Jump to content


Photo

Take-off improvement


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 idefix44

idefix44

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 195 posts

Posted 14 March 2017 - 09:12 AM

Sometimes AIs are unable to take-off from some airfields. Even with the lighter payload.
So, we can create an airfields.dcg file to reduce the losses at take-off.
But, it can be not enough.

Can we have available a file like airfieldsrestriction.dcg in wich the listed planes can't be transferred (linked) to the concerned airfields.

airfields.dcg

[Zilina_Airstrip]
  TAKEOFF 83528.13 116313.63 0 0
  NORMFLY 81199.98 119900.11 1200.00 300.00
  NORMFLY 78500.22 123500.21 1500.00 300.00
  NORMFLY 74499.91 123500.02 1800.00 300.00
[Zilina_Airfield]
  TAKEOFF 83401.84 116316.29 0 0
  NORMFLY 81199.98 119900.11 900.00 300.00
  NORMFLY 79999.93 125000.05 1200.00 300.00
  NORMFLY 75000.06 124999.95 1500.00 300.00

airfieldsrestriction.dcg

[Zilina_Airstrip]
  JU_88A4
  BF_110G2
  PE_2SERIES359
[Zilina_Airfield]
  JU_88A4
  BF_110G2
  HE_111H2
  PE_2SERIES359
  PE_8
[Location_Airfield]
  Plane_1
  Plane_2
  Plane_3
  Plane_4
[Location_Airstrip]
  Plane_1
  Plane_2
  Plane_3

Plane_x is from the 1st column of the class.dcg file; Class air.Plane_x in the .mis file.

Thanks in advance. :rolleyes:
 

Attached Files



#2 Lowengrin

Lowengrin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 615 posts

Posted 15 March 2017 - 03:11 AM

Is it not enough to set Zilina (and other really bad airfields) to airstrips to keep the big planes off them...?

 

Alternatively, reverse the take off direction?



#3 idefix44

idefix44

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 195 posts

Posted 15 March 2017 - 06:35 AM

Is it not enough to set Zilina (and other really bad airfields) to airstrips to keep the big planes off them...?

Light bombers (JU_88A4, BF_110G2) crash too, even with the lighter payload.

 

Alternatively, reverse the take off direction?

The choosen take-off direction take account of the relief.

 

My final airfields.dcg is the result of a lot of tests. Furthermore, I use a custom payloads.dcg.

 

Sir, this is just a suggestion for improvement. It isn't, in any case, for you, an obligation to do.

 

Thanks for IL2DCG. :)

 

Attached: my third party campaign (CDG_Slovakia_Online) ready to be used in dogfight mode with the stock game (4.13.3m).

If some of you try it and get some problems, I'll help.

Attached Files



#4 Lowengrin

Lowengrin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 615 posts

Posted 16 March 2017 - 12:38 AM

I could add a file as you suggest, but what a pain it would be to manage!



#5 idefix44

idefix44

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 195 posts

Posted 16 March 2017 - 08:20 AM

I could add a file as you suggest, but what a pain it would be to manage!

For you:

If you agree, I can design (suggest) an algorithm.

First step when IL2DCG creates a new campaign, next steps, when IL2DCG creates the successive missions.

No obligation to restart a running campaign if the airfieldsrestriction.dcg file is created after the begining.

For me/the player:

At the mission begining, I read the debriefing. I know that some planes crash at take-off (because they are down at the really begining of the mission/debriefing). I easily know wich planes crash and where (since IL2DCG 3.49b11). I edit/create the airfieldsrestriction.dcg file (in the \Data folder), I add the concerned airfields/planes according to the form of presentation.

No obligation to restart a running campaign if the airfieldsrestriction.dcg file is edited after the begining.

 

When IL2DCG creates the next mission, it finds some entries in the airfieldsrestriction.dcg file. The squadrons/planes are transferred (with some losses at take-off again) to the DeHome/RuHome (from the allcampaigns.dcg file in the \Data folder).

All others squadrons/planes transfers comply with this rule (no transfer from the DeHome/RuHome to a wrong airfield).

and voilĂ ! :rolleyes:

 

Have a good day.

 

 



#6 Lowengrin

Lowengrin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 615 posts

Posted 17 March 2017 - 04:18 AM

Haha.  Now you have me thinking about DCG just compiling a list on it's own based on the results in the log file.  Multiple crashes shortly after takeoff could easily be captured and DCG could restrict that type of plane from the field by compiling it's own restriction file.  Of course, it could also be modified by the player.

 

You are a very bad influence!  :lol:



#7 idefix44

idefix44

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 195 posts

Posted 17 March 2017 - 07:02 AM

You are a very bad influence!  :lol:

I take it as a compliment. ;)

 

Smarter IL2DCG is... B)

 

Edit: I'll upload the next eventlog.lst with planes crashing at take-off. And I'll comment it, if you agree...

 

Edit (again): we (you) have to remember that Transport aircrafts (Ju 52, Li-2, C-47, Me 323, etc...) need a special treatment.

 

Edit (for the last time today, I hope): Saying that a rookie squadron is taking-off safely 23 min after the begining of the mission. I and my mate(s) attack. Some of them panic and go down because they are rookie and hit a hill/mountain. So, I think that only the begining of the debriefing/eventlog.lst is reliable...

 


Edited by idefix44, 17 March 2017 - 04:43 PM.


#8 Lowengrin

Lowengrin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 615 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 06:14 AM

Remind me again as to why transports need special treatment?



#9 sniperton

sniperton

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 04:58 PM

I had a similar issue with a modded BoF map where not even MB.152s could take off safely from some historically short runways. While standard Il-2 runways are 1500 to 2000 m long, those early-war grass airstrips are less than 900 m.

 

Perhaps it would be easier to introduce a new FieldAirstrip location type to prevent anything but ultra-light planes to take off from. Much depends on how DCG 'decides' which airplane is fitted to which airfield type. Is it hard-coded for each model, or is it derived from the plane role type as defined in class.dcg? I guess the latter is the case, and anything but level bombers can operate from airstrips as well, no matter how long a runway they actually require. 

 

Changing the role type would mess up mission assignments, but a tripartite airfield classification with a corresponding one-digit entry in the class.dcg file would do the trick (0 = all airfield types for light planes; 1 = only airstrips and airfields for most of the rest; 2 = only airfields for the heavies). The only question is if it's worth the effort to re-code DCG and to provide the data manually for each plane type.  :unsure:



#10 Lowengrin

Lowengrin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 615 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 05:30 PM

Adding another field in the class file could be a real pain.  How many planes are there now?  (I know I could default them and let users set them).  Of course, then the GUI needs another box. 



#11 sniperton

sniperton

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts

Posted 18 March 2017 - 06:10 PM

The stock game has about 450 planes, but the WWII module of the biggest modpack has above 1000. IMO the effort would be disproportionate to the gain. I think the solution is to simply forget about extremely short airstrips when creating DCG campaigns. But if you give it a thought, you might consider redefining the 'side' digit which is redundant in a way. (There are no flights without a squadron assignment, and squadrons are linked to a country and, hereby, to a side.)

 

If you have fresh energies I would rather propose taxi to takeoff and takeoff in pairs as challenge candidates  ;) . I still have my old test files and plenty of ideas how to implement that feature  :P

 

Anyway, thank you again  :D



#12 Lowengrin

Lowengrin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 615 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 12:55 AM

Convince me in another thread.  :unsure:



#13 idefix44

idefix44

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 195 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 01:21 AM

Remind me again as to why transports need special treatment?

Because they have to be able to land everywhere in order to resupply/repair the Location_Airfield/_Airstrip. So they have to be able to be transferred from DeHome/RuHome to all airfields even the wrong airfields.

 

Attached:

Slovakia_Online194403020.mis

Slovakia_Online194403020.properties

log.dcg

debriefing.txt

 

If you are ok to do the job, only the first four minutes are reliable. So, only the string "shot down by landscape" founded between the "Mission BEGIN" time and the "Mission BEGIN" + 240 seconds time need to be taken into account.

 

This solution works with every kind of airfield (short, long, in flat land or in mountainous region), with every kind of plane (heavy bomber, medium bomber, light bomber, fighter), any squadron size (2 planes to 16 planes) and any AIs skill (rookie to As).

 

Thanks by advance.

 

Attached Files



#14 Lowengrin

Lowengrin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 615 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 03:55 AM

Thanks.  I'm still not ready to jump into the code, but at least I have enough info now to consider it.



#15 idefix44

idefix44

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 195 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 08:37 AM

Don't forget to take care about the time format in the log.dcg file (AM, PM).

 

Extract:

[Mar 18, 2017 11:24:23 PM] Mission: net/dogfight\DCG\Slovakia_Online194403120.mis is Playing
[11:24:23 PM] Mission BEGIN
[11:27:04 PM] IV_StG2000 damaged on the ground at 83401.68 118976.914
[11:27:04 PM] IV_StG2000(0) was wounded at 83401.68 118976.914
[11:27:04 PM] IV_StG2000(0) was heavily wounded at 83401.68 118976.914
[11:27:04 PM] IV_StG2000(0) was killed at 83401.68 118976.914
[11:27:04 PM] IV_StG2000 shot down by landscape at 83401.68 118976.914
[11:27:24 PM] IV_StG2001 damaged on the ground at 83401.695 118980.84
[11:27:24 PM] IV_StG2001(0) was wounded at 83401.695 118980.84
[11:27:24 PM] IV_StG2001(0) was heavily wounded at 83401.695 118980.84
[11:27:24 PM] IV_StG2001(0) was killed at 83401.695 118980.84
[11:27:24 PM] IV_StG2001 shot down by landscape at 83401.695 118980.84
[11:27:48 PM] 60_Chief9 destroyed by 18_Chief3 at 96465.0 102632.0
[11:36:06 PM] 18_Chief4 destroyed by 18_Chief3 at 95500.0 102735.22
[11:36:39 PM] 18_Chief5 destroyed by 18_Chief3 at 95500.0 102791.09
[11:44:10 PM] 190ShAP000 removed at 213540.06 86510.586
[11:46:01 PM] 25IAP100 removed at 192326.44 100574.39
[11:46:32 PM] 60_Chief2 destroyed by 18_Chief3 at 96359.0 102684.0
[11:47:12 PM] 190ShAP001 removed at 213721.45 86725.99
[11:47:18 PM] 60_Chief1 destroyed by 18_Chief3 at 96344.0 102691.0
[11:48:57 PM] ...
 

If "Mission BEGIN" + 240 seconds time - "Mission BEGIN" time < 0

then BIG KATASTROPHE

 

Sir, you make me happy. Do you know that... :D

 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users