philstyle

I am unable to get any missions to end since using the dedi-server tool. I have two missions in a mission list, each mission has the following "event" which should casue the mission to end (and load the next one) after 15900 seconds (4 1/2 hours). However, the missions are not rotating, the first one just runs for ever. Any ideas people? Does the WebGUI for the dedicated server now manage this, or do we still need the in-mission timer-based events for ending a mission?

Yes, I can put MW50 restricted 109s in. Good idea. Just gotta work out how to do it :)

Formations of 12xB17 have no impact on FPS on the SoW server, even up at 28000ft with contrails. There is a small stutter when they spawn, but our missions have 4x raids of 12 B17s, at contrail height, over 5 hour periods - and no real impact on performance. If there were medium bombers, I would swap the B17s out for twin engine aircraft, as they are more suited to the smaller raids. It's frustrating that ED chose to go for the B17 and not a medium bomber actually... a B26 or A20 or similar would have been far more suited to the map.

Just having them in a mission is a start . . .

Whilst there isn't any visuals to show this, it does effectively happen in DCS already. If you pull out of a high speed dive at G above 9 (I forget the exact value, someone made a video of it) you can continue flying. However, if you pull high G a second time, one of the wings will rip off. The first high-G will weaken the aircraft, rendering it combat ineffective and you need to return home. It's jsut a shame tha we don't have visual effects yet to show this, becasue the pilot has no way of knowing for sure if the aircraft has been weakened until they try a preate maneuver and kill themselves.

I intent to provide a summary video to re-cap the whole campaign at the end.

Labels have been off for a long time. The visuals/ spotting is Vanilla, and has been for months. I am going to keep the AI in though, for the following reasons and under these conditions: 1. If the AI is in, at least when ED fix the DM/AI we will already be set to use them. Eventually I would like to only have Ground attack, recon and transport AI on the server. Howeve, we don't have the AI assets for that so I have to use what we have now, and try to make the best of it. 2. SoW has always been about providing an atmosphere and not just a dogfight. The AI adds to the general environment/ atmosphere. 3. SoW is also about trying to provide a place for "single player" people to try multiplayer. You don't have to do PvP on SoW if you don't want to. It should be possible to do something meaningful (like patrols, bomber escort, ground attack etc) without necessarily meeting a human. In order for that to be possible, AI aicraft are necessary. 4. If the AI is too hard, their skill levels will be reduced. The AI is mainly there to keep people on their toes and provide an "active" war environment. They're not there to make poeple's life impossible. I will respond to feedback and reduce the AI skill if people find it impossible to defeat them. Sunday, not saturday :) It's not a cost issue at all. Runnning the server costs me almost nothing. I use my old gaming machine and I have a fast connection.The reason I only run it on Sundays is beacsue at least then I know people will join.However, if I was convinced there was demand during the week, then I would run the server 24/7 again. I also have plans to add pilot/ player statistics, but I'm still looking for the lowest-impact way of doing this. As above, labels (nor custom dot-labels) are NOT activated on SoW.

That argument would hold for DCS if the liveries had an impact on long-range contact visibiliy. But they don't. Put a DCS aircraft in a pure-white livery (like a civilian aircraft) and conduct a range-visibility test. Then put the same aircraft in a camouflage livery and re-do the tests. The "1-pixel" contact becomes visible at the same range in either case.

OK, that explains it, Shame you have to work with a map that doesn't quite provide the correct base.. . I am happy to lend my (horrible) kiwi accent to anyone who wants to make use of it :)

Limiting ouselves is the whole point of it, so yes, seems like you've grasped the concept. It takes me about 2 months to build a mission and any one mission can only be set on one day. . . I try to follow the specific events of that day with unit placements and what parts of the front are active, and I try to replicate weather where possible. The plan is to eventually have 5 to 10 missions in sequence following the day-by-day post invasion battle, so it would be like an online campaign. But, time for me to edit the missions is limited. I could just throw all the airframes in over two airfields and put some tanks half-way between them. But that's already available elsewhere. There's not the player base to replicate that.

1. Well, we don't have the F86, the F14, the F18, the Viggen, The Yak54, the I-16, the Uh1H either. Removing two more is a drop in the ocean. 2. becasue I can 3. "balance" be damned, this isn't war thunder 4. SoW aims to be historical as far as we can. We'll use the airframe designations that fit with the missions we have, which are set in Normandy between 09 and 15 June, 1944. 5. Other servers already go for the catch-all approach. There no requirement for duplication. 6. The people who do actually fly regulalrly on SoW all know where to voice their opinions about the server and the mission set.

Currently server only runs once per week. Sunday nights, EU times. It might to back to 24/7 operations once the FW190A8 comes out in early June.

Nice.. But will we see any LW pilots climbing up to intercept B17s online (like ont he video) . . or will they all remain down at low altitudes?

Wait until the Me262 comes out... lol As soon as the FW190 A8 is released, Storm of Waw server will dumnp the 109K4 and the FW190 D9, and replace them with the 109 A8. If that deters LW fliers then that's just too bad. The historical matchup is more important than filling the server with players. AI will be used to flesh out the air-space if the humans wont do it.

Excellent news. WW2 CA could really do with some updates . . . (mannable watch / airfield control towers!!!!)

Is that screenie from a mod, or from ED development?

Lowering resolution (assuming physical monitor size and other graphcis options remain the same) has been empirically shown to increase the range at which contacts become first visible in DCS. The tests have been done and published.

Yes, but unfortunately the map is set well AFTER overlord, in August 1944 - based on the ALGs that area hard-coded into the map.

I don't use the pipper. The pipper can move around too much depending on your view. If you adjust your view up and down like I do, then it will be in a different place every time. There are too many factors that can influence the bomb by 20 to 50m anyways - a tiny touch of rudder, some wind etc... Just get the target in the middle of the forward view somewhere, maybe just above the engine cowling and release. This is primarily an air-to-air platform anyways.

True, switching the radio off deals with the rest. which is a shame becasue the briefing instructs the player to use the radio... but if the AI is going to make such poor use of the radio then I'd rather have it off. ED don't seem at all interested in dealing with this problem, I've commented on it before in my videos on the Epsom Campaign... it's just another DCS WW2 problem that seems to take second seat.

I have had this happen to me almost every single time. I don't think the codes are working as intended. Now, I tend to re-set the target maker position between firing each Rb-15. If means a longer delay between missiles (thus exposing me to more anit-aircraft) but at least the subsequent missile doesn't just go to the same ship as the first one, 100% of the time.

Fortunately, one of the video viewers (Thomas Palmar) has suggested a way tot run off the anoying chatter via theis: in the main game settings (can't recall which tab) find an option called "Allied Flight Reports" and ensure it's unticked So fo the next video we won't have to put up with the ridiculous radio noise.

We need a map to deploy them on frist. The normandy map is set after the invastion has already taken place and the allies are past Caen. We don't have an Arnheim/ Market garden area map, or any other location where paratroops and glides were used.

I have similar issues deploying the Viggen on many servers. The handful of biggest problems being: 1. The apparent lack of interest in having Maritime targets online. This is one area where the Viggen is perfectly deployed, but mission makers seem to forget that the ocean can be militarised, and the only attention they give it is a carrier for F14s to take off from. Given the vast amounts of coastal and maritime areas on the maps, this is a major mission design oversight IMO. 2. Targets which are just bunch of ground vehicles/ units all spaced apart. The viggen isn't suited to loitering near a target area and making repeated atatcks is both deadly and outside of its design/ role. Whilst the mavericks can be used against single vehicles, using them effectively usually requires multiple passes on a target. What the viggen is better at is delivering lots of firepower in one spot, in one pass. Not many servers have targets that favour this. 3. Similar to the above, Airfield runways can't be harmed in DCS. This is a probolem with the DCS engine. Bomb craters disappear after aa few minutes, so it's not possible to take out an airstrip/ runwasy - which is exactly what a number of the Viggen's weapon systems are perfectly designed for. 4. Targets on wildly varying terrain (i.e. hillsides etc) are very difficult to get at with the Viggen. Without knowing the QFE at the target, or the precise altitude of the target (when it's on a mountain side, for example) the BK90 and other weapons jst dont deploy properly. 5. The Hard-coded map buildings cannot AFAIK be set as targets in a mission ion the way that units and static-place buildings can. The base map is coverd in industrial plants, harbours, etc.. but mission makers can't tell DCS to assign these as "targets", which is higly annoying. Some of the ports (especially the liquid stores), for example, would make wonderful targets - if we could use them as such.