mazex

Hi, First time user as I am sitting with 2.1 installed and the Normandy terrain does not show up in the modules manager in the game. Tried this tool that seems good as there have been many times when there are module problems - but I must have missed something. When selecting the "WW2" modules like below and clicking "Install Selected Modules" - nothing happens. Have tried running as administrator, and the tools is in my game root folder. What have I missed? Can't find a log file for the tool either? Thanks for creating this tool! /Mazex

Well said. I put $120 into the Kickstarter campaign and I'm really happy that ED picked up the project after it crashed. As long as I get something WWII-ish in DCS World I will be happy... As the original Kickstarter project failed we have no legal demands on ED whatsoever so I see all I get from them as a bonus. And reading your references to New Zeeland I looked down on my shoulder and saw your flag on my hoodie ;) "Deeluxe" from NZ sell well here on the other side of the world in Sweden these days and I spent about the same on my hoodie from NZ as I did on that Kickstarter campaign. As a matter of fact it cost me a bit more ($150) and if I rip a hole in it I will be sorry as I like it - but it's not the end of the world? ;)

Thanks!

Let's unsticky this one now that the year is over? I suppose that the logo competition is cancelled?

You never know ;) Makes me think of this story I heard from a friend that is an ATC: The German air controllers at Frankfurt Airport are a short-tempered lot. They not only expect one to know one's gate parking location but how to get there without any assistance from them. So it was with some amusement that we (a PanAm 747) listened to the following exchange between Frankfurt ground control and a British Airways 747 (call sign "Speedbird 206") after landing: Speedbird 206: "Top of the morning Frankfurt, Speedbird 206 clear of the active runway." Ground: "Guten morgen! You will taxi to your gate!" The big British Airways 747 pulled onto the main taxi way and slowed to a stop. Ground: "Speedbird, do you not know where you are going?" Speedbird 206: "Stand by a moment ground, I'm looking up our gate location now." Ground (with some arrogant impatience): "Speedbird 206, have you never flown to Frankfurt before?!?" Speedbird 206 (coolly): "Yes, I have, in 1944. In another type of Boeing. I didn't stop."

Yes - and it is a very first super-pre-alpha version so I feel a bit over the top complaining about it... But - my thought is that it will be very hard to get the right "feeling" of a flooded field even though it was historically correct. And the problem is that most people don't know about this flooding (even if it was in Band of Brothers? ;)). So if a lot of effort is put down into it and it still looks a bit "weird" in the game I question if it is worth the effort doing it instead of just skipping it? Water in a game is hard to do and very much "on or off" and making a good jagged/fuzzy transition to wet crops/mud will be hard as I see it? Even making good mud/wet ground is very tough in a simulator... Looking at Cliffs of Dover the distant water is one of my few "annoyances" with the landscape as the whole semi distant range looks like it is flooded in Kent. That due to the fact that there are small streams all around and they don't "lod" well so it looks like "too much water" for me at least at semi far distance. Streams/rivers are often a bit carved down in the landscape and surrounded by vegetation so they should "disappear" at a high angle/far distance. Not easy to do naturally and most sims have the same problem (in my opinion). An image from the beta of the game that unfortunately never was completed (Battle of Moscow) of the last (?) version of the Cliffs of Dover engine (not taking in account the amazing work by team fusion on the original CloD engine) where the distant "water problem" I talk of is very pronounced. Small ponds/streams/marshland/water surfaces are hard to do! And sorry Luthier to bring up BoM here ;) But I do appreciate that they try, so we should give them some slack :)

Yes - I've had a pilots license for 20 years or so and I agree that water "from above" look rather different than from a boat/beach. It's rather impressive how far down into the sea you can see banks, rocks, old wrecks etc. I cannot remember flying over flooded fields but if the sediments have "cleared" I can imagine that the water would not be that obvious in some cases? And in other cases very reflective and obvious even with a few decimeters of water... And like Jeesus says - I think that even if you get the color/reflection right it will be hard to get the right "flooded" feeling as I guess that the line where the water "ends" will be a rather diffuse line of grass/crops/mud that is semi covered in water? Not like a well defined shoreline? My image of the flooded tunnel is not a good example as that is a filled "artificial" "crevice" with mowed grass etc... When the "real fields" on the other side of the village are flooded in summertime (like in the Normandy scenario) it becomes a very diffuse line of where the water begins and the soaked crops/mud starts... Something like this (ignoring the color as this is a "freshly flooded field" and I fully buy your first hand experience of that!):

Well - as a theoretical city boy I rest my case, the only flooded fields I have seen are "temporarily flooded" fields after some thunderstorm (which happens sometimes in the fields around our suburb). But that is another thing naturally as they are gone in a day or two... Like this image I took after some rather hefty rain in our neighborhood... There is a bicycle tunnel going under that railway in the background there :) Not that it matters - but I have to add that my son is doing a "silly face" like most kids do when a camera is pointed at them :) He looks perfectly normal in other cases... :)

Even though I appreciate the effort - a feet or two of water poured over a field will never be blue from above - or from any angle ;). But I'm sure you are well aware of that and this is just a very first test... But still - I think that the flooding (even though historically correct) will be very hard to get right? If you "pour" brownish water over the fields it will probably just look strange anyway? Water like that should not have a "defined" edge, but rather a "fade to soaked ground/mud" - and I just can't see that done right without a lot of effort that could be spent on more important stuff? Many will for sure not agree :) Something like this flooded field IRL - but how to get this right in a sim? But I do like the new cliffs! Good stuff!

Hmm, thought about this and did some new alternatives that I think look a little less dull than my first trial? Green: "Blue sky" 300px: 72px:

Looking awesome - wonder what happens with bouncing .50 on that baby? ;)

I agree :) Thanks for the input - will update my "offical" entry...

And to not be accused for political incorrectness... Here is a version with the Luftwaffe font: "Blockschrift für Flugzeuge" ;) 300px: 72px:

OK another font: Large: Icon 72px: And... I looped on through my fonts and liked this one... And saw it was USAAF_Stencil ;)

Gets too boring in my opinion... ? Large: 72px:

Will do a variant like that tonight.

I hear what you say and will try some other variations, the WW II text is really troublesome to get right. The combination of two w:s topped with the Roman 2 easily just becomes a mess of semi vertical "bars"... And in most fonts the W is very wide so getting the font large enough to see in a small icon while staying in a square background is tough. The reason that the RAF font looked like it did is probably just that. To get the letter large enough but not taking up half the fuselage side? And besides a W where all bars are full height is easily messed up from distance looking like two I:s etc? So I actually stopped at this font while "looping" over different fonts I had on my computer to find a W that could do. I have had it for years since doing some IL2 skins years ago. I then realized it was that RAF font :-) And as that font looks very much "aircraft WW2" for me that have used it previously it's easy to get stuck :-) If most other people just thinks it looks out of place it's no use that I get a WW2 feeling from it ;-) I guess it's time to put some time with the path tool and draw my own W letter... And it would be a lot easier if the title was WW 2 as that gets less "messy"... I mean the four letter "word" WW II has ten friggin vertical "bars"... We have enough "bar" discussions here to let's leave it there :-)

Thanks! But I would not say the font is all out of place... You know the name of the font? RAF_WW2_851ATH ;) Look at the W on the Lancaster below: Or the Hurricane here:

And as an example of what I mean by changing the roundel - a quick version of a pacific 1943 version (yes - the "sun" needs more work ;))

And a bit more updating... Getting a bit overdone now ;) Large 300px: Icon 72px: Icon 32px:

Thanks :) Doing stuff like this as a hobbyist is progressive work... ;) Give us some weeks and it may get somewhere...

And I updated the main thread with this variation... Large 300px: Icon 72px: Icon 32px: And yes - I know there should be no country specific stuff - but you could change the roundel in future addons :)

Well, not that far behind then... I saw them live in a warehouse in Gothenburg in 1984 ;) I remember reading that Andrew was so pissed that they sold so few records in Sweden that he refused to take the money for those sales :) And sorry for the thread hijacking :)

Ahh - but Floodlands is not the "real" Sisters of Mercy ;) I have all the classic EP:s before they split up and Eldritch started experimenting :) But I have a soft spot for his first experiment after the 1985 split - "The Sisterhood", which led to Floodland... And I sure like Floodland too - but it's not Sisters for me like "Amphetamine Logic", "Temple of Love" etc... :)

I fully understand what he wants ;) I just argue if that is a game logo/icon or a company logo?