[4YA] WWII - Project Overlord - historically accurate DCS 1944 server

[motoadve]

IRL most bird strike damage the wings, airframe or incapacitate the pilot (Cessnas and Pipers with plexiglass windshield)

I think a bird needs to be pretty big to stop the engine, I fly 2 planes with German propellers, with wood core and compsite material, they throw chickens to the propeller in their test tunnel, and the chicken just desintegrates , and propellers are undamaged.

Armor glass on fighters I dont think a bird would penetrate that (its made to stop bullets).

Airframe damage, yes its possible.

[Night Owl]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Bozon:

If there is no graphic representation of a bird strike, can we get some message? What I fear is that I’ll be hit by birds and not even realize why my engine died: was it ground fire? did I miss-handle it? did I hit a treetop?

Most bird strikes did not kill the engine - at least so it seems. This may be a clear case of survivors bias though, where the cases of dead engine did not return to report it… IDK.

That's likely true, I guess the biggest danger would be from a bird smashing the wind screen and fatally injuring the pilot. The feature is rough in DCS, but what is nice is that it potentially makes flying very low a bit more dangerous. Irl flying very low is a trade-off, while you are less visible, you are also way more vulnerable. Birds, AAA, and a motivated guy with a gun could all get you if you fly on the deck. So this should be a conscious decision, that you fly low when you have to and it makes sense, but not when you don't have to. 

Though this feature is apparently very rare in DCS, it won't be that you will hit birds all the time. 

[Night Owl]

vor 19 Minuten schrieb motoadve:

Armor glass on fighters I dont think a bird would penetrate that (its made to stop bullets).

Not really made to stop bullets, mostly frag. But yeah maybe it would hold. Guess it depends what bird also 

 

[Skewgear]

We have rolled out some statistics updates on the PO website.

First of all, pilot stats search. You can now track your own progress over the last 12 months. https://www.projectoverlord.co.uk/monthly-statistics/individual-pilot-statistics-search/

We have also built the first phase of our squadron stats page: https://www.projectoverlord.co.uk/stats/squadrons-monthly/

Enjoy!

[Sandman24]

Is there any chance to lift the texture requirements on this server? Many people use improved textures on the Normandy map (such as Barthek's), which look so much better. I would love to be able to use those on this server.

[Night Owl]

Am 12.8.2023 um 22:50 schrieb Sandman24:

Is there any chance to lift the texture requirements on this server?

No, unfortunately not. There are too many possible exploits and cheats which would be enabled too. At the moment we have to content ourself with the massive visual improvement of the Normandy 2 map, and with a tad of reshade if desired. 

I also don't think the mod makes it more realistic tbh, for the old map surely, but now I would not say so. It contains too many brown crop fields for Normandy.

[Sandman24]

Pity. With possible cheats, do you mean that someone would install custom textures so they can fight against a bright purple 109 over a white landscape? I doubt that many players will go that length. And if they do, let them score a few kills that way; their fun will wear off soon enough.

My take on it is that multiplayer DCS is not an olympic sport that needs to be monitored in detail. Different players come with vastly different PC specs and input equipment, so it will never be fully fair no matter what you do. Rather, I would try to offer an experience that is as realistic as possible; that's what most WWII simmers are looking for. And mods really can help a lot there: they exist for a reason.

Anyhow, just my two cents. Thanks for the reply!

[Skewgear]

MISSION REWORK FOR NORMANDY 2

Mission 30th June 1944

Complete rework of the mission to fit better to the Normandy 2 map:

- new airfield layout using historical German airfields

- new airfield layout of the Allied airfields in England, using mostly historical airfields

- new historical ground target at chosen locations to focus encounters

- trains and moving convoys as targets of opportunity

- reworked AAA

- AI fighter-bomber raids spawning at intervals to attack targets when population is low

- implemented new Mosquito liveries

- Changes to airfield AAA: Axis fields now use 37mm guns, British fields use 20mm

- included mission registration script into this mission

- Filled auxiliary tank of half the German slots (labelled with extra fuel or aux fuel in their group name.

 

OTHER CHANGES:

Mission 18th July 1944

- Bug fix for the point system (caused erroneous premature Allied wins) 

EWRS - Implemented a minimal detection altitude for the radar. If you fly on the deck, you won't get any nearest bandits callouts, but you will also not be visible for the enemy's radar.

Happy flying!

[VC]

Does the server exclusively use the Normandy 2.0 map, or is Channel used sometimes?

I'm asking because I was thinking about using this current sale to finally get into DCS WWII, but Normandy 2.0 not being on much of a sale is putting me off again.

[Skewgear]

Server is Normandy 2 only. Also requires the WW2 Asset Pack.

 

On a different note, while researching archive material for overhauling one of our missions I came across something unusual, so I wrote about it:

https://www.projectoverlord.co.uk/documents/what-happened-to-hawker-typhoon-mn293/

Edited September 3, 2023 by Skewgear

[Left]

Hello guys, I like flying on your server, I recommend it to my friends. I wanted to suggest a small thing that could make flying more interesting for some - maybe unlock the random failure setting (you just need to uncheck the left checkbox in the mission properties) - the point is that this setting cannot give any bonuses, it will only make life more difficult for those who it’s interesting - sometimes you want to add spice to the flight for yourself. By default, this setting is disabled for the user, that is, only those who are really interested in it, like me, will use it).

[Night Owl]

vor 56 Minuten schrieb Left:

Hello guys, I like flying on your server, I recommend it to my friends. I wanted to suggest a small thing that could make flying more interesting for some - maybe unlock the random failure setting (you just need to uncheck the left checkbox in the mission properties) - the point is that this setting cannot give any bonuses, it will only make life more difficult for those who it’s interesting - sometimes you want to add spice to the flight for yourself. By default, this setting is disabled for the user, that is, only those who are really interested in it, like me, will use it)

Thank you very much, and also thanks for the suggestion, we'll discuss this among the team  

Currently there are already occasional random failures, simply the base-line levels which are present by default unless you specifically remove them ine by one. They are quute rare though. 

[Left]

51 минуту назад, Night Owl сказал:

Thank you very much, and also thanks for the suggestion, we'll discuss this among the team  

Currently there are already occasional random failures, simply the base-line levels which are present by default unless you specifically remove them ine by one. They are quute rare though. 

Thanks for the quick response , the fact is that if you open the server track file in the mission editor, you can see that a checkbox is selected in the server mission settings, and failures are disabled (the right checkbox shows this), I mean if you uncheck the left checkbox on this setting , the user himself will be able to choose the required failure, probability, time, etc. - this is very interesting for experiments, and does not provide bonuses in battle. It would be great to be able to choose for yourself. If something fails now, it’s most likely a DCS bug). Thank you for your work (server) .

[Night Owl]

Am 25.10.2023 um 19:49 schrieb Left:

Thanks for the quick response , the fact is that if you open the server track file in the mission editor, you can see that a checkbox is selected in the server mission settings, and failures are disabled (the right checkbox shows this), I mean if you uncheck the left checkbox on this setting , the user himself will be able to choose the required failure, probability, time, etc. - this is very interesting for experiments, and does not provide bonuses in battle. It would be great to be able to choose for yourself. If something fails now, it’s most likely a DCS bug). 

Yes, I understand, we indeed have the random failures option off. However, what I meant is that there are a default base line level if random failures anyways which are not controlled by that checkbox, those we have left in the missions. They do occur, but are quite rare. What the checkbox does is make them more frequent. It's not very logical I know, but that's how the failures system works

Anyhow, I personally find your idea good, as it will be left to the player's choice. We just need to discuss it in the team first before I can comfirm anything

[Left]

Thank you very much for your understanding, I hope for a positive outcome .

[motoadve]

Couple of days ago , first flight after 2.9, my 109 engine just quit at cruise at 2,000 meters with no explanation, I was just cruising at 1.3 ata, it quit, I assume random failure? (rpms were on auto)

[Simps.NL]

On 10/27/2023 at 4:30 PM, motoadve said:

Couple of days ago , first flight after 2.9, my 109 engine just quit at cruise at 2,000 meters with no explanation, I was just cruising at 1.3 ata, it quit, I assume random failure? (rpms were on auto)

Check all your CB's, make sure that the MW50 switch is off, even if you don't have MW50 equipped.

[Skewgear]

We have introduced three new historical navigation beacons across the Normandy map for use by player Mosquito crews.

The old Ste Croix and Needs Oar Point beacons have therefore been decommissioned with immediate effect.

The new beacons are marked on the F10 map in all missions; a sample is shown below. The beacon details are as follows:

Bernay Elektra-Sonne BL -... .-.. 307kc/s

Whitlands (Lyme Regis) RDF D -.. 3.8Mc/s

Haine (Manston) RDF F ..-. 3.6Mc/s

All missions have had minor performance improvements (removal of unused elements such as redundant triggers and trigger zones) made.

24th June 1944 v5.3.5 has also had the new PO warehousing system rolled out. This includes supply convoys driving to and from selected airfields. (Yes, you can destroy these convoys and cut off the airfield supplies!)

Player count remains capped at 45 on the PO server as a temporary measure, hopefully until ED publishes a fix for the current multiplayer server performance problems.

See you in the skies!

The Project Overlord Team

https://www.projectoverlord.co.uk/documents/mission-update-radio-navigation-beacons/

[Slippa]

Are there any plans to add any to your training server?

[Skewgear]

2 hours ago, Slippa said:

Are there any plans to add any to your training server?

Good idea! Yes, in due course - it's due for a couple of tweaks now it's been running Normandy for a while.

[Willoughby888]

New to 4YA PO thinking of flying Axis? Then there’s something you should know that isn’t always obvious to newbies.

The main claim of 4YA PO is that it’s ‘historically accurate’. This means, amongst other things, that the territory occupied by the opposing forces is faithful to historical events as are the location of fighting units. But this also means that the Axis aircraft are set up to be significantly out classed by Allied airframes. And it’s true that the 109G, in use in the summer of 1944 by the Luftwaffe, was very much inferior to the P51 and Spitfire marks it flew against. DCS haven’t modelled a 109G yet so 4YA use the 109K and disable the MW50 injection system provided in the module. With MW50 working, the 109K is a match for its principle opponents when playing to its strengths - speed to ‘boom and zoom’ and to escape a non-winnable turning fight. Without MW50 and the extra power this produces, these tactics are much less effective meaning the odds are always against you when up against the Spitfire and P51 (See attached performance chart). Similarly, the 190A and 190D have also had MW50 disabled. A limited number of MW50 enabled 109s are available in some of the games but these are placed well away from where the action usually takes place. So if you want to fly a 109 that can compete on something like even terms with Allies best, this involves flying up to 40 minutes just to reach the common combat areas. 

So you’d think this disadvantage for Axis flyers would be reflected in the score statistics for the game, right? Wrong. Even though it’s obviously much harder for Axis pilots to win against Allies in combat, kills are counted evenly. In fact, some Allied pitots even deny that there is an imbalance in performance. This is mad given that this is the main difference between 4YA PO and other servers and one which the creators are apparently very proud of. To make things worse, probably because of this performance disadvantage, there are usually fewer pilots flying Axis in the game. This means, as well as being out-performed, flying Axis means you’ll also mostly be outnumbered. 

 

Why don’t 4YA mention the performance imbalance on their website and other material? Your guess is as good as mine. But, as it is, many pilots (me for one) don’t catch on to all this until after they’ve already spent time, money and effort and have committed to flying Axis. If pilots knew this up-front many would, I’m sure, still choose to fly Axis. But, knowing what they were getting into from the start would mean they are less likely to complain or just abandon the server, as many currently do, once the real scale of the imbalance becomes apparent. 

 

Alternatively, you can stick to flying Allied and enjoy the benefit of superior performance. Either way, now you know. 

 

 

[Skewgear]

If you want a neutral merge dogfight server where everything is perfectly balanced so unskilled players can score easy kills, Project Overlord is not the multiplayer environment for you.

We focus on historical milsim. That's what on the website and in the briefing of every mission we run. It's not designed to be easy, or even to have all the weapons and options available for each aircraft. That's what "historical" means.

Feel free to join one of the many other DCS multiplayer servers if you find that flying solo on a server designed around collective group play within a specific and clearly advertised scenario is too difficult.

If you have a bit of patience, join our Discord server (link on the website homepage) and ask if anyone's looking for a wingman, or join one of the squadron groups who fly together on our server. There's a significant number who take pride in flying the Fw190A (which, by the way, doesn't have MW50 as an option in DCS) to consistently lethal effect as pairs or teams.

[Willoughby888]

I think you’ve missed the point.
No one mentioned ‘neutral merge dogfight’. There is more to aerial combat than dogfighting. Of course, there are various ways to reduce the impact of inferior machines - flying with a wingman, staying fast, keeping superior altitude, using cloud and terrain, etc, etc. But Allies can also use these strategies. Ultimately, with pilots of equal skill, the outcome of combat is largely determined by a/c capability. 
 

Nor did I suggest that it should be easier. I’m pointing out that a principle feature of your server and the main difference compared to other servers is that in 4YA PO Axis aircraft have restricted performance which makes them inferior compared to Allies. But, in all the blurb describing how it’s historically accurate, this doesn’t get any mention. While having different strengths and weaknesses, the Spitfire, P51 and 109K as modelled by DCS are relatively well balanced. So a newcomer to 4YA would reasonably assume that this will be the case on the PO server. Given that there is no other PvP game where one side has a significant and permanent advantage, again, users wouldn’t expect it in this one.

You are clearly committed to running a server where respective aircraft performance Axis vs Allies is something similar to that of 1944 Normandy. It’s your server, you and others do the work to keep it running so clearly you must decide how it works. So if this is such an important and attractive feature, why not say it up-front. You’re right about it being the user choice as to which server they use. I’m suggesting it would be helpful if you described your server more transparently so they can choose knowing the full story before investing in it. It would also mean that the MW50 would stop being the recurring issue it is amongst established players (I’ve seen the various heated exchanges on Discord) because everyone will know what the set up is.

i wonder why you can’t do this? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Skewgear]

25 minutes ago, Willoughby888 said:

I’m suggesting it would be helpful if you described your server more transparently so they can choose knowing the full story before investing in it.

 

You have invested nothing in Project Overlord. You have bought addons for a free-to-play video game made by Eagle Dynamics. You have connected to a free-to-play multiplayer server run by volunteers who spend hundreds of hours keeping it online and running in their spare time, and decided you don't like it because your favourite virtual aeroplane doesn't fly as fast as you want it to.

Instead of accepting that and moving along, you have chosen to rant away on here about how hard done by you think you are. You then have the gall to make demands as if you are my paying customer and entitled to dictate how we choose to operate our free-to-play server, which we run in our free time and maintain at some personal cost.

You are contemptible.

[Bozon]

@Willoughby888 There are numerous limitations on the various modules participating in the scenarios on both sides. On the allied side this is expressed as limiting the variants (P-47 for example are mostly limited to D-30 early), limiting the availability of ordnance - both in types (HVARs for example) and in locations (some available only at England airfields), and limiting the locations of aircrafts (Mosquitoes are only available in England which means 20-25 minute flight just to cross the channel and get to the mainland allied bases).

So if you bought the P-47 module and expect flying the D-40 and fire HVARs, well… too bad. If you are a Mosquito fanboy like me, prepare a lot of spare time for cross channel flights with no auto pilot. BTW, Mosquitoes that operated in daylight out of allied air cover (rangers / intruders) were equipped by this time with 150 octane fuel, so if you want to cry of “underperforming” here is a good cause.