Update 5.203 has been published

[Aleksander55]

On 4/24/2024 at 4:46 AM, Sneaksie said:

5.203b Patch

1. Pilot Career mode: I-16 fighters will not be assigned to intercept missions and bomber escort missions because of their low maximum speed;

 

No, no, no, please don't do this, the I-16 careers are so limited already.🙁  Once we are in formation my AI wingmen actually perform well in the mission. This dificulty of forming up with the bombers should not be reason to just delete everything.

[Sandmarken]

35 minutes ago, Aleksander55 said:

I-16 careers are so limited already

You should try the free scripted campaign "Fortress Stalingrad" for the I-16. It's very well made, and there are so many missions that you'll probably grow tired of the plane before you finish it.😁

[9./JG52Gruber]

@LukeFF

 

On escort style missions I have seen on multiple times now where other "friendly" flights are attacking my flight. Mission files attached. Towards the end of the mission there is another flight that spawns at Pitomnik and takes off to patrol the area. When my flight is in the landing pattern at Pitomnik they will attack. Very strange behavior. 

_gen.zip

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, 9./JG52Gruber said:

@LukeFF

 

On escort style missions I have seen on multiple times now where other "friendly" flights are attacking my flight. Mission files attached. Towards the end of the mission there is another flight that spawns at Pitomnik and takes off to patrol the area. When my flight is in the landing pattern at Pitomnik they will attack. Very strange behavior. 

_gen.zip 2.28 MB · 0 downloads

 

Yes, the mission template designers are looking into it, thanks. 🙂

[Avimimus]

19 hours ago, Aleksander55 said:

No, no, no, please don't do this, the I-16 careers are so limited already.🙁  Once we are in formation my AI wingmen actually perform well in the mission. This dificulty of forming up with the bombers should not be reason to just delete everything.

 

For me the question would be with regard to what is historically accurate. I know I-16 kept being used to escort Li-2 formations fairly late (but the Li-2 is a relatively slow airplane, so the I-16 would have a good margin to catch up). The Pe-2 is relatively fast though. I'd be curious what typical practices actually were.

 

P.S. I think it is also interesting to have varied opportunities to fight the I-16 as an opponent in the campaign.

[=FB=VikS]

On 4/25/2024 at 10:01 AM, the_emperor said:

Thx for the reply. 
so the 800m/s for the 96g shell are correct and in the game?

or does the 840m/s manual specify shell weight and propellant weight as well?

again. Many thanks👍

 

some of the data are controversial - so not sure here, but at least in case of a longer barrel - it should had higher speed (longer barrel =>more speed) and that is the first source (and seems like the only one for the moment) with this difference noted.

 

 

22 hours ago, the_emperor said:

 

from a 1942 T-60 manual for the 20mm Shvak with the long 1540mm barrel, 96g Shell -> 800m/s

so currently the 96g shell (again I am very happy its now in the game) does not reach more than 800m/s even in with the long barrel

 

it may use ballistic barrel for these tables (its oftenly so), and how do you know that these are for 96gr?

 

PS: few pages ago there was one table from one source with 96 and 96,6 - all with the same speed of 800-810 for 1250mm barrel 

 

[the_emperor]

38 minutes ago, =FB=VikS said:

it may use ballistic barrel for these tables (its oftenly so), and how do you know that these are for 96gr?

@=FB=VikS sorry for missing that and many thanks for the reply, here it is:

1538mm barrel

96g HE-I shell (with K-6 fuze and the earlier mixture of separate HE and Incendiary) as well as the 96.6g incendiary

so...does the 840m/s specify shell weight and or propellant weight?

38 minutes ago, =FB=VikS said:

so not sure here, but at least in case of a longer barrel - it should had higher speed (longer barrel =>more speed)

I guess only if propellant charge (and/or shell weight) is adjusted..otherwise it could have no or adverse effect?

and the 96g shell holds less propellant (18g instead of the learier 19.2g for the 91g shell) 

but I guess there are experts here that can explain that far better.

So does the 840m/s manual provide any the shell weight and propellant weight? 

Edited April 26, 2024 by the_emperor

[Aleksander55]

21 hours ago, Sandmarken said:

You should try the free scripted campaign "Fortress Stalingrad" for the I-16. It's very well made, and there are so many missions that you'll probably grow tired of the plane before you finish it.😁

 

I think I've already played all available scripted campaings for the I-16 😭. "Fortress Stalingrad", "Battlefield Kerch", "Defend Velikie Luki". There are a few others that also use the I-16 at least in a few missions. They are all great, I'll replay them eventually.

 

*******************************************************

 

I don't understand why the I-16 escort missions were 'cancelled' when I just wrote a post explaining that all the player needs to do to solve the problem of forming up is to choose 'Start in the air'. That's all thats needed, problem solved, at least for me.

 

To solve the problem of starting with a take off, just have a climbing waypoint towards the frontline/direction of the target, somewhat 'diagonal/parallel' to it if it's too close, and when we get to the right altitude/waypoint the bomber formation spawns in already in vector towards the target.

[=FB=VikS]

35 minutes ago, the_emperor said:

So does the 840m/s manual provide any the shell weight and propellant weight? 

 

there is a ballistics table for 91 gramm - with 815 m/s, and another table with data about ammunition with spread of shell weight noted as 91-98.... and propelland noted as 19,2 gr for all of them 🤯

 

[the_emperor]

52 minutes ago, =FB=VikS said:

there is a ballistics table for 91 gramm - with 815 m/s, and another table with data about ammunition with spread of shell weight noted as 91-98.... and propelland noted as 19,2 gr for all of them 🤯

oh dear 😁 

but not specifically which shell/propellant combination manages the 840m/s? (as this really would be interesting, as the manual says "up to 840m/s")

seems like the soviet where not so thorough when testing  different shells and it was more generalized accross the board.

thanks for the reply, I really enjoy digging through this stuff and have conversation about it👍

 

The Germans did some testing for different shells (1250mm barrel, of course since its a "enemy test", it has to be taken with a grain of salt).

but it gives the 96g shell ~770ms for the 1250mm barrel. so the 800m/s for the 1540 do seem reasonable.

Edited April 26, 2024 by the_emperor

[=FB=VikS]

21 hours ago, the_emperor said:

oh dear 😁 

but not specifically which shell/propellant combination manages the 840m/s? (as this really would be interesting, as the manual says "up to 840m/s")

seems like the soviet where not so thorough when testing  different shells and it was more generalized accross the board.

thanks for the reply, I really enjoy digging through this stuff and have conversation about it👍

 

well - cause its very specific things which mostly noone cares alot - as its not directly relays on airplane construction - where is size/weight mostly matters, as for "real users" things that important is stability and quality of ammunition parameters, noone gonna argue about +/- 10-20 m/s as we do

Also thats depends alot on gun wear, temperature, pressure etc. etc.

The main problem is that almost every source - states different things - and thats a mess... Hope one day we will find something all-in-one data which will make things more clear.

 

 

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Ballistics is a very complicated subject, even today using modern measuring methods, it is hard to put definitive numbers on the performance of any firearm.  You can have two barrels made in the same plant, on the same machines, one after the other, and they will test differently in terms of muzzle velocity and accuracy.  And that isn't taking into account using different lots of ammunition, which puts another set of variables into the equation.

The best you can do is to say that the weapon you tested got X performance on that day, with a particular lot of ammunition, and that's it.

[JFM]

59 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Ballistics is a very complicated subject, even today using modern measuring methods, it is hard to put definitive numbers on the performance of any firearm.  You can have two barrels made in the same plant, on the same machines, one after the other, and they will test differently in terms of muzzle velocity and accuracy.  And that isn't taking into account using different lots of ammunition, which puts another set of variables into the equation.

The best you can do is to say that the weapon you tested got X performance on that day, with a particular lot of ammunition, and that's it.

Agreed. Same with airplane performance. Planes are all different from each other. Same make and model and some are great, some are dogs, some are okay, for a variety of reasons. To expect exact/matching book figure performance for every plane is fallacy. 

[Rudini]

On 4/21/2024 at 10:19 PM, Rudini said:

@LukeFF 

Hi Luke, i dont have the "Power Balance" option in my career.

 

I noticed in an older update last year that these career modifying extensions appeared on my game later than on other players game. 

I can provide a Screenshot tomorrow.

 

Best regards 

Okay it is there. My fault.

 

 

 

 

BUT

 

Tanks for all the work done!!!! For FC i can say:

- once empty airfield full of airplanes

- random flights during missions

- wonderful emersion feeling

 

👍👍👍

[the_emperor]

On 4/27/2024 at 3:06 PM, =FB=VikS said:

The main problem is that almost every source - states different things - and thats a mess... Hope one day we will find something all-in-one data which will make things more clear.

 

 oh yes...really hard to sort out. 

in case if conflicting  sources, does that mean you lean towards favourable one? 

many thanks👍

Edited April 30, 2024 by the_emperor

[jokerBR]

On 4/16/2024 at 4:52 PM, AEthelraedUnraed said:

This new "Dynamic resource allocation system" sounds big! Is there any way to use it in scripted missions? It sounds pretty useful to be able to dynamically scale the amount of objects depending on a user's system.

 

 

On another note, excited to see my Hürtgenwald campaign merged into the official game

If anyone finds any issues or bugs (which, let's be honest, is bound to happen despite my best efforts since nothing is perfect) or has any questions, be sure to say so in the campaign announcement thread

Thanks for the campaign. I love the P-47, although I guess it was a weird start: 
First of all, never got the authorization to take off after taxying. Perhaps I was on the wrong spot, as my squadron was in position but never reported it. They just sat there, looking at me in complete silence, despite my efforts to communicate. Tower never responded my requests or waving, and then, seeing all that precious fuel being burned to no good use, I took off without clearance. My mates followed! Glorious!
While on route for the WP1, my wingman tried to kill me twice maneuvering to crash on my plane. Maybe he was secretely ordered to as a way to punish my unauthorized take off? Realizing that I was keeping an eye on him, he then took his place and chilled out.
After following all the waypoints for a while, we all were over the target area for some time already and not really sure which smoke markers we should bomb. As I was unable to contact command, I went for the white ones despite seeing nothing in the woods. Returning home after circling above the "target" for some more time, I was thinking why only my squadron was returning. I was able to see everyone still endlessly circling over the target when I was back at home, preparing to land. I thought "well, I guess I'll be chewed down by the commander when I land". But no, when aproaching the field finally my wingman detached from position and went darting, managing to finally hit me tooking off my tail. Really determined he was! I should be proud, I trained him. Give him a medal!
Even being at low level, I managed to eject, phew!! Unfortunately, while we both spiralled down the plane slapped the wingtip on my head killing me instantly. The parachute opened and my body landed gently on plane crash site's fire. When I got to heaven and explained to St. Peter how I died, we looked at each other and laughed a lot.
5/5 will play again. 
😁

Edited May 1, 2024 by jokerBR

[4thFG_Cpt_Godfrey]

Since this new patch I get this error.  

 

DXRenderer11::endFrame{..}

DXG1_ERROR_DEVICE_REMOVED {0x887a0005}

 

Tried different drivers, unistalled sim, and adjusted settings all to no avail.

Anyone have a clue what is going on? No other games have this issue.

Thanks in advance for any help offered.

[jokerBR]

20 hours ago, 4thFG_Cpt_Godfrey said:

DXRenderer11::endFrame{..}

DXG1_ERROR_DEVICE_REMOVED {0x887a0005}

Long shot, but if your computer has two graphic cards, you may try to set the preferred gfx. This error can occur if your computer tries to use the "weaker" card by mistake while gaming. 
How to choose the default GPU for games or apps in Windows 11 (digitalcitizen.life)
Similar procedure for both Win 11 and 10.
Hope it helps. 

[Mtnbiker1998]

On 5/6/2024 at 12:38 PM, 4thFG_Cpt_Godfrey said:

Since this new patch I get this error.  

 

DXRenderer11::endFrame{..}

DXG1_ERROR_DEVICE_REMOVED {0x887a0005}

 

Tried different drivers, unistalled sim, and adjusted settings all to no avail.

Anyone have a clue what is going on? No other games have this issue.

Thanks in advance for any help offered.

instead of different drivers, try a fresh reinstall. fixed that issue for me a year or so back

[Mandoble]

Having all the enemy planes your group is dogfighting against despawning all of a sudden is part o the new "features" of this update?

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, Mandoble said:

Having all the enemy planes your group is dogfighting against despawning all of a sudden is part o the new "features" of this update?

 

What sort of mission type are you seeing this with?

[Mandoble]

5 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

What sort of mission type are you seeing this with?

it happened to me in no less than three career missions. All of a sudden the enemy plane that I have in front of my gunsight dissapeared as well as every other enemy plane around. All the enemy group was removed automatically. 

Now, if you question is related to which particular kind of mission, escort bombers and escort attack planes.

[Ace_Pilto]

You could learn to shoot with the gun you have...

[Mandoble]

12 hours ago, Mandoble said:

it happened to me in no less than three career missions. All of a sudden the enemy plane that I have in front of my gunsight dissapeared as well as every other enemy plane around. All the enemy group was removed automatically. 

Now, if you question is related to which particular kind of mission, escort bombers and escort attack planes.

And a bit more on this spawn/despawn.

I noticed the engine spawns groups of enemy fighters randomly, in areas quite far away from my base, mission route or target (even more than 50km away).

These enemy groups neither react to my mission nor do anything else than orbiting their far away bases, and, in this case, they are never despawned.

So, I end with 18 enemy planes doing nothing far away, but then with not a single enemy plane to play with in my mission. This spawn strategy leads to both: 30 minutes of total boredom and a waste of CPU resources.

[Corralandy120000]

On 5/31/2024 at 12:34 PM, Mandoble said:

Having all the enemy planes your group is dogfighting against despawning all of a sudden is part o the new "features" of this update?

This issue happend to me as well today. I was doing a free hunt sortie and jumped on two Yaks. Got one in the first pass. As i was turning to do the second pass and get the second one, the Yak suddenly disappeared when I was few meters behind it and ready to shoot. I've never experienced this before this update. 

[Mtnbiker1998]

On 6/1/2024 at 7:02 AM, Mandoble said:

And a bit more on this spawn/despawn.

I noticed the engine spawns groups of enemy fighters randomly, in areas quite far away from my base, mission route or target (even more than 50km away).

These enemy groups neither react to my mission nor do anything else than orbiting their far away bases, and, in this case, they are never despawned.

So, I end with 18 enemy planes doing nothing far away, but then with not a single enemy plane to play with in my mission. This spawn strategy leads to both: 30 minutes of total boredom and a waste of CPU resources.

 

I can also report the far away aircraft spawning in the new missions, although I've only flown a few missions as a test. 

 

Hopefully this can all get sorted out as I see a lot of potential in this new system!! 

[LukeFF]

On 6/1/2024 at 4:02 AM, Mandoble said:

And a bit more on this spawn/despawn.

I noticed the engine spawns groups of enemy fighters randomly, in areas quite far away from my base, mission route or target (even more than 50km away).

These enemy groups neither react to my mission nor do anything else than orbiting their far away bases, and, in this case, they are never despawned.

So, I end with 18 enemy planes doing nothing far away, but then with not a single enemy plane to play with in my mission. This spawn strategy leads to both: 30 minutes of total boredom and a waste of CPU resources.

 

If you can, please post the _gen.mission file the next time this happens, so our mission designers can look at it. Thanks 🙂

[Mandoble]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

If you can, please post the _gen.mission file the next time this happens, so our mission designers can look at it. Thanks 🙂

I guess it might be easier if they look at their source code, but I'll try 😉

[9./JG52Gruber]

I would echo what others have said that the new escort missions while nice in theory are not that interesting. Playing on parity setting when I do encounter enemy flights they are just orbiting and are not very interested in me or whatever it is I am escorting. The high cover flight is nice and the flak seems more lively but otherwise not much going on. 

[LukeFF]

15 hours ago, 9./JG52Gruber said:

I would echo what others have said that the new escort missions while nice in theory are not that interesting. Playing on parity setting when I do encounter enemy flights they are just orbiting and are not very interested in me or whatever it is I am escorting. The high cover flight is nice and the flak seems more lively but otherwise not much going on. 

 

Our mission designers are always interested in looking at mission files to see what can be improved, so if you have something please post it here. 🙂