Discussion of Planned Improvements to DESERT WINGS - TOBRUK Game Engine

[DavePro]

J-Hat, nice ideas.  'Ideal' is an ultimate objective, but having it out in front might make it easier to assess different paths heading towards it.  I have a feeling that the GUI is so firmly embedded in the game software that it's extremely hard to do much with it.  I sympathise with the team who have to live with it and do the best they can.

[ITAF_Airone1989]

On 8/15/2020 at 10:02 AM, ATAG_SKUD said:

[EDIT-as I was commonly known to do in school I have answered before reading the question] I see you have a few of these in the works-Good Job!?

 

 

In order of priority

 

Finish Original Sim

1. Night
2. Weather- including variable wind speed/direction at different altitudes (work in progress)
3. Make sure beacons and receivers operate like they should
4. Fix existing AC known model and control errors

Improve Existing Features

1. Redo GUI, don't be shy about looking at what DCS or BoX have done. A unique key mapping assignment for each aircraft would be really nice.
2. Improve Tobruk map artwork including getting the feel more like google earth looks with more naturally shaped and distributed features, ocean wave breakers, wakes from vessels etc (In my opinion this are the biggest lack in the game)
3. Improve stats engine to make bombing count based on target assignment i.e. hangars, storage depots, transportation units etc , BoX is good template

Future Features

1. Tools to help MP hosts make dynamic persistent campaigns with rapid or automated object placement (incl. mine fields), moving, shooting and fighting ground and sea based AI, kill logging and tallying, map advancement

New Maps, AC and Domains

1.  Sicily with carrier ops
2. Flyable Ju 52, SM.79, FW 200, Fw 190 A3, P38F

 skud

That should keep you busy for a while

I requoted Skud's post, changing it a little bit according to my priority.

Plus: yesterday I tried a 6k bombing run on a british airfield.
First -> this kind of autopilot is beautiful!!! I did nothing for 20 minuts and then I was magicaly at the right altitude. Well done!
Second -> I cannot find the target!!! Ok, navigate in the desert it's pretty hard, but I did it in the right way so finally I reached the target... more or less. I mean, there were 2 airport on the map but I can barelly see one of them -> depending on zoom level buildings were appearing/disappearing, I cannot see any roads that was on the map or anything else that should be still visible. I'm afraid that in this way any server will be a forced "berloga" style... ?

[Sokol1]

7 hours ago, JG4_Karaya said:

Quote

  On 8/19/2020 at 5:22 AM, DavePro said:

Ideally their stick should be instantly recognised and mapped, with an explanation of this and vital key bindings supplied.

 

Does any sim actually do this? I cannot remember any sim that worked "out of the box" without requiring me to sit down a few minutes and map axis and buttons.

 

I think that War Thunder has pre assignment's for common joysticks, like Logitech 3D PRO and T.16000M. MS FS2020 too.

 

DCS automatically assign controls for every controller plugged, what result in rudder pedals controlling aileron, gamepad controlling throttle, besides joystick and throttle done the same thing. More hinders than help.

 

In CloD, due insertion of Windows ID number in joystick assignment  became impossible came with assignments, since this number varies from computer.

In mine, joystick keep change this ID number every time Windows go "sleep", but until now just between two numbers, so I have backup of assignments with each number.

41DC2137.ini

ABD81779.ini

With pedal is more rare to happens, but anyway easy to reassign, only the ID is lost, custom adjusts (deadzone, sensitivity) is not. Help too that I use only  (VKB) stick and pedals.

 

Now what definitively don't help is the fact that CloD keep as default assignment one made in 2011,  in what who made use two joysticks, and a five button mouse, so have controls assigned for "mouse button 5" and axes/buttons assigned for Joystick, and Joystick2, what obvious is worthless for the actual ID number system. 

 

But the "new (old) guy" look in Controls and see "their" joystick axes assigned,  start a fly and have no control, and so go complain - with some reason, of broken things. ?

 

A plain oversight of dev's (old and new), as well keep that "blessed" empty, gray "Info Windows" in default ConfUSer.ini, that thing don't help anyone. 

 

 

Edited August 25, 2020 by Sokol1

[56RAF_Stickz]

6 hours ago, ITAF_Airone1989 said:

Second -> I cannot find the target!!! Ok, navigate in the desert it's pretty hard, but I did it in the right way so finally I reached the target... more or less. I mean, there were 2 airport on the map but I can barelly see one of them -> depending on zoom level buildings were appearing/disappearing, I cannot see any roads that was on the map or anything else that should be still visible

At that altitude, if you think its hard in ju88/he111 with a window for the aimer/navigator in the front - try it with a Wellington

[ITAF_Airone1989]

21 minutes ago, 56RAF_Stickz said:

At that altitude, if you think its hard in ju88/he111 with a window for the aimer/navigator in the front - try it with a Wellington

 

?

The problem is not the visibility, is the "not/late rendering" of ground objects

[56RAF_Stickz]

thats what I  was meaning as well, in the welly its below the canopy line when you get  into view/render range, if you try to fly offset to get view earlier from left hand side (where jockey sits), its too close to be able to line up reliably especially as neither bomb aimer nor front gunner get a decent view forward either. At least in the others you can see some vision distance out the front and have a view downwards. Its not a lot better - but I can line up a ju88 or blenheim more reliably. As you say, navigating to the right area - especially south of map is an achievement at that height in anything heavy.

[ATAG_Ezzie]

2 hours ago, 56RAF_Stickz said:

thats what I  was meaning as well, in the welly its below the canopy line when you get  into view/render range, if you try to fly offset to get view earlier from left hand side (where jockey sits), its too close to be able to line up reliably especially as neither bomb aimer nor front gunner get a decent view forward either. At least in the others you can see some vision distance out the front and have a view downwards. Its not a lot better - but I can line up a ju88 or blenheim more reliably. As you say, navigating to the right area - especially south of map is an achievement at that height in anything heavy.

 

Hi Stickz,

 

I wrote the Welly flashcard and one of the things we identified early on was the restricted vision for the bomb-aimer.  My experience prior to the Welly was in the 111 which spoiled me in terms of great visibility out the front and it was a challenge to adapt to the Welly's restricted view.

 

I found that the secret for improving my success was to use the front gunner view and use the zoom control a lot to try and find the tgts as early as possible. This offsets to some degree the late rendering in of the targets. The other technique i used was to not rotate the front gunner at all so that the sight of the front turret remained aligned with the aircraft centre line.  So once i had identified the target area i would try and line the tgt up with my zoomed-in front gunner sight as early as possible.  Sorry if this is what you are already doing and i have told you how to suck eggs...

 

Following the above i improved my ability to spot tgts early enough so that i could make slight adjustments to the aircraft (which was on course mode) to bring the front gunner's centred turret onto the tgt line.  Requires pretty accurate navigation though to at least get your gunner's turret pointing in the right direction.  In a lot of ways navigating over the desert is like navigating over the ocean which is challenging.

 

Still not perfect but i was able to make it work in an agricultural sense and get my bombs on target most times i tried the procedure as above.

 

In case you are interested we did some investigation of the Welly bomb aimer perspex and if you spend some time on the IWM site looking at their Wellington image collection you can see that with the later marks (although there is some ambiguous evidence that some Mk 1c variants had it) they added an additional amount of perspex to the bomb aimer's position in front of the existing piece of perspex that is under the nose.  I suspect - but cant prove - that this might have been introduced to improve the visibility issue that you/we discovered when 'flying' this aircraft.  I could be very wrong though and happy to be told otherwise re why they added the extra perspex.

 

Ezzie

[56RAF_Stickz]

hi Ezzie,

its definately a challenge. I found the gunner view doesnt work for me very well, do not seem to be able get head around to view out to help. I had hoped that maybe I could rotate the turret left or right 90deg and then look out the clear side ie rotate my head 90deg but that does nt seem to be possible (unless doing that wrong).

I can make it work over the coastal areas where I can get a good IP and pre planning. But as I said, down in south with nothing to go by, navigation and timing can only get you so far. Half a mile off over 90miles is still pretty good, but compared to flying in blennie or ju/he greenhouse still leaves a huge hurdle to see target.  The rest as you say becomes pretty agriculteral. It wasnt meant as a complaint, just a tongue in cheek response to Airones about not seeing roads at altitude nor buildings. It is pretty difficult over half the map and induces the low level strike mentality.

And irl they were doing it in the dark as well.

Best method I thought was using a blenheim as a pilot fish role.

You could well be correct about adding the perspex view, it must have been pretty apparent that his view would be unable to asist the pilot and that the pilot would have great difficulties looking down below nose line.

[FTC_Karaya]

On 8/25/2020 at 11:39 AM, J-HAT said:

I open CloD for the first time and get a pop up message for the controller configuration wizard.

I click on it and it asks me to (maybe first select my joystick and then to) move my joystick in the pitch direction. It shows you the input at the same time so you know it is the right one. You click save and next.

Then it does the same thing for the roll axis. And then rudder axis.

Then it asks you for your throttle axis.

All main axis are done.

Then the wizard continues with the main button functions (trigger, drop bombs, launch rockets, WEP, if you want to use a hat switch etc.).

At the end the wizard would show you with a couple of animation or pictures how to set the rest from the controller mapping UI. And after you finish it the configuration is saved and you are good to go.

 

This is actually being worked on ?

[9./JG52_J-HAT]

19 minutes ago, JG4_Karaya said:

 

This is actually being worked on ?

 

That is great to hear! Thanks for the update, Karaya.

 

Maybe when you have it working properly make a video to promote the feature and post it on Steam.

[FTC_Karaya]

I'm not a dev. Should be promoted by a TFS member if anything.

Edited August 31, 2020 by JG4_Karaya

[Sokol1]

Quote

 On 8/15/2020 at 5:02 AM, ATAG_SKUD said:

1. Redo GUI,...A unique key mapping assignment for each aircraft would be really nice.

 

Assignment per aircraft already exist, just use SAVE As and LOAD - can use including during flights. Don't need be like in DCS, will just complicate a already complicate thing (CloD GUI).

 

What GUI  really need is work in aircraft commands, broken the actual "Babel" in sections:

 

Engine

Weapons

Flight controls

Autopilot and navigation

Etc.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Sokol1

[dazako]

1 hour ago, Sokol1 said:

 

Assignment per aircraft already exist, just use SAVE As and LOAD - can use including during flights. Don't need be like in DCS, will just complicate a already complicate thing (CloD GUI).

 

Good idea.

 

If you're going to fly a variety of aircraft then this is the most practical option. I have individual .ini files named fighter / bomber etc with appropriate controls mapped and load each file when I select the plane. Once in a while I might forget to switch but it's easy to esc to the options page / controls / load file and back to cockpit within a few seconds and continue. The only issue is my memory ! 

 

Daz

Edited August 31, 2020 by dazako

[Mysticpuma]

On 8/16/2020 at 9:53 AM, Mysticpuma said:

Hi Buzzsaw. 

Regarding the night time environment, we all know the colours are terrible as is the transition from night to daytime in the current engine. 

 

As I understand it, TruSky brings its own lighting engine and it includes its own sky boxes too? With that in kind, have the team been able to test TruSky and see what effects this has on the awful sky banding and also how the night-time environment colours are affected and what the lighting looks like through the night and transition to daytime? 

 

Reading your input it looks like this is likely the first big update we will see (non bug fix) so would it be possible to ask Pattle to concentrate on a few video updates of the new weather system in action showing night and daytime features TruSky will bring? 

 

One final question. 

Now that Tobruk is out are there any thoughts on talking with 1C and asking if TFS will be able to release (while v6.00 is being created) aircraft packs in the interim. We know the map has taken the longest time and creating a huge amount of aircraft for v.500 was vastly time consuming but now it is out, rather than wait another 2-3 years for v6.00 and another large expansion, could it be considered that matched aircraft pairs be created by the team and released as collector aircraft for $20-25 thus giving the team an injection of cash and allowing them to keep development rolling on wherever v6.00 takes us (Italy?). 

 

I know it will probably require a renegotiation of the contracts but it's probably the best way to keep interest fresh and the forums talking about CloD? 

 

Cheers, Mysticpuma 

Also (including the above), more variety in the texture of the map. I am under the impression from people who know the area that not much has changed since WW2 apart from population and building density. This thread on ATAG has images of the area in the FSX 2020 game engine and the variety of land colours is stark in comparison to the current Tobruk map. 

 

https://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33917

 

In terms of ground textures too, I would love to see a lot more tyre tracks and wear around airfields and towns. This is a  picture from the time period showing an airbase with multiple tracks in and out of the base.

 

 

 

Next I would love to see a QMB like IL2:1946 had. 

 

Effects:

Something has to be done with the particle/effects engine. The times when all effects vanish including gunsight, water, smoke, flame because the particle/graphics engine is overloaded is a real pain. When the effects work they are good, I do however lament the loss of the original effects. The smoke effects have particularly suffered in an attempt to reduce particles, fire is good and the dust effects nice. 

I do wish there was a prop-wash effect on the ground and water, again like the original 2001 IL2, this was another area which made the environment alive.

 

 

Men that run from vehicles under attack, another addition to the game that would make the environment more alive.

 

 

 

Aircraft breakages, where parts break off aircraft, I would love to see more diversity of failures so the edges are not straight lines but jagged, ripped, torn edges.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Support for TacView which was proposed but so far not available?

 

A final fix for the render bubble. Something that finally gets rid of the buildings, trees and landscape popping into view.

 

 

Final question,  is it actually possible to change a game engine for one that supports dynamic lighting or PBR, also better particle effects, and visual effects?

 

Cheers,  Mysticpuma 

Edited September 1, 2020 by Mysticpuma

[FTC_Karaya]

On 9/1/2020 at 8:22 AM, Mysticpuma said:

Final question,  is it actually possible to change a game engine for one that supports dynamic lighting or PBR, also better particle effects, and visual effects?

 

All fair points until this one. Swapping out the entire rendering engine? You must be joking. ?

 

Let's wait until the new weather engine is out and the rendering of cloud and weather effects has been shoved from the CPU to the GPU. That will most likely fix the particle limit bottleneck in the process.

Edited September 2, 2020 by JG4_Karaya

[Mysticpuma]

15 minutes ago, JG4_Karaya said:

 

All fair points until this one. Swapping out the entire rendering engine? You must be joking. ?

 

Let's wait until the new weather engine is out and the rendering of cloud and weather effects has been shoved from the CPU to the GPU. That will most likely fix the particle limit bottleneck in the process.

 

There was talk of a switch to PBR, posted somewhere about 3 years back.

Regarding the clouds/particle bottleneck shifting it to the gpu hasn't helped.

I posted a video recently showing the effects all vanishing as well as the water:

 

There were no clouds in the mission and yet the effects system was overloaded, so the clouds certainly don't affect the overload in this scenario.  This is why I think it will require a complete overhaul of the effects enginebitself rather than keep stripping away yet more particles?

[LLv34_Flanker]

S! 

That video looks like taken from Sidi Barrani area with the fuel depot and other targets around, at least on Operation Sandstorm at TFS #3. I have bombed it several times and never experienced loss of effects like that, even with multiple planes attacking. 

[Sokol1]

On 8/25/2020 at 6:44 AM, DavePro said:

  I have a feeling that the GUI is so firmly embedded in the game software that it's extremely hard to do much with it. 

 

If the former No.2 of CloD original development are not playing as "Baghdad Bob/Comical Ali" when post this in "Bananas'dramas", is the case:

 

"The GUI especially is our Achilles heel. Like I wrote earlier in the thread, somebody somewhere before I ever showed up chose to make it in a horrible clumsy environment called WPF. By the time I showed up it was too late to go back, and going forward proved extremely painful. Each new screen took forever, everything was clunky, tiny changes or bug fixes required insane amounts of effort, and in the end it took a tremendous painful effort to reach the decidedly insufficient GUI that we have today."

 

 

[ATAG_Flare]

56 minutes ago, Sokol1 said:

 

If the former No.2 of CloD original development are not playing as "Baghdad Bob/Comical Ali" when post this in "Bananas'dramas", is the case:

 

"The GUI especially is our Achilles heel. Like I wrote earlier in the thread, somebody somewhere before I ever showed up chose to make it in a horrible clumsy environment called WPF. By the time I showed up it was too late to go back, and going forward proved extremely painful. Each new screen took forever, everything was clunky, tiny changes or bug fixes required insane amounts of effort, and in the end it took a tremendous painful effort to reach the decidedly insufficient GUI that we have today."

 

 

 

I wonder if it would be easier to rewrite a totally new GUI at this point maybe even doing something really simple like making an HTML-CSS interface that just calls up the actual launcher64.exe when you load into the mission. This would require a bit of up-front work but honestly the GUI is something that could really use a complete redo.

 

The GUI in CloD is smooth with almost no lag or loading apart from actually loading the mission but the good things pretty much stop there. Scrolling is awful, the controls menu categories are confusing, the aircraft selection should probably be a list view of the main types (Spitfire V, 109 E-3 etc) and maybe a pop out menu with the variants (trop, B, N, late, etc) rather than the 3x3 grid with pictures.

 

The plane loadout screens need an overhaul too. They don't work correctly sometimes and are very complicated and could be more user friendly. It should also have an option to copy lodaouts between planes of the same armament - so for all the E-4s and E-7s (B, N, late, trop, Z) or every mk I and IIa Hurri and Spit you could copy the convergence and ammo belts between them without having to make the same loadout 20 times.

 

It would also be nice to have a QMB in the IL2 GB style - this would actually be pretty easy to make - make a few mission files at different map locations that gets the plane type edited when you choose the plane and then change the altitude based on a dropdown box. Ground targets check boxes adds some or deletes some from the .mis file, and you're set. This is probably GUI limited - I could probably write the actual QMB code in python in a week and I'm a pretty poor programmer, but adding the map and plane selection screens could be difficult.

 

It would also be good to take a look at the info windows - maybe a seperate category in the server messages between kill messages and server messages - sometimes tab-4 radar gets pushed out of the screen by some AI bomber dying and every gunner death showing up in the kill feed. The map could be changed too so the scrolling is the right way around and the airfields and place names don't overlap so much.

[TheVino3]

15 hours ago, Mysticpuma said:

I posted a video recently showing the effects all vanishing as well as the water

 

There were no clouds in the mission and yet the effects system was overloaded, so the clouds certainly don't affect the overload in this scenario.  This is why I think it will require a complete overhaul of the effects enginebitself rather than keep stripping away yet more particles?

 

The problem demonstrated in that video is that the water bomb explosions spawn a huge number of sub-effects to represent shrapnel flying away from the explosion. It looks like there are 32 bombs being dropped from each aircraft and in very quick succession. The number of particles it is therefore creating is just astronomical.

If 8 planes drop 32 bombs into water, and each bomb explosion creates, lets say, 100 shrapnel impact sub-effects... you've just asked the particle engine for 25,600 particles to be rendered and simulated. The problem is avoiding a situation where you ask the particle engine for that many particles in the first place. Theres not realistically a particle system we could use that would effectively handle the number of particles that are being generated, no game has a sprite particle system that could. 

 

To be clear, the bomb explosion particle effects are not to blame, nor the large fuel explosions, its the shrapnel impacts that are automatically generated around the bomb impacts. The numbers just climb too quickly and there is no system of "throttling" how many shrapnel impacts are created, that I am aware of. What will probably have to happen is that we just cut the number of shrapnel impacts dramatically, its on the list of bugs to fix. Its not the particle system failing in this situation, its the game asking far too much from the particle engine. 

 

There are, in actuality, essentially no particle engines that are as powerful, flexible, and stable as CloDs particle engine. It is a truly masterfully written part of the game. Very complex particle effects can be made very quickly, it has a huge number of parameters which allow for great flexibility, and its error handling is great. Even when it gets completely overloaded, it just cuts rendering and allows the game to continue until the number comes back down - that is a LOT better than crashing or throwing an error. It doesnt look great when all the particles disappear, but its stability that other systems often don't have. Overhauling or migrating to a new particle engine is... very unlikely... for these reasons. 

 

By moving the clouds to the GPU, the likelihood of reaching a load on the particle engine that causes the rendering cut is far lower. Its not zero, because situations like the aforementioned are still possible, but in normal play it should be very uncommon. 

Edited September 3, 2020 by TheVino3

[peregrine7]

Are the bomb splashes and sub-effects sprites? Considering water is at Z=0 could this be handled using a larger effect centered below z=0 with the top peaking out? This would reduce the particle count - probably at the cost of clarity.

@TheVino3

Edited September 3, 2020 by peregrine7

[Sokol1]

On 9/1/2020 at 3:22 AM, Mysticpuma said:

Aircraft breakages, where parts break off aircraft, I would love to see more diversity of failures so the edges are not straight lines but jagged, ripped, torn edges.

 

 

 

Spitfire at least have this kind of damage on wings, but in recently updates, that  "surgical laser cut" that early in game are applied only to Fiat B5.42, Do-17, in what a burst of .303 remove he entire tail section  was added to other planes, and "sawed" tail, wings... became a common place. "Sawed wings" is a very cheap effect, OK in 1990's CFS, but today?

 

As times goes by, CloD loses what it had done well, such as the liquid leak spray, replaced by a chain of smoke puffs.

Edited September 6, 2020 by Sokol1

[Rei-sen]

7 hours ago, Sokol1 said:

 

Spitfire at least have this kind of damage on wings, but in recently updates, that  "surgical laser cut" that early in game are applied only to Fiat B5.42, Do-17, in what a burst of .303 remove he entire tail section  was added to other planes, and "sawed" tail, wings... became a common plane. "Sawed wings" is a very cheap effect, OK in 1990's CFS, but today?

 

As times goes by, CloD loses what it had done well, such as the liquid leak spray, replaced by a chain of smoke puffs.

Is it really so? But what is the reason for changing something that looks great with something worse?

 

Could TF devs shed some light on this?

[ATAG_SKUD]

On 8/31/2020 at 11:40 PM, Sokol1 said:

 

Assignment per aircraft already exist, just use SAVE As and LOAD - can use including during flights. Don't need be like in DCS, will just complicate a already complicate thing (CloD GUI).

 

What GUI  really need is work in aircraft commands, broken the actual "Babel" in sections:

 

Engine

Weapons

Flight controls

Autopilot and navigation

Etc.

My point was more towards filtering the available key assignments against the actual aircraft controls that can be mapped. So I don't have to figure out if extend impeller (whatever TH that means) vs. cycle supercharger applies to my aircraft. Fully agree, two cheap and easy fixes would be organize controls into logical group menus and get rid of spurious unknown controls like, well, extend impeller.

skud

 

Edited September 4, 2020 by ATAG_SKUD

[TheVino3]

15 hours ago, Sokol1 said:

As times goes by, CloD loses what it had done well, such as the liquid leak spray, replaced by a chain of smoke puffs.

 

Liquid leaks have not been replaced, oil and fuel leaks are still in game as trails. 

Edited September 4, 2020 by TheVino3

[Sokol1]

My "nitpicking" is that leaks don't look that "fluid, convincing spray" like used to be:

 

https://youtu.be/v6u4JxgE2S4?t=1576

 

Now is more... 'crude". 

 

But,  "water under the bridge". 

 

[Sokol1]

9 hours ago, ATAG_SKUD said:

... and get rid of spurious unknown controls like, well, extend impeller.

 

With the successive "sweep under the rug" thinks like Impeller, (air) Compressor, Carburetor heater... became just a annoyance in Controls.

 

Impeller probable was planed to be needed for the - never implemented; "transceiver" in Br.20 navigator cockpit, for what two spurious "increase/decrease transceiver frequency"command still listed in controls.

 

The "Rule of the Thumb" is not try figure what all commands listed do, but just figures what commands you need for control an given plane, you can raise/lower He 111 pilot seat... nice, but you need this? really no. ?

[ilmavoimat]

9 hours ago, ATAG_SKUD said:

My point was more towards filtering the available key assignments against the actual aircraft controls that can be mapped. So I don't have to figure out if extend impeller (whatever TH that means) vs. cycle supercharger applies to my aircraft. Fully agree, two cheap and easy fixes would be organize controls into logical group menus and get rid of spurious unknown controls like, well, extend impeller.

skud

 

"Extend impeller" key is for the back up generator on the Fiat BR20.

[ATAG_SKUD]

1 hour ago, ilmavoimat said:

"Extend impeller" key is for the back up generator on the Fiat BR20.

Thank you.

I consider myself enlightened.

skud

[Livai]

On 9/3/2020 at 5:05 AM, ATAG_Flare said:

I wonder if it would be easier to rewrite a totally new GUI at this point maybe even doing something really simple like making an HTML-CSS interface that just calls up the actual launcher64.exe when you load into the mission. This would require a bit of up-front work but honestly the GUI is something that could really use a complete redo.

 

-> So much work was invested into the GUI that it always seems easier continuing the work rather than starting at zero with a brand new GUI.

 

BTW Making making an HTML-CSS interface a idea, another idea is swapping out the original GUI and using "Unreal Engine" as GUI instead as complete redo but everything else run on the original Game Engine as before.....................

Edited September 5, 2020 by Livai

[Dagwoodyt]

I have noticed in 2v2 quick missions that my AI wingman lawn darts routinely, frequently within seconds of mission start. Modding AI skill level in the FMB does not seem to improve wingman's lifespan. Further, wingman does not call a "break" even when in position to see I am under attack. If my wingie could just call a "break" that would represent a substantial enhancement to the SP experience.

[Redwo1f]

31 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

I have noticed in 2v2 quick missions that my AI wingman lawn darts routinely, frequently within seconds of mission start. Modding AI skill level in the FMB does not seem to improve wingman's lifespan. Further, wingman does not call a "break" even when in position to see I am under attack. If my wingie could just call a "break" that would represent a substantial enhancement to the SP experience.

 

May I ask what you have been flying? I have yet to have seen that at all - trying to replicate.

[Dagwoodyt]

1 hour ago, Redwo1f said:

 

May I ask what you have been flying? I have yet to have seen that at all - trying to replicate.

Spitfire Ia v 109 E-4. Can post .MIS file(s) if needed.

Edited September 5, 2020 by Dagwoodyt

[Redwo1f]

43 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

Spitfire IIa v 109 E-4. Can post .MIS file(s) if needed.

No worries - I am off to test behaviour just with quick 2v2 and that particular match up. 

Last 2v2 quick I ran (109E-4 vs Hurricane), wingman not only didn't lawn dart, but assisted by killing a Hurricane on my tail that (I purposely got into trouble to observe) - off to look at your match-up. Edit: oh, not that is should be relevant, but was it over a particular map?

 

Edit - I have just ran 4 ---- no problems. As long as you tell your wingman to engage, they have been performing well for me - aggressive at times, defensive, also protected my tail from number 2...so Idk (I have seen some complaints - just haven't experienced lawn darting at all and AI seems okay (???)). Can you upload your mission and I will specifically run that? 

Edited September 5, 2020 by Redwo1f

[Dagwoodyt]

[PARTS]
  core.100
  bob.100
  tobruk.100
[MAIN]
  MAP Land$English_Channel_1940
  DespawnAfterLandingTimeout 600
  BattleArea 140000 120000 80000 70000 5000
  TIME 14.0000003390014
  WeatherIndex 0
  CloudsHeight 700
  BreezeActivity 10
  ThermalActivity 10
  player BoB_RAF_F_602Sqn_Early.000
[GlobalWind_0]
  Power 3.000 0.000 0.000
  BottomBound 0.00
  TopBound 1500.00
  GustPower 0
  GustAngle 45
[splines]
[AirGroups]
  BoB_RAF_F_602Sqn_Early.01
  BoB_LW_JG26_I.21
[BoB_RAF_F_602Sqn_Early.01]
  Flight0  1 2
  Class Aircraft.SpitfireMkIa_100oct
  Formation VIC3
  CallSign 17
  Fuel 70
  Weapons 1
  Skill 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.53
  Aging0 37
  Briefing 2
  Serial0 L1372
  Serial1 L1126
[BoB_RAF_F_602Sqn_Early.01_Way]
  AATTACK_FIGHTERS 154671.23 165073.27 50.00 400.00
  AATTACK_FIGHTERS 163996.72 160559.77 50.00 400.00
  AATTACK_FIGHTERS 191255.03 185315.68 50.00 400.00
  AATTACK_FIGHTERS 229247.00 173764.11 50.00 400.00
  LANDING 224947.79 229018.35 500.00 300.00
[BoB_LW_JG26_I.21]
  Flight0  1 2
  Class Aircraft.Bf-109E-4
  Formation FINGERFOUR
  CallSign 18
  Fuel 42
  Weapons 1 1
  Skill 1 0.79 1 1 1 1 1 0.53
  Aging1 68
  Briefing 2
  Serial0 8978
  Serial1 7554
[BoB_LW_JG26_I.21_Way]
  AATTACK_FIGHTERS 155682.33 159402.79 50.00 400.00
  AATTACK_FIGHTERS 162209.29 170748.13 50.00 400.00
  AATTACK_FIGHTERS 203588.30 183617.62 50.00 400.00
  AATTACK_FIGHTERS 217823.19 170777.10 50.00 400.00
  LANDING 157259.76 57425.05 500.00 300.00
[CustomChiefs]
[Stationary]
  Static0 Stationary.Radar.EnglishRadar1 gb 78603.79 181122.39 40.00
[Buildings]
[BuildingsLinks]

 

 

Note: Skill levels differ from stock QM and may account for AI behavior difference. 

088 - Dogfight - Even - Low Level.zip

Edited September 5, 2020 by Dagwoodyt

[Redwo1f]

1 hour ago, Dagwoodyt said:

[PARTS]

088 - Dogfight - Even - Low Level.zip 946 B · 3 downloads

 

Gosh, I was hoping to be able to tell you that yup, AI wingman wasn't behaving (and therefore there was an issue specific to the mission)...but I can't. Ran it 3 times. No issues. Wingman was fine (he even got kills in 2 of the 3) - and no lawn darting....i'm sorry ?

 

(Could it be a cpu hiccup of some sort you are having (???) - idk...)

Edited September 5, 2020 by Redwo1f

[Dagwoodyt]

15 hours ago, Redwo1f said:

 

Gosh, I was hoping to be able to tell you that yup, AI wingman wasn't behaving (and therefore there was an issue specific to the mission)...but I can't. Ran it 3 times. No issues. Wingman was fine (he even got kills in 2 of the 3) - and no lawn darting....i'm sorry ?

 

(Could it be a cpu hiccup of some sort you are having (???) - idk...)

[08:29:54]    Mission loaded. time = 3.345
[08:29:58]    Battle starting...[08:29:58]    Server: Battle begins!
[08:29:58]    ok
[08:30:38]    Server: Pilot of a Spitfire Ia (100oct) (LO o B) (AI) is dead.
[08:30:38]    Server: AI in a Spitfire Ia (100oct) (LO o B) collided with terrain.

 

Yes, on my machine result as above is typical for this mission. Wingie either collides with terrain or gets wasted by 109 AI in similar time frame. I ran it 3 times after noting your results.

That aside, I would still like to have my AI wingie be able to call out a "break" when positioned to do so.

Edited September 6, 2020 by Dagwoodyt

[Spook109]

TEAM FUSION: 

 

The game is missing so many important control bindings:

• Provide an AXIS binding for zooming the pilot's view in and out
• Key binds for both states of switches (example: instead of "gear up/down toggle" give us two bindings "gear up" and "gear down")
• If the real control is an axis, please provide an axis in the game to bind the controller to (dials and levers)

[Sokol1]

1 hour ago, OG_Porkchopper said:

The game is missing so many important control bindings:

• Key binds for both states of switches (example: instead of "gear up/down toggle" give us two bindings "gear up" and "gear down")

 

This option already exist (in Controls > Keys > Aircraft)

 

"Raise undercarriage" - '"translate" as landing gear UP

"Lower undercarriage" -   '"translate" as landing gear DOWN

 

Same option for Flaps, Airbrake, Bomb bays, Leading Edge Slats and ... "Impeller" (don't ask for what). ?

 

Anyway game controls logic (il-2:46 heritage) don't allow complex for e.g. flaps operation, only 3 basics positions: Up-Neutral-Down, what hamper operation of flaps with more positions, like Ju 87, Ju 88.

 

BTW - L/G control can be set in an analog  axes too (e.g. from Saitek Quadrant), axis  0~50% LG down , ~51-100% LG up.

The axis became a "ON-ON switch", but the lever in quadrant give an visual(and tactile) feedback of L/G status -  I don't understand what people have against the landing gear indicator that all planes have in panel, needing "HUD/Technochat" for telling then the same thing.

 

Edited September 13, 2020 by Sokol1

[Blitzen]

I know its been discussed but are their plans ( or is it even possible ) to improve evening settings & night skies.Sunset is really pretty but dusk after or before sunset/sunrise & night skiesare the weakest graphics surroundings of the sim in my view.There may have been some progress with DWT but still the lighting of the sky & objects shown in it is/are disappointing.?