=BURNING SKIES= WWII Server

[PorcoRosso86]

;3159785']waffencat is a combination of german and english: waffen-weapons ... cat is obvious.

 

its RF Jack and CMF ... both fly for the *FF* "firmament fighters" ... i would like to fly with those guys more , but they are speaking russian, and i would just be the 5th wheel on the car ;)

im glad that they fly more german planes now :D

 

Jack is russian? I thought was german! Yep actually flies a lot of german planes, I hope in future they use much more the allies planes :P

[eekz]

I'm currently at the moment when I need to choose:

1. Continue with current fictional mission

2. Switch what's done to the historical mission based on Operation Overlord.

 

Both have pros:

1. More freedom on targets and airfields placement in favor of gameplay comfort (smaller distances, less water, etc.), symmetric gameplay for both side objective-wise (both sides can defend and attack).

2. Playing a mission based on historical maps could be more interesting even if not so comfortable.

 

I'd like to ask for community opinion. Which one would like to see first? Fictional mission at continent only, or as historical as possible mission with bigger distances between England and continent?

[razo+r]

I'm currently at the moment when I need to choose:

1. Continue with current fictional mission

2. Switch what's done to the historical mission based on Operation Overlord.

 

Both have pros:

1. More freedom on targets and airfields placement in favor of gameplay comfort (smaller distances, less water, etc.), symmetric gameplay for both side objective-wise (both sides can defend and attack).

2. Playing a mission based on historical maps could be more interesting even if not so comfortable.

 

I'd like to ask for community opinion. Which one would like to see first? Fictional mission at continent only, or as historical as possible mission with bigger distances between England and continent?

 

What about having both and switching between them from time to time? :P

[eekz]

What about having both and switching between them from time to time? :P

Sure. But the question which one should come first :)

[dannyq8]

Sure. But the question which one should come first :)

 

Whichever you choose I'm happy with, I'm just glad you've created such a great place to fly.:thumbup:

Edited June 5, 2017 by dannyq8

[PorcoRosso86]

I'm currently at the moment when I need to choose:

1. Continue with current fictional mission

2. Switch what's done to the historical mission based on Operation Overlord.

 

Both have pros:

1. More freedom on targets and airfields placement in favor of gameplay comfort (smaller distances, less water, etc.), symmetric gameplay for both side objective-wise (both sides can defend and attack).

2. Playing a mission based on historical maps could be more interesting even if not so comfortable.

 

I'd like to ask for community opinion. Which one would like to see first? Fictional mission at continent only, or as historical as possible mission with bigger distances between England and continent?

 

Historical mission could be much more interesting, for me, with different type of objective, based on pre-overlord and post overlord missions.

A fictional mission could be helpful for new players, but I think that BS, that own a wonderful point assignment and statistics, could be much more fascining with historical missions.

[showtime817th]

I think the Historical mission would be a lot of fun but, the only problem I can see is that we may need 20 to 30 pilots on each side.

 

To fix that maybe have a weekly or monthly Historical mission when most Pilots can be on. I would love for me and a few Squad mates or Pilots that are on TS to do a fighter sweep or a cap or escort some P51 doing a bomb run over a target area....You now what....maybe we will or maybe we wont see any action it's almost would be like dynamic mission I think.

[OnlyforDCS]

I don't care whether it's historical or fictional, as long as it has period WWII units, and some bombers to shoot down or escort! :)

 

It's time we took the fight to 25k+ altitudes.

[Campbell]

Historically would be great! It would also be nice to require some actual navigation. At the moment things are so close that you don't need to know any navigation or how to hold a heading and maintain situational awareness. Adding this will definitely increase realism and emersion.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[eekz]

Thanks for the feedback. I read all opinions.

A little update on a mission.

 

Currently I'm working on scripts part. Expected outcome is zones captured by ground/naval troops based on air support, 'dynamic' objectives, and some other little handy things. So far everything comes along pretty well and I think scrips part will be finished in several days.

 

After it's done I'll update the current mission with a pair of such zones to test scripts and let people to get used to new mechanic.

 

Then we'll move to something of a bigger scale.

[PorcoRosso86]

Thanks for the feedback. I read all opinions.

A little update on a mission.

 

Currently I'm working on scripts part. Expected outcome is zones captured by ground/naval troops based on air support, 'dynamic' objectives, and some other little handy things. So far everything comes along pretty well and I think scrips part will be finished in several days.

 

After it's done I'll update the current mission with a pair of such zones to test scripts and let people to get used to new mechanic.

 

Then we'll move to something of a bigger scale.

 

Ps. I love the decision to disable the F10 and force to use the kneeboard

I've a little question: I saw that sometimes, when you got an air victory in dogfight and the enemy plane did a safe land on the ground, sometimes the statistics sign that like a plane hit in the ground instead aerial victory

Whats the assignment criteria?

[eekz]

Ps. I love the decision to disable the F10 and force to use the kneeboard

I've a little question: I saw that sometimes, when you got an air victory in dogfight and the enemy plane did a safe land on the ground, sometimes the statistics sign that like a plane hit in the ground instead aerial victory

Whats the assignment criteria?

 

If a player who was hit disconnects midair and his plane hits the ground when this player is not on the server. There is technical reason for that. Will be refactored in next stats version.

Edited June 7, 2017 by eekz

[PorcoRosso86]

If a player who was hit disconnects midair and his plane hits the ground when this player is not on the server. There is technical reason for that. Will be refactored in next stats version.

 

Fast and crispy, thanks :thumbup:

[Bearfoot]

Is it possible to download the labels.lua used on this server?

[dannyq8]

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=130161&page=74

 

Post 731

[Bearfoot]

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=130161&page=74

 

Post 731

 

Thanks!

[Roblex]

Thanks for this server which is currently the most popular Normandy server but I have two questions:-

 

1) What exactly is the view mod doing? Toggling it while looking at a distant dot does not show any difference.

 

2) Is there a reason why the Red airfields are so very far from the target? Don't get me wrong, I hate fly-die-fly-die servers where people are continually launching to join a furball 2 minutes away, but it seems a little biased towards the Blue...and I only fly Blue. The result is that we cap the docks but cannot stop someone coming in very high or very low and dropping a bomb before we can catch him then simply despawning because it is too far home. It makes capping the docks a very boring task as we rarely get to engage the enemy. It is not helped by the time wasted on checking every dot when 95% of them are friendlies :-)

 

In an ideal world the return journey would not be so far and there would be some incentive to fly home rather than just despawn and instantly respawn at home.

 

Perhaps a death being counted for anyone leaving his plane or parachute in mid-air as many people feel self conscious about their kill/death ratio. Yes I know people lose connections by accident but more do it on purpose.

Maybe showing number of mid air despawns in the stats.

Maybe putting 'X despawned mid-air near Y' in the chat so it is obvious who the repeat offenders are (that includes people who despawn to avoid giving someone the kill)

Perhaps a message in chat saying 'X has landed after dropping a bomb near Y'

Maybe 'X dropped a bomb near Y' but only after two minutes and only if they are still in the plane (or parachute or alive next to parachute or crash landed aircraft. People do like a little recognition :-)

[eekz]

Current mission is not something final. I plan to roll out improved one with more ground targets tonight or tomorrow night. It's almost ready. There will not be dynamic targets yet as I decided to improved scripting for zone control and city battles and it turned to take some more time.

 

As for midair despawns they are actually displayed in pilot profile as 'Disconnects'.

As for ingame messages I've made a system when you'll have F10 Other menu in radio menu and there is Mission status meny which shows personally to you the current status of a mission.

Text notifications like X dropped a bomb near Y can be tricky to do, I tend to make improved voice notifications via radio channel of you aircraft like it was in Normandy Anticipation mission in 1.5.6, but it also will take some time, as I want to do it better than it was.

[Nirvi]

As for ingame messages I've made a system when you'll have F10 Other menu in radio menu and there is Mission status meny which shows personally to you the current status of a mission.

 

This is a good idea:thumbup:

Sometime it is hard to find a dogfight, even if there are plenty of people online. If everyone knows where the action is, you will get more people heading there.

[rogonaut]

Sometime it is hard to find a dogfight, even if there are plenty of people online. If everyone knows where the action is, you will get more people heading there.

 

had the same feeling

[OnlyforDCS]

I kind of like the layout and the mission. Though I have to say that the boring sunny weather is kind of bringing me down. I would love to see some of those orange and pink clouds and spectacular sunsets and sunrises and different kinds of weather that the 2.1 engine is capable of.

 

One other note. The fights have if anything moved even lower than in 1.5

 

I have discovered the best strategy is to fly at about 1 km or even less and simply prowl north to south and back again, between the respective airfields and the target AO. This works for both Allies and Axis. This works for me and I can usually successfuly jump someone. Staying low works, because you will blend in the ground clutter, and those higher than you will be very easy to spot and track.

[Reflected]

I also feel quite lonely on the new server, flying around, not seeing anyone. Maybe it's because I fly at 7-8000 feet? I always wonder where the action is...

[VII.Racetrack]

My Opinion :)

 

Hi all!

Just want to give my opinion!

This Server is the best right now for the WWII in DCS.

I remember that in the Battle for Gali (version 1.5) distances, targets, and other things were imho perfect..

I mean really perfect, like il 2-46 old style servers.

 

We all love historical missions but also a "Battle for Gali style server" is needed, I suggest to bring both the missions maybe alternating them if players really want Historical missions too.

 

In the Running mission “Axis Attack on Cherbourg Port” imho the Axis fields are too far from obj, they are like 100 km and the distance between the red and blue fields were like 80 Km.

(Maybe I’m wrong checked with tacview).

 

5/10 minutes of flying to go on the Target is good (also pilots have to taxi, startup, rejoin and other things before going on the obj)…

This would make a roughly ETA of 15/20 minutes for a player to go on the Target and again 15/20 minutes to RTB.

Again this means that for every single sortie the player have to spend at least 30 minutes flying in trasfert.

This is okay in a Campaing Server (can even be too short trip) but I think that this is too long for your server.

Many pilots have only 2 hours/day sadly….

Battle for Gali ranges where perfect like from 40 to 50 Km between fields and Targets and from 100 to 120 Km between Red and Blue fields.

Also too far Objective risk to create too large zone of fight and then to disperse the players.

I wish you’ll make this advices yours, if not go on with your work that is good and clearly appreciated

 

This was my humbling opinion, go a head with this work.. It’s very good and I know what it means to get yourself in a project like this.. Creating missions, template, stats, server bla bla bla and, the worst, having to deal with palyers XDXD

 

Go a head!

[eekz]

Thanks, Racetrack. Thanks for your review on the mission.

Currently new one with same airfields but more targets is about 60% complete. I address issues that you've mentioned. I really hope to push it live tomorrow.

[VII.Racetrack]

Thanks, Racetrack. Thanks for your review on the mission.

Currently new one with same airfields but more targets is about 60% complete. I address issues that you've mentioned. I really hope to push it live tomorrow.

 

Keeping myself ready to fly it!

Good luck!

:pilotfly::pilotfly:

Edited June 10, 2017 by VII.Racetrack