec 25 seem to be fine.

 

Frontlines are back as of Dec 29 1944.

[Highwayman]

11 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

In game probably.  I don't think there is anything the mission makers can do to influence it.

I found a post here that indicates that smoke direction for the big smoke emitters is a property set in the Mission Editor for the objects themselves: 

 

I’ve never placed any in missions I’ve built and to be honest, I’ve no idea what I’m doing in the mission editor.

 

Update:

So I just had a quick fiddle around in the mission editor, and there is indeed an option to change the AY Orientation on the smoke effect objects for the direction that you wish the smoke to travel in. The default of 0 has the wind blowing from South to North:
o

 

Would it be feasible for the generated missions to have this attribute set for all of the smoke emitters? ?

 

Edited August 23, 2021 by Highwayman
Added info

[Stonehouse]

Interesting - You would think logically smoke of all sorts should take the mission wind direction as a default (Can it vary over the map like it can in DCS? I know basically nothing about the editor in Il2 but to me it looks like it can vary by height but not by height and location) Perhaps that is actually an enhancement to request of the dev team that it defaults to current mission wind direction although I assume you have to take the ground level wind direction?

[Highwayman]

Yeah, I come from the DCS side of Mission editing so it surprised me. It's even more odd when you consider that smoke from destroyed units and trains does obey the wind.

 

It's been bugging me since flying the Stuka in the latest campaign as I was using the nearby smoke to judge the wind and running in accordingly for my dive bombing runs only to have the bombs drift off to the side, at least I know why now and pay more attention to the briefing!

Edited August 23, 2021 by Highwayman

[Stonehouse]

Wonder what happens with the mods that spawn in smoke columns etc like the dynamic battlefield mod. I'll have to try to check........

[grcurmudgeon]

I mentioned this briefly before with FC, but I just had it happen in a Moscow career so figured I'd bring it up again. It looks like the flight paths could use some edge-of-map guards. A transportation free hunt mission had the Rendezvous waypoint close to the edge of the map, so I got the "you are leaving the battlefield" warning before I reached it. I was able to reach the waypoint and turn before the AI took over, but it was close. In FC I've had one of those CAP or low-level intercept missions with the fan shape that had waypoints on one of the blades completely out of the playable area, so I could not follow the flight plan.

[JG1_Jaus]

On 8/19/2021 at 11:23 AM, PatrickAWlson said:

@JG1_Jaus Agree that lightening the load is the best bet.  I have seen WWII bombers suffer from the same issue.  If you put a full fuel load into a He-111 16 it can carry very little ordnance.  I drop the fuel load on that one to 30%.  Not sure what the range of a Halberstadt is but 70% fuel probably gets you through most missions.  Combine that with a lighter ordnance load and hopefully that does the job.

I was trying this out today, and I found the drop down box to select fuel loadouts for squadrons with player-pilots, but how do you change fuel load for all-AI flights that are generated for the mission?

[PatrickAWlson]

2 hours ago, JG1_Jaus said:

I was trying this out today, and I found the drop down box to select fuel loadouts for squadrons with player-pilots, but how do you change fuel load for all-AI flights that are generated for the mission?

 

You don't

[JG1_Jaus]

27 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

You don't

So how do I lighten the bomber load as you suggested to stop ai bombers from crashing on takeoff?

[migmadmarine]

On the current version, playing in co-op, after a mission where the host has requested in a Pfalz D.III (or other aircraft) to replace a default aircraft, after the mission on the next the requested aircraft has disappeared from the roster. 

[PatrickAWlson]

1 hour ago, JG1_Jaus said:

So how do I lighten the bomber load as you suggested to stop ai bombers from crashing on takeoff?

 

AI flights do not take off.  They are  (almost) always air start and when they spawn they have less than 100% fuel.  I generally give AI flights pretty moderate ordnance loads as well.  

 

Are you talking about the AI planes in your flight?  If so, the fuel setting is applied to the whole flight.

1 hour ago, migmadmarine said:

On the current version, playing in co-op, after a mission where the host has requested in a Pfalz D.III (or other aircraft) to replace a default aircraft, after the mission on the next the requested aircraft has disappeared from the roster. 

 

That might happen if replacements are calculated (this happens during AAR) and the newer planes are deemed to be better than what you have.  I have not thought of a good solution.  If I do something that causes this not to happen then the plane that you requested will be on the books forevermore (or until it crashes), which is also not good.  I could do something more sophisticated like create a rule set for retiring planes that you create but I have not had the time to do that.

[JG1_Jaus]

7 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

AI flights do not take off.  They are  (almost) always air start and when they spawn they have less than 100% fuel.  I generally give AI flights pretty moderate ordnance loads as well.  

 

Are you talking about the AI planes in your flight?  If so, the fuel setting is applied to the whole flight.

 

I am really talking about AI flights with no player pilots.  We encountered a couple of missions where player pilots were assigned escort to and AI bomber flight but never found them.    I did some testing using AI bomber flights and studying the logs and found that there were Halberstadt crashes at the beginning of the mission roughly equal in number to what you would find in a flight.    Having already observed the crash-at-launch phenomenon in player-and-AI bomber flights I was looking for a solution to the problem in AI-only flights.   If AI-only attack flights are air starts, that would suggest a different problem with the AI bombers.

[Highwayman]

Hey Pat, flying a Stuka campaign and we've been re-located to the Kuban map. We just had a mission over one of the ports to hit a rail facility, but whilst there, we noticed that none of the Docks are included. Lots of cranes and buildings, just no concrete docks.