philstyle

Only some of the assets at the water stations can be destroyed by the rockets, not all of them.

Hi A4 users, I have some questions, mainly about how the AI behaves when flying the A4: 1. What setting can I sue to get th AI to fly straight into a target, drop ALL bombs in one pass, and then depart. They always seem to want to go around in circles in a drawn-out pattern over the target, dropping only two bombs each run. 2. The AI wing men will never turn their nav lights off. Is there a way to get them to shut their external lights off, once airborne?

I am unable to get AI (wingmen in particular) to turn their external / nav lights off once airborne at night. Is there a control/ option for this?

Using up some footage from this server over the pas few weeks.

I suspect 8GB RAM or less. Possibly has pre-load radius or some textures set high too.

Alpenwolf, What are your thoughts on a bit more weather and time of day variation in missions? As a suggestion; You could publish variations of the same missions into your rotation with weather and ToD changes. For example, having two versions of "mountain whispers" on the server, one in clear daylight and another early morning with some fog and cloud. You woulnd't need to spend much time and effort making new mission files either, just a couple of changes and you effectively have an entire new mission in the rotation. Repeating this for all 10 or so missions on the rotation and suddenly you have 20 to 30 missinons on the server. I'd love to be able to use more of the poor-weather capabilities fo the Viggen on the server, for example, but the current pre-disposition for midday + clear skies in almost all missions means that this capability never/seldom gets to be deployed online.

Fantastic! thanks.

Hey Suntsag, Did this work get released as a Mod? I'm ery keeen to use the wooden Fort/ Tower as a control position at airfieds on the Storm of War server...

Missions on the server will now have a communications menu item which will give the pilot the current status of the GROUND ATTACK targets for their side. This is accessed from the F10 option in the coms menu. Each target will either show as: "ACTIVE" - this means you can consult the brief to get the location, and go attack it, OR "DESTROYED" - this means you will be wasting your time with further attacks on that target Menu option: Example of target status:

Yeah.. it can be a real juggling act to to find the sweet spot. I also found that adding a 10cm extension to my stick helped a lot. The real aircraft has a control column length of about 80cm, so for a real pilot: 1cm of push or pull on the stick will give them 0,71 degrees of control rotation, and 1 degree of control rotation can be achieved with 1.39 cm of push or pull on the stick With a 20-or-so cm length of a normal (non-extended) gaming joystick, 1cm of push or pull will result in 2.88 degrees of control rotation In order to achieve 1 degree of control rotation you have to rstrict your input to just 0.34 cm push or pull So, the real aircraft is, essentially, about 3 times less "sensitive" (i.e less twitchy) than using a gaming stick without an extension of any kind. Even then a 10cm extension like the one I have still only puts me at slightly-worse-than-half of the real-world input sensitivity.

This seems to be the solution to the issue the OP is describing. Also, certain hardware (the thrustmaster warthog sticks in particular) seem to be un-naturally difficult to use with the spitfire, requiring the judicious tweaking of the control curves in order to get a more smooth/ realistic range of movememnt and control input to the elevators and arilerons. Try to get your control surfaces sorted first (i..e reduce the saturation right down.. some of us need it as low as 40%!). When pulling back on the stick do it slowly/ smoothly. Don't rush the input. If you are lagging your target in a turn you don't want to pull the nose from lag to lead in one go, but rather to edge or "coax" it from th elag to lead position. Once in a lead position the aerodynamics will settle and you can close to a firing position. Snapping that nose up to get a shot off quickly will often result in the AoA problme that reflected talks about.

FoV limits have been removed due to the persistent complications with the 109. Thanks to iRocco for helping us understand this issue.

Won't be until later tonight, EU time.

I can't recall right now but a copy of the server.lua or views.lua (one or the other) needs to be packed into the mission archive itself that the server runs. It sounds like we can set 30 or 35 as the minimum FoV, and 120 as the maximum - ideally we'd have the same limits for all aircraft. I'm still not sure if we need to proviude all the other lines of view code though in order to prevent the gunsight problems in German fighters. I'll still need to get to the bottom of this with a couple of the other SoW admins who have the relevant modules.

Wow, I had no idea that the view settings for the 109 had so much content. I'll try to get our config files updated with that later today. Also, I suspect we will have the same problem for the 190.. so I should try to get similar values for that aircraft too. ALSO, how narrow can we get these values in this row here before the views go all wrong again? CameraViewAngleLimits = {40.000000,120.000000}, Would 30 to 115 still be ok? Actually, on further investigation I am more confused by this now. The settings you sent specify specific key bindings for various views. Won't fixing these to the server result in problems for people with other key combinations? Also, do we know whcih specific line controls the gunsight view - which seems to be the one folks have had issues with. Can we adjust the CameraViewAngleLimits line without affecting the gunsight view?

Hi iRocco, Thanks for the detailed feedback. I'm always happy to look at how the server is set up in response to thoughtful criticsm such as this. So, here's my initial responses to each point. We've had some problems with the German aircraft (yes, only the german ones) since reducing the FoV limits. The FoV was mainly reduced for the following reasons: 1. At the widest FoV, which I thingk is set to 140 by default (especially in the allied aircraft) we get horrible fish-eye distortion that looks really bad. 2. At the lowest FoV, which Ithink was 20 by default, in my opinion, the ability to make out aircraft details at range is unrealistic. However, given the issues with the german machines and the gunsights, I am going to try and revisit this now. It might be that I have to find a compromise at one end of the scale or the other. Unfortunately I do not own any of the German modules, so testing is a laborious affair that requires help from someone who does have the modules. But, yes, I will look at this, hopefully this week or next. The issue with the wingman on the wrong channel should be easy to fix. I can check in the next few days that all aircraft use the same Radio freqs if they are in the same group. I had no idea this was a thing. I also have no idea what setting to use to change this. Can you, or anyone else, help me here? OK, there are a couple of things to note here. 1. It is highly unlikely that no bombers spawned at all. This aspect has been tested a lot and the presence of the bomber formations has been confirmed many times. 2 . The information about incoming raids is not perfect. It is designed deliberately to be "approximate", with respect to altitude, arrival time and arrival location. This is to mimic some of the fog associated with RADAR during the 1940s. I also do not want to constantly spam the screen with updated messages about a raid's current location, so you get pone message and that's it. You should get a message on screen when a raid is about half way accross the channel - i.e. 80km out frmo the French coast. At 300kph groundspeed, the bombers will cover this in 15 to 20 minutes. 3. We are, however, looking at implementing a basic RADAR system of our own, given that ED might take another hundred years or so to do anything. However this wil take some coding effort and won't be implemented before January at least in my estimate. 4. The server is also set up to take advantage of someone in the tactical commmander slot, who would co-ordinate the players. This person would work (on SRS, or tamspeak) to get defensive screens in place, and then vector the intercpetors with greater accuarcy once the raid is confirmed visually and reported back by a player. Obviously, with such low players in DCCS WW2 online these days, no-one's really doing this. However, we want the functionality in there from the start so that if thingfs ever do kick off, the Server is ready. 5. Last resort, you can always "cheat". Join the allied side and look at the F10 map. This will show "friendly" aircraft on the map, and you'll be able to see where the bombers are. Then change back to Axis side and go hunt them I don't mind players doing this if it means they get more value out of the server. However, once we get a proper RADAR system in place, we woudl expect people to not continue this kind of behaviour.

Ah OK. I understand.

Germans have a "warning channel"? Is there something similar for the allies also.. I was not away of early warning availability for the WW2 stuff....

Due to the many problems with trying to get the Modded aircraft to fly like.. aircraft.. we've decided to withdraw the missions with the mods from the server, for now. If we managed to fix their behaviour then we might put the mods back in. Alternatively, if ED ever make more WW2 AI aircraft themselves, then that would also do the job.

I have no idea why this happens. It has happened to me before too, but was only temporary. . .

Hi Klem, Yes, I need to add AI interceptors to attack the bombers. Give me a couple of days.

Great! Was not in pacth notes... so I wonder if anything else was also fixed that they haven't mentioned.

Spending all of NZ's Air force Budget for the year 1980-something Carrier landing

Or, alternatively, you lagged and overshot and when the lag stopped, you were in front of him.

strange.. Mods saved in the "saved games" folder shouldn't normally interfere with the IC...