Fw 190D-9 Campaign Problems and Suggestions

[Yurgon]

[...] so maybe the variances are too much for trying to make such a tight rule...

 

If I understand correctly that you are not 100% sure about the correlation between cockpit instruments and ME measurements, wouldn't it be a good idea to design the mission in a way that the constraints are less tight?

[NineLine]

If I understand correctly that you are not 100% sure about the correlation between cockpit instruments and ME measurements, wouldn't it be a good idea to design the mission in a way that the constraints are less tight?

 

Yes, but its hard when you are trying to make a timed mission or other goals, it ends up being tough to either make it challenging or too challenging if that makes sense...

 

For example, the key to the first leg is to get you to a certain point, if I make the ranges too broad, it could be hard to get you to the second point...

[NineLine]

You guys can try one I have been tweaking and such, see if it makes sense and is any easier to do...

Fw 190D-9 04 - Relocate - Simple Navigation Rev2.miz

[Art-J]

I think there is some issues with the gauges in the cockpit and what the aircraft is actually doing, I just submitted a new climb mission, but for 6km, I had to use 5900m I think, so maybe the variances are too much for trying to make such a tight rule... I think my new new mission is better, but we will see, I think I am going to do something different for the 109.

 

Tell me about it. Stumbled upon this issue yesterday. When my altimeter showed about 6.1 km I was happy, only to notice "not fast enough" message a second later. External view told me I actually was at 5950 m.

 

I know all barometric instruments work with certain inertia when climbing/descending quickly, but in this case looks like the altimeter is a bit ahead of what the aircraft is doing :D.

[Yurgon]

For example, the key to the first leg is to get you to a certain point, if I make the ranges too broad, it could be hard to get you to the second point...

 

I understand the problem and sympathize with your troubles.

 

I just think that when your approach is to force the player into very tight constraints, you should be sure that the checks are 100% spot-on.

 

Alternatively, you could choose an approach where you grade the player, but the timing/speed/heading constraints only matter in regards to the accumulated score.

 

For instance, when I flew the updated mission from post #28, I did overfly the trigger zone that should direct me towards Krymsk. But with the speed checks and therefore the timing constraints being way off IMO, the action wasn't triggered and instead I failed the mission when I wasn't inside the trigger zone 300 seconds after mission start.

 

With an alternative approach, the action ("Turn to new heading" or whatever) could be triggered regardless of my timing. But if I was too early or too late, my score would be decreased.

 

That way, if I have some troubles (or if the constraint checks are off), I don't automatically fail the mission and still get sent to the next waypoint. Personally, I would prefer this approach over the "Your timing is off, quit and repeat" approach.

 

Regarding the updated mission, as I said above I flew it and failed the first test again. Did you change anything there? I peeked at the mission in the editor and the speed and timing checks for the first leg looked just like in the first two versions. :huh:

 

According to the waypoints set in the ME, the player should be over the trigger zone at the desired time if flying at 450 kph - ground speed. I just think you need to translate or re-arrange the checks and timings so that they refer to (indicated) airspeed instead.

 

As for the second leg, no clue about any changes, I didn't get that far. :(

[NineLine]

I really dont have an issue with the new mission, if you are not steady on the stick, you could run into troubles, but even with some unsteadiness, I dont really have an issue passing the first leg...

[Art-J]

From my experience with numerous attempts at this mission, I'd say course margins seem to be tighter than the speed ones. IAS or GS question is not really that important, when I finally completed the mission, my indicated speeds on both legs were all over the place, between 430 and 470 as I was climbing and descending. The correct headings, however, were absolutely crucial.

[NineLine]

From my experience with numerous attempts at this mission, I'd say course margins seem to be tighter than the speed ones. IAS or GS question is not really that important, when I finally completed the mission, my indicated speeds on both legs were all over the place, between 430 and 470 as I was climbing and descending. The correct headings, however, were absolutely crucial.

 

I am going to do something more visual for the 109 I think. I can always translated it back to the 190 if it works out better and people like it more... it will be more of a recon/visual nav type mission. I just didnt want to use gates... I hate gates ;)

[Yurgon]

I really dont have an issue with the new mission, if you are not steady on the stick, you could run into troubles, but even with some unsteadiness, I dont really have an issue passing the first leg...

 

So... you watched my track, looked at the screenshots I provided, considered the point about ground speed vs. indicated airspeed, read and re-read my posts about it, cross-checked with previous posts in this thread, and finally concluded that you can neither understand nor reproduce the problems I mentioned and tried to document?

 

Fair enough. I cannot provide more assistance than I have already given in order to help you understand what goes wrong when I fly that mission, so if "works for me, won't fix" is your answer, I will have to put the campaign aside because of "doesn't work for me". :(

[NineLine]

So... you watched my track, looked at the screenshots I provided, considered the point about ground speed vs. indicated airspeed, read and re-read my posts about it, cross-checked with previous posts in this thread, and finally concluded that you can neither understand nor reproduce the problems I mentioned and tried to document?

 

Fair enough. I cannot provide more assistance than I have already given in order to help you understand what goes wrong when I fly that mission, so if "works for me, won't fix" is your answer, I will have to put the campaign aside because of "doesn't work for me". :(

 

No, I didnt view your track, I did look at your screenshots, a dev flew the mission, which brought on a lot of the changes. I can fly it, I get warnings, I adjust, with the 190 gauges, its easy to get out of whack pretty quick, so you have to fly pretty careful. IAS vs GS, I dunno, the arrival area for the first leg is pretty large, if you are messing with the speed that much then you need to look at your own track and figure out what you are doing. I am not going to get into a mathematical discussion with your, its really not that complex a mission and maybe you are over thinking it... the warnings are there to try and help you out, although Art is making me thing I need altitude indications in there... you can make it harder for yourself to control speed if you are nose up or nose down too much...

 

Anyways, I have an idea I am working on with the 109, if I like it better I might adapt it to the 190 mission, but it is what it is, campaigns for these aircraft tough right now without all the goodies that will come with the map and era specific objects. Gotta make it challenging some how.... I have a week and a half off over Christmas, will see what I can come up with...

Edited December 23, 2014 by NineLine

[Art-J]

Yurgon, although some of Your points are valid, You're way too fixated on the speed issue. Try again , but as I said, concentrate first and foremost on "fine tuning" Your heading, speed comes far second and You just have to maintain average ballpark figure to get to the first waypoint allright.

 

As for the altimeter issue in the climbing mission, I haven't checked it precisely, but maybe it's just the question of cockpit altimeter not being set correctly when the mission starts? How DCS handles setting it up during airstarts anyway (generally, in all planes)?

Edited December 23, 2014 by Art-J

[Yurgon]

Anyways, I have an idea I am working on with the 109, if I like it better I might adapt it to the 190 mission, but it is what it is, campaigns for these aircraft tough right now without all the goodies that will come with the map and era specific objects. Gotta make it challenging some how.... I have a week and a half off over Christmas, will see what I can come up with...

 

I'll keep following this thread and maybe try a new version if you make any changes, hopefully that'll work better for me then.

 

Yurgon, although some of Your points are valid, You're way too fixated on the speed issue. Try again , but as I said, concentrate first and foremost on "fine tuning" Your heading, speed comes far second and You just have to maintain average ballpark figure to get to the first waypoint allright.

 

Primarily, I'm fixated on flying an entertaining mission. Out of 4 attempts at this mission (3 different versions), I failed the first task 3 times.

 

If you look at the screenshots, you'll notice that by the time I failed that flight, I was halfway between the trigger zone and Novorossiysk. That means it is a speed issue. The only way I passed that test was by flying way slower than advised.

 

Did you by any chance look at the track? Did you notice if I did something entirely wrong? Do you see any discrepancies between my written notes and the replay itself?

 

I mean, seriously, I've supplied all the information I could. Short of creating a YouTube video or supplying a TacView file, I can't think of anything else that anyone would need to figure out what's wrong (with the mission, my flying, or both).

 

So if people commenting on my problems with the mission didn't go through everything I provided, we're about to go in circles and waste our respective time.

 

And it's pretty simple, really. I believe that at 450 kph IAS according to the cockpit airspeed indicator, the player will be past the trigger zone and fail the mission after exactly 300 seconds, regardless of any potential problems with the heading. Since the mission says to keep 450 kph and SiThSpAwN confirmed that this is indeed IAS, I'm either dead wrong (quite possible!) or the mission's first test is actually broken and can only be passed successfully by accident rather than skill.

 

And if I am right about this first test, it would seem logical that the second test (and maybe other missions, as well) will suffer from much the same problems, so I'd say it's worth the effort to check this out.

 

But to reiterate the point I'm most confused about, if people don't thoroughly look at the stuff I provided, then what's the point of discussing this anyway?

[NineLine]

But to reiterate the point I'm most confused about, if people don't thoroughly look at the stuff I provided, then what's the point of discussing this anyway?

 

Dont get me wrong, I really do appreciate you taking the time to look it over and giving an informed response, I promise I will look at it and see if I can make it more enjoyable, yet still challenging...

[Yurgon]

Dont get me wrong, I really do appreciate you taking the time to look it over and giving an informed response, I promise I will look at it and see if I can make it more enjoyable, yet still challenging...

 

Thanks. :thumbup:

[tintifaxl]

I used the version provided in 1.2.14 and had the first leg nailed on the third try, I failed the second part 4 or 5 times even though I didn't receive a single warning and then enlarged the mission end trigger zone in the mission editor to finally pass the test.

 

'Tis a tricky one, this.

[Art-J]

Yurgon, I cannot play your track after 1.2.14 update, so I can judge the screenshots only, and all of them suggest you were off the course to the right. Might be "a few degrees" but maybe that's enough to spoil the fun. I also cannot agree that we have to fly much slower IAS to have the first trigger zone "completed". I've just repeated the mission 3 times, trying to hit 450 IAS, or even a bit faster, and got to the waypoint 3 times in a row. Check my replay of the last attempt below.

 

I agree, however, that in each of these attempts I ended up being probably too close to the Novo, because there was no way in hell I would get to Krymsk by keeping suggested heading of 39-40 degrees. Actually I had to maintain 30-35 (still with IAS of 450 or slightly faster) to finish the mission.

 

So either IAS or heading instructions could be tuned by SiTh after all.

1.2.14_navigation.trk

[tintifaxl]

I now have a problem in the first dogfight mission. I put 20-30 20mm and countless .50s into the P-51 and it still flies and fights on. The An-26 took in the intercept mission took a 1 second burst before it went down in flames.

 

Is the dm of the P-51 worked on? Or is it just a tough little pony and kind of immune to german shells and bullets?

[NineLine]

I now have a problem in the first dogfight mission. I put 20-30 20mm and countless .50s into the P-51 and it still flies and fights on. The An-26 took in the intercept mission took a 1 second burst before it went down in flames.

 

Is the dm of the P-51 worked on? Or is it just a tough little pony and kind of immune to german shells and bullets?

 

Track? Also did you try again, might have just been bad luck, the AI DM can be tricky at times...

[limbo696]

I was unaware of this thread despite trying a search before I posted and it is here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2276058#post2276058

 

I kept failing the mission myself and I found issues with both the speed and the headings. As far as headings, I went into the mission editor and used the ruler tool to get the true heading. I then subtracted a magnetic variation of 6 degrees. This yielded headings of 121 and 37. I never had much issues with making the first waypoint but was coming in to the right of the airfield on the second waypoint and significantly short in distance, so I had to fly over 500 KPH IAS to get there on time. This was with the mission that was in my folder; I did not try the updated missions I just found here. However, I very rarely did not make the first waypoint so I'm not sure what the issue is here....look into the mission editor and see where the target point is exactly and use dead reckoning if needed. You are aiming just to the left of that hill near the coastline on the first waypoint and the airfield on the second. I frequently had to ignore warnings about heading and speed.

[Page.Down]

Well,

 

I passed the first leg on the first try, then it tells me to turn to 40 degrees; I am not even sure I'm reading the compass right at this point, because my turn was at around 6 on the compass, and yet it said I was going the right way no warning nothing...

 

Then it just said I failed to get to my target location and quit out.

 

 

I even looked in the manual to see if maybe I was reading the compass wrong, but I don't think I was.

 

125 degrees minus 40 degrees = 85 degrees on the compass right?

 

So I should be between 6 and 0 marks with the pointer yes?

 

 

I'm pretty sure I'm doing something wrong, just not sure exactly what. Do I turn to 40 degrees heading, or do I turn to 75 degrees heading?

Edited March 23, 2015 by Page.Down

[Yurgon]

I'm pretty sure I'm doing something wrong, just not sure exactly what. Do I turn to 40 degrees heading, or do I turn to 75 degrees heading?

 

As far as I remember, you have to align the pointer with your desired heading, in this case "4" (for heading 040 degrees).

 

The big difference between the Dora compass and a modern day compass is that with the Dora compass, the aircraft pointer rotates according to aircraft orientation. With modern compasses, the (outer) compass rose rotates according to aircraft orientation and the direction of travel is always the compass' 12 o'clock position. (I hope this explanation made any sense at all).

[Flagrum]

125 degrees minus 40 degrees = 75 degrees on the compass right?

125 - 40 = 85 :huh:

[Page.Down]

125 - 40 = 85 :huh:

 

You can tell basic math wasn't my strong suit.

 

Now Synthetic Division.

 

Pfft... easy.

[Page.Down]

As far as I remember, you have to align the pointer with your desired heading, in this case "4" (for heading 040 degrees).

 

The big difference between the Dora compass and a modern day compass is that with the Dora compass, the aircraft pointer rotates according to aircraft orientation. With modern compasses, the (outer) compass rose rotates according to aircraft orientation and the direction of travel is always the compass' 12 o'clock position. (I hope this explanation made any sense at all).

 

Well if that's the case, then the mission is bugged, as are the compass coordinates.

 

Because i was between 6 and 0 and it never said I was doing anything wrong.

 

When I actually went to 4 it said I was not going in the right direction.

 

I obviously take modern compass' for granted. So used to N being 0, while East being 90, and so forth.

 

It's the same ya, but the 0 throws me off on the compass. IF they had used an E in place of the 0 I would have been fine lol.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Page.Down

[Yurgon]

It's the same ya, but the 0 throws me off on the compass. IF they had used an E in place of the 0 I would have been fine lol.

 

Well they did - in German. :)

 

North - Norden

East - Osten

South - Süden

West - Westen

 

So the only difference on your typical compass is "E" in English vs. "O" in German, the other 3 cardinal directions start with the same letter anyway. :smartass: