New PWCG Issues Thread

[SilentOtto]

7 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Per landing at an enemy base - if somebody can post a mission it will help.

 

What they did is optimize the placement logic for single digit and stab markings, without accounting for 2 digit codes.  The current logic is necessary to make these markings look correct.  However, it produces the wrong results on 2 digit codes.  In my bug post I even provided pseudo code logic for the separate 2 digit handling.  As you point out, when the problem was noted they simply said that it will not be fixed.  

 

I cannot correctly use single digit codes because there are more than 9 planes in a staffel.  Still, that is what I will have to do.  I will use the last digit only.  There is a chance that the same code appears twice in a flight if Black 5 and Black 15 are  in the flight together.  Not great but better than the ridiculous 15 on one side and 51 on the other.

 

@greybeard_52 Thank you so much.  You have just made my life tremendously more simple.  From now on, all bug reports on PWCG will be met with a reply of "you should simply align to the PWCG system."  Huge time saver.

 

 

Patrick, please find mission attached.  I'am not sure which one...

JG52 bad landing 1941-10-07.zip

JG52 bad landing 2 1941-10-06.zip

Edited November 3, 2022 by SilentOtto

[greybeard_52]

22 hours ago, Robi89 said:

 

You do realize that the devs kinda phoned it in on the German tatical codes? Staffeln almost always had more than 10 aircraft, so there should have been the option for two-digit codes.

 

"Tatical"? Do you realize what I said? Quoting myself:

"setting a symbol where more than one digit was required"

Nevermind. I'll try to explain so that you can understand. Let's say that a Staffel is composed by 12 aircraft; this could be numbering, according to the stock game system:

 

1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9    <1    <o    <I

 

Attached, you may find a wide choice of possible simbols, beyond first nine numerals.

Edited November 4, 2022 by greybeard_52

[greybeard_52]

16 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

16 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

@greybeard_52 Thank you so much.  You have just made my life tremendously more simple.  From now on, all bug reports on PWCG will be met with a reply of "you should simply align to the PWCG system."  Huge time saver.

 

You do well to thank me, Pat, even if with irony. Indeed, I think it would be right for all developers (especially those who are paid to do so) to appreciate the commitment and effort of the users (read: paying customers) who take the trouble to identify problems and document them, always in the intent to help, and that too often are arrogantly ignored or even derided, when instead the correct attitude should be: << Thanks for the report, we will act as soon as possible >>.

Edited November 4, 2022 by greybeard_52

[Robi89]

Pat, I just ran across a possible issue with 56 Squadron. They get Tempests in August '43, which is a really early date. The first squadrons to recieve operational Tempests were 486 Squadron in January '44 (who promptly damaged 3 out of the 5 first aircraft) and 3 Squadron in late February. 56 Squadron kept their Typhoons into April, temporarily switched over to Spitfire Mk IXs and finally recieved Tempests in June.

[Stonehouse]

Sorry can't help myself Greybeard. Normally I would ignore this but as Pat does so much work for the community I couldn't.

 

PWCG is a free campaign generator which Pat produces in his own unpaid time.  There are no paying customers - it's free. He does not owe us anything. If he decided after reading your reply that he felt that he was no longer interested in spending time on PWCG he could remove the website and cease development leaving us with nothing but the stock single player campaigns. So, no more PWCG co-op or PvP campaigns and no more excellent PWCG single player campaigns.

 

I hope he doesn't feel that way as I enjoy the results of his work a great deal.

 

I truly think you misunderstand the situation if you think you are a paying PWCG customer with some sort of rights beyond common courtesy.

Edited November 4, 2022 by Stonehouse

[Robi89]

33 minutes ago, Stonehouse said:

Sorry can't help myself Greybeard. Normally I would ignore this but as Pat does so much work for the community I couldn't.

 

PWCG is a free campaign generator which Pat produces in his own unpaid time.  There are no paying customers - it's free. He does not owe us anything. If he decided after reading your reply that he felt that he was no longer interested in spending time on PWCG he could remove the website and cease development leaving us with nothing but the stock single player campaigns. So, no more PWCG co-op or PvP campaigns and no more excellent PWCG single player campaigns.

 

I hope he doesn't feel that way as I enjoy the results of his work a great deal.

 

I truly think you misunderstand the situation if you think you are a paying PWCG customer with some sort of rights beyond common courtesy.

 

Thank you. I was going to say something similar but couldn't come up with anything that would have been printable.

Edited November 4, 2022 by Robi89
Typo

[PatrickAWlson]

11 hours ago, Stonehouse said:

Sorry can't help myself Greybeard. Normally I would ignore this but as Pat does so much work for the community I couldn't.

 

PWCG is a free campaign generator which Pat produces in his own unpaid time.  There are no paying customers - it's free. He does not owe us anything. If he decided after reading your reply that he felt that he was no longer interested in spending time on PWCG he could remove the website and cease development leaving us with nothing but the stock single player campaigns. So, no more PWCG co-op or PvP campaigns and no more excellent PWCG single player campaigns.

 

I hope he doesn't feel that way as I enjoy the results of his work a great deal.

 

I truly think you misunderstand the situation if you think you are a paying PWCG customer with some sort of rights beyond common courtesy.

 

I read @greybeard_52 reply a bit differently.  I know that my response was snarky but I took his reply as saying that yes, the bug report is legit and his original response of "comply with what the devs give us" was off base, so not a dig at me at all.   I know English is not his first language ... anyway, I think it's all good.  

11 hours ago, Robi89 said:

Pat, I just ran across a possible issue with 56 Squadron. They get Tempests in August '43, which is a really early date. The first squadrons to recieve operational Tempests were 486 Squadron in January '44 (who promptly damaged 3 out of the 5 first aircraft) and 3 Squadron in late February. 56 Squadron kept their Typhoons into April, temporarily switched over to Spitfire Mk IXs and finally recieved Tempests in June.

 

I will move the intro date back to mid May 1944.  Give them a bit of time in type before D-Day.  Not going to give them Spitfires though.  Enough of those already.

 

And I do appreciate bug reports.  Working through the list to make corrections. I have the rest of the squadron blank skins done and configured.  About 600 skins total.  Several bugs reported recently have been fixed.  

 

I decided to change a couple thousand lines of code to resolve some testability issues so bit of a delay. It's always fun to change something, see 300 errors in the code, fix some of them, see 500 errors in the code ...  

Edited November 4, 2022 by PatrickAWlson

[Mtnbiker1998]

Hey Pat, I just flew (actually, I'm currently flying it, have autopilot on while I trek back across the channel, haha) a Mosquito raid near Recamp and noticed that the city wasn't there. Seems I forgot to change the building setting in your options before taking off!

 

I'm wondering if, given the nature of the Normandy map and its mission types, should the default Building density setting when creating a campaign be changed to high? Its easy to forget to change around the options before getting into a mission, and I don't think the buildings themselves have a huge impact on fps compared to settings like ground and air density.

 

Otherwise I'm enjoying the hell out of the latest version, those trucks never knew what hit em!

[greybeard_52]

On 11/4/2022 at 10:08 AM, Stonehouse said:

Sorry can't help myself Greybeard. Normally I would ignore this but as Pat does so much work for the community I couldn't.

 

PWCG is a free campaign generator which Pat produces in his own unpaid time.  There are no paying customers - it's free. He does not owe us anything. If he decided after reading your reply that he felt that he was no longer interested in spending time on PWCG he could remove the website and cease development leaving us with nothing but the stock single player campaigns. So, no more PWCG co-op or PvP campaigns and no more excellent PWCG single player campaigns.

 

I hope he doesn't feel that way as I enjoy the results of his work a great deal.

 

I truly think you misunderstand the situation if you think you are a paying PWCG customer with some sort of rights beyond common courtesy.

 

Always the same litany, every time one comments on a "free" product.
First of all understand, please, that my speech was of a general nature and particularly aimed at 1C developers (so I was talking about "paying customers"), and then know that when you publish a product, even free of charge, you assume an obligation moral; it's like helping an injured person: you can't leave him on the street before you get to the emergency room because "it's for free" - you have to complete it to fulfill the moral duty you have taken on. If people no longer understand this, then humanity is lost.
Besides, Pat's work isn't exactly free, if you don't believe it, ask him!
Me too - I really want to say it - really appreciate his work, but I'm sorry when he takes these slips and I try to help him. But if I am ignored or answered (as is often the case) "I can't do it" or "I don't want to do it", I get irritated, for the above reasons.
Thanks for the civil exchange of views; I do not pretend that you have to think like me now - I just hope that I have sufficiently clarified my point of view and what motivates some of my reactions.

15 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

I read @greybeard_52 reply a bit differently.  I know that my response was snarky but I took his reply as saying that yes, the bug report is legit and his original response of "comply with what the devs give us" was off base, so not a dig at me at all.   I know English is not his first language ... anyway, I think it's all good.

 

 

Thank you for "breaking a spear" in my favor. I don't think I get along too badly with English (also because I help myself a lot with the automatic translator), but I think it's really a problem of irremediably different cultures, between Europe and the United States of America. Although I grew up, during my childhood, with John Wayne's films, I realize more and more that we don't understand each other, just as I don't understand Truman Capote, unlike Tolstoy.

[JG4_Moltke1871]

Gotha Attack on enemy airfield (sure I bombed the right one). Ingame 11 Ground Targets destroyed but got message "friendly fire".

No ground targets count in my  Pilot statistic.

 

 

PWCGErrorLog.txt Gotha MissionAnalysis.txt

[Almenas]

No engagement, even in this situation. Use PWCG exclusively and that was not always the case. Makes so little sense.

[greybeard_52]

Pat, please, give numerals to Italian fighters!

[PatrickAWlson]

39 minutes ago, Almenas said:

No engagement, even in this situation. Use PWCG exclusively and that was not always the case. Makes so little sense.

 

AI.  PWCG can lead the horse to water but it can't make it drink.  If you were not on a fighter mission then not attacking is normal.  if you were on a fighter mission thne you will have to post the mission to the Bug report page.

15 hours ago, Mtnbiker1998 said:

Hey Pat, I just flew (actually, I'm currently flying it, have autopilot on while I trek back across the channel, haha) a Mosquito raid near Recamp and noticed that the city wasn't there. Seems I forgot to change the building setting in your options before taking off!

 

I'm wondering if, given the nature of the Normandy map and its mission types, should the default Building density setting when creating a campaign be changed to high? Its easy to forget to change around the options before getting into a mission, and I don't think the buildings themselves have a huge impact on fps compared to settings like ground and air density.

 

Otherwise I'm enjoying the hell out of the latest version, those trucks never knew what hit em!

 

I don't think that I can do that by default.  I'm afraid that it will kill performance for too many people.

[Hotaru_Ito]

3 hours ago, Almenas said:

No engagement, even in this situation. Use PWCG exclusively and that was not always the case. Makes so little sense.

 

I can't tell from the screenshot--have you passed the first "Intercept" waypoint yet? In my experience AI will never engage between "Ingress" and the first "Intercept" or "Patrol" waypoint, but will engage normally after that. In the case of those search patterns on intercept missions, the first waypoint is often on the far side of the pattern, so you have to fly all the way across the search area once before the AI "activates," during which time enemy planes often show up and are ignored.

 

When I'm flying a mission, I actually move the first intercept or patrol waypoint so it's right after the ingress waypoint, and then shuffle the others around to sort of compensate. This seems to totally fix the issue, but I'd have to fly more missions to be sure.

 

@PatrickAWlson Maybe whatever settings are applied to the intercept and patrol waypoints could be applied to the ingress waypoint too? Or just put another intercept/patrol right after ingress? Suspect that would clear up some of the AI-not-engaging complaints.

[greybeard_52]

I think the pictures speak for themselves. Maybe I didn't understand how it works, but at least I tried.

 

[Stonehouse]

I think you can only get to 3 staffel plus the staff and still avoid 2-digit numbers. The other symbols actually indicate a rank in the geschwader not a numeral. Not sure which of the available symbols stands in for the undulating bar - I assume we are meant to use the vertical bar. I'm guessing the solid triangle and small circle and bar symbol were later versions of the same thing used to indicate the staffel or gruppe. Pics in spoiler.

 

 

Spoiler

 

Edited November 6, 2022 by Stonehouse

[PatrickAWlson]

The first two are some combination of either number or rank symbol.

The third item would be the Gruppe symbol.   This was blank for I Gruppe.

The color of the numbers is related to the staffel.

 

@Hotaru_Ito That could be the case if the ingress WP is medium priority.  It is not supposed to be for fighter missions.

Edited November 6, 2022 by PatrickAWlson

[Stonehouse]

59 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

The first two are some combination of either number or rank symbol.

The third item would be the Gruppe symbol.   This was blank for I Gruppe.

The color of the numbers is related to the staffel.

 

@Hotaru_Ito That could be the case if the ingress WP is medium priority.  It is not supposed to be for fighter missions.

 

Yep - pics in spoiler in my prior post describe their usage. The pics however depict an Emil so perhaps the rules shown are early war and quite possibly they changed a little by 1944 (hence the solid triangle and circle plus vertical bar symbol the game has) as things became more disorganised for the Luftwaffe.

Edited November 6, 2022 by Stonehouse

[Hotaru_Ito]

24 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

@Hotaru_Ito That could be the case if the ingress WP is medium priority.  It is not supposed to be for fighter missions.

 

 

Ingress waypoint is priority 0, same as intercept waypoints. Takeoff is priority 1. So that seems correct.

 

However, I just tested it, flying the same patrol mission several times. If I avoided the first patrol waypoint, my wingmen didn't engage a nearby flight of Spitfires until the Spitfires started shooting at us. If I passed the patrol waypoint first, my wingmen spread out to attack normally. In fact, if I passed the patrol waypoint while the Spitfires were in range, my wingmen INSTANTLY started to attack the moment we passed the waypoint. I can send the mission file if you want to test it for yourself.

 

There's definitely something funny about that first patrol/intercept waypoint, because I see another strange behavior too. I pass the ingress waypoint, then the first patrol waypoint activates normally. A few seconds later, however, it disappears and I get a spurious "enemy aircraft sighted, engage" call. My wingmen stay in formation, and if I fly through the spot where the waypoint should be, the rest of the mission continues as normal.

 

I suspect an easy fix is to just put an extra patrol waypoint right after the ingress waypoint--or even in exactly the same spot, so they both activate together. When I move the waypoints around this way in the mission setup, it seems to fix the problem.

[greybeard_52]

2 hours ago, Stonehouse said:

 

Yep - pics in spoiler in my prior post describe their usage. The pics however depict an Emil so perhaps the rules shown are early war and quite possibly they changed a little by 1944 (hence the solid triangle and circle plus vertical bar symbol the game has) as things became more disorganised for the Luftwaffe.

 

The rules actually changed in 1944, but because there was a reorganization that essentially introduced the fourth Staffel (eliminating the old Stab) into the Gruppe. The black triangle already indicated the Jabo (initially - 1941 - symbolized by a bomb), while the circle with the vertical bar (not very successful in the interpretation of the 1C) has always represented the Geschwader Technische Offizier (as can also be seen from the images that you published).

However, what I wanted to suggest is that the game currently offers (and actually uses in stock careers) 16 possible combinations of symbols and numbers for as many aircraft supplied to the squadron. I don't know if Pat can use them in his PWCG, but that would be what I hope.?

[Picchio]

On 11/5/2022 at 1:49 AM, Mtnbiker1998 said:

Hey Pat, I just flew (actually, I'm currently flying it, have autopilot on while I trek back across the channel, haha) a Mosquito raid near Recamp and noticed that the city wasn't there. Seems I forgot to change the building setting in your options before taking off!

 

I'm wondering if, given the nature of the Normandy map and its mission types, should the default Building density setting when creating a campaign be changed to high? Its easy to forget to change around the options before getting into a mission, and I don't think the buildings themselves have a huge impact on fps compared to settings like ground and air density.

 

Otherwise I'm enjoying the hell out of the latest version, those trucks never knew what hit em!

 

I can't be sure but I think the issue isn't tied to Structures settings - I had mine set to High for a cross-channel Mosquito raid: both over the route and around the objective (a little south of the coast of France, near Dieppe) there were just no cities at all. I mean, it's ok that cities are not generated far from the route and the objective, but perhaps something else isn't working here... ?

Edited November 6, 2022 by Picchio

[Almenas]

19 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

AI.  PWCG can lead the horse to water but it can't make it drink.  If you were not on a fighter mission then not attacking is normal.  if you were on a fighter mission thne you will have to post the mission to the Bug report page.

 

I don't think that I can do that by default.  I'm afraid that it will kill performance for too many people.

If that is so, then the horse may die of thirst. Still, not really realistic to stubbornly fly your course and wave at the opponent. The orders are actually quite clear.
 

"Primary Objective
    Close Air Patrol over our troops  near Bourbourg.  Engage any enemy aircraft that you encounter as a first priority."

 

Thanks for pointing out to move the Ingress point. See if anything changes.

[PatrickAWlson]

10 hours ago, Hotaru_Ito said:

 

Ingress waypoint is priority 0, same as intercept waypoints. Takeoff is priority 1. So that seems correct.

 

However, I just tested it, flying the same patrol mission several times. If I avoided the first patrol waypoint, my wingmen didn't engage a nearby flight of Spitfires until the Spitfires started shooting at us. If I passed the patrol waypoint first, my wingmen spread out to attack normally. In fact, if I passed the patrol waypoint while the Spitfires were in range, my wingmen INSTANTLY started to attack the moment we passed the waypoint. I can send the mission file if you want to test it for yourself.

 

There's definitely something funny about that first patrol/intercept waypoint, because I see another strange behavior too. I pass the ingress waypoint, then the first patrol waypoint activates normally. A few seconds later, however, it disappears and I get a spurious "enemy aircraft sighted, engage" call. My wingmen stay in formation, and if I fly through the spot where the waypoint should be, the rest of the mission continues as normal.

 

I suspect an easy fix is to just put an extra patrol waypoint right after the ingress waypoint--or even in exactly the same spot, so they both activate together. When I move the waypoints around this way in the mission setup, it seems to fix the problem.

 

That's it.  If you don't hit the first WP the second will never trigger and priority will never change.  I will lower the takeoff WP priority.

6 hours ago, Almenas said:

If that is so, then the horse may die of thirst. Still, not really realistic to stubbornly fly your course and wave at the opponent. The orders are actually quite clear.

 

See Hotaru's post and my response.  If that does not resolve the issue then I am out of ideas.  

[Hotaru_Ito]

2 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

That's it.  If you don't hit the first WP the second will never trigger and priority will never change.  I will lower the takeoff WP priority.

 

See Hotaru's post and my response.  If that does not resolve the issue then I am out of ideas.  

 

I hate to say it, but I don't think the takeoff waypoint priority is the issue. The mission I was testing was an air start, and the air start waypoint also had priority zero. I also tried editing the takeoff priority to zero on a strategic intercept with a runway start, and there was no effect.

 

I don't have a clue what's causing this, but I still think putting the first intercept/patrol waypoint on top of the ingress waypoint would clear it up regardless of whatever vanilla AI weirdness is causing it.

[ztgschl]

On 11/3/2022 at 9:05 PM, ztgschl said:

Hi Pat.

I'm new to IL2 but already enjoying your great campaign generator.

 

Since the V14 update i've noticed the following issues with the app:

 

* PWCG will generate 0m altitude waypoints for most of the intercept missions. If an AI pilot is flight lead, our flight will climb and then dive down to ground level, when first patrol WP is reached. It happens on Stalingrad and Normandy maps with Luftwaffe (Allies not tested).

I tried a fresh install of PWCG and a brend new campaign, but the issue persists.

 

* Also the friendly airfields won't talk over the radio anymore. My pilot requests landing permission but gets no response. So it's bit of a guessing game, if the runway is clear.

Happens only with PWCG generated missions, vanilla career airfield radio is fine.

 

Thanks

 

 

On 11/3/2022 at 9:05 PM, ztgschl said:

 

Hi.

 

I just checked with the new 14.1.0 version.

Both issues are still present.

 

thanks

[Hotaru_Ito]

2 hours ago, ztgschl said:

Hi.

 

I just checked with the new 14.1.0 version.

Both issues are still present.

 

thanks

 

I've noticed both issues as well, 0m waypoints on patrols and no radio, both in my I./JG1 Normandy career in early '44. Both seem to be new with 14.0.1. Haven't tried 14.1.0 yet.

[greybeard_52]

On 10/31/2022 at 9:02 AM, greybeard_52 said:

Many skins like "bf109f4_generic_I_JG52" are unreadable with GIMP and I think are not used by game during missions (since unreadable).

 

BUMP!

Still in 14.1.0 and attached skin packs...

[Hotaru_Ito]

22 minutes ago, greybeard_52 said:

Still in 14.1.0 and attached skin packs...

 

Don't know what's up with that. I can open that exact skin (bf109f4_generic_II_JG52.dds) in DXTBmp and it loads fine for me in-game. Suspect it's an issue with your GIMP plugin not liking this particular flavor of .dds, not anything wrong with the file.

 

I think we should be a little patient here, @PatrickAWlson has just finished setting up the whole Channel front career, figuring out how to get tactical codes to behave themselves, and going through pretty much every WWII plane in the game apart from the British ones and setting up squadron blanks for them. That's a lot of new stuff, and it'll take a little while to work out all the bugs.

 

Remember this isn't a full-time dev team we're dealing with here, it's just one dedicated guy who presumably has other demands on his time. Honestly, I'm impressed he's working through this stuff as fast as he is.

 

 

3 hours ago, Hotaru_Ito said:

I've noticed both issues as well, 0m waypoints on patrols and no radio, both in my I./JG1 Normandy career in early '44. Both seem to be new with 14.0.1. Haven't tried 14.1.0 yet.

 

Now that I say that, I'm starting to notice weirdness with the radio in my vanilla careers too. Not no callouts at all, but fewer than before. Less chatter between AI and ground control. Kind of a nice change, to be honest. Think that one might be a vanilla bug, not PWCG. 

[PatrickAWlson]

I think the only thing that a mission maker can do wrong in radio chatter is use the wrong call sign.  Beyond that it is up to the game.

[Spidey002]

I’m in 354th, the first Mustang Squadron, in December 1943. When I select Gyro gunsight for the P-51 B from the options, I still get the British reflector sight. 
 

When I looked at the in-game options, I noticed that BOTH were selected, but the game went with the British one. 

[ztgschl]

2 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

I think the only thing that a mission maker can do wrong in radio chatter is use the wrong call sign.  Beyond that it is up to the game.

 

Just opened a generated mission with the editor.

None of the airfields have a callsign, but changing it in the editor won't help. The airfields stay silent.

 

In vanilla career they behave normal and give landing permission etc. ?

[Marsvinet]

Hey Pat, I have found an issue with 14.1.0. Sometimes when generating a mission on the eastern front, specifically Moscow so far, the tool crashes when you hit 'Accept Mission'. I have attached the log with the stack trace. The issue appears to relate to generating the tactical code for a/some Russian aircraft. Since I can generate some missions without a crash, I appears it is limited a subset of the Russian planes.

 

The campaign is across all maps, with I./KG76, with the current mission date being 05/11/1941. Hopefully that helps narrow down the offending plane/s

PWCGErrorLog.txt

[ECV56_Judas82]

When configuring a campaign to start in cold and dark mode (2) it gives me an error from a few previous versions, I would really appreciate it if you can fix it. Thank you very much.

PWCGErrorLog.txt

[Letka_13/Arrow_]

On 11/7/2022 at 5:03 PM, ztgschl said:

In vanilla career they behave normal and give landing permission etc. ?

I confirm that, the airfields in missions generated by PWCG are silent, ATC worked in the previous versions and it also works in vanilla career. 

[Hotaru_Ito]

19 hours ago, ECV56_Judas82 said:

When configuring a campaign to start in cold and dark mode (2) it gives me an error from a few previous versions, I would really appreciate it if you can fix it. Thank you very much.

 

Cold starts currently aren't set up for Normandy, use runway start or air start for now. Possibly in future, see:

[No105_Swoose]

Salute!  After receiving damage from flak or fighters, RAF Spitfires are still requesting permission to land, attempting to land, and sometimes actually landing on the two Luftwaffe airfields east and west of Calais.  The strange thing is...if the AI pilot succeeds in landing the aircraft and taxiing to a stop without being destroyed by flak and then, after a certain time, "disappearing", the post-mission combat report records the pilot as captured but does not remove the aircraft from the squadron's inventory.  If this problem can be fixed, great; if not, no problem, as the benefits and qualities of PWCG far outweigh the stock career for me.

Brylcreem Boys III 1943-05-01.MissionData.zip

[SorcererDave]

I don't know how new this issue is but I found it amusing nonetheless. I was ordered to do a rail strike at St. Pierre Eglise, and, er, well... We all said bomber command was mad, St. Pierre Eglise doesn't even have a train station! But today we found out why they're paid the big bucks, because our target was there, just as advertised... 

 

 

Edit: For what it's worth, I also witnessed in the same mission, the Germans conducting a sliiiiightly ahistorical paratrooper assault on the Isle of Wight, lol. 

Edited November 9, 2022 by SorcererDave

[SorcererDave]

18 hours ago, No105_Swoose said:

Salute!  After receiving damage from flak or fighters, RAF Spitfires are still requesting permission to land, attempting to land, and sometimes actually landing on the two Luftwaffe airfields east and west of Calais.  The strange thing is...if the AI pilot succeeds in landing the aircraft and taxiing to a stop without being destroyed by flak and then, after a certain time, "disappearing", the post-mission combat report records the pilot as captured but does not remove the aircraft from the squadron's inventory.  If this problem can be fixed, great; if not, no problem, as the benefits and qualities of PWCG far outweigh the stock career for me.

Brylcreem Boys III 1943-05-01.MissionData.zip 1.91 kB · 0 downloads

I've just noticed similar behaviour myself. Doing a Stalingrad campaign in the Yak and one of my damaged comrades attempted to land at a German airfield when he was damaged. Then later I ran out of ammo, ordered the rest of my flight to return to base, and again, they all immediately started heading directly towards a German field that was nearby. Had to hit escape and finish before they got blown to pieces by flak. 

[PatrickAWlson]

6 hours ago, SorcererDave said:

I don't know how new this issue is but I found it amusing nonetheless. I was ordered to do a rail strike at St. Pierre Eglise, and, er, well... We all said bomber command was mad, St. Pierre Eglise doesn't even have a train station! But today we found out why they're paid the big bucks, because our target was there, just as advertised... 

 

 

Edit: For what it's worth, I also witnessed in the same mission, the Germans conducting a sliiiiightly ahistorical paratrooper assault on the Isle of Wight, lol. 

 

If anybody out there can provide me with a reliable source for train track locations I will be happy to use it.

[Hotaru_Ito]

32 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

If anybody out there can provide me with a reliable source for train track locations I will be happy to use it.

 

So far I'm actually seeing 80 or 90% trains on tracks in recent updates. Certainly enough that I'm not bothered by the occasional oddball.

 

I think the only way to get it to 100% would be to manually go through and map valid spawn locations across all five maps. Which might be viable if either a. we accepted having a relatively small number of train spawn points compared to now or b. it was made a community project, as is now being talked about for Normandy cold starts, so Pat wouldn't have to do it all himself.