sniperton

In case you haven't found it yet, please consider to make campaign settings 3rd party folder specific. I mean all settings from dcg.ini except for the working paths info. In case you have found it, please disregard whatever you may have read above

Brute force tactics would be to paste something like this into timetable.dcg: XX should be changed to next mission day.

Quick test done, seems to work, many thanks! Fulmars taking off from HMS Eagle (HMSEagle) and HMS Ameer (Carrier1), no matter whether I place them via a timetable command or via the master file. (Another question that they crash due to the shoortness of both runways, although it's known that Fulmars were operated from HMS Eagle.)

DCG (as was the original DGen) is an independent application generating mission files for the game. DON'T uninstall/reinstall the game. It's OK, you can fly QMB missions and static missions, don't you? If the game crashes, it's because it tries to read corrupted or missing mission files. If everything fails what I suggested, simply reinstall DCG. Edit: Err, which DCG version do you use? 3.47 should be OK, but 3.48 beta 4 and 5 were buggish.

You mean, your campaign is visible and selectable in Pilot Career in Il-2, but crashes when you try to load it? If you can see it listed, then you can also delete it, if you wish. But maybe the problem is elsewhere. Uncheck and re-check "Replace Dgen" in DCG's "Mode" menu. If found unchecked, this may have been your problem. Anyway, look for the DGen.exe in Il-2 folder. It should be around 1,79 MB, while "Replace Dgen" should be in a checked state. Now you can try to select "Restore Last Mission" in the "Edit" menu in DCG. Hope it helps. BTW, when mid-campaign and Il-2 running, you should never fiddle with units other than from the DEBRIEF interface, BEFORE you hit "Accept". Even safer is, though, to add new units via timetable commands effective from the next turn.

Thanks, I’ll test it tonight. Maybe I’m completely wrong, but I suppose that unit names are stored and evaluated as a text array like UnitName[n]. If you gave it another dimension (UnitName[n, 0..1]) and assigned „Carrier1” to UnitName[n, 0] and HMSAmeerCVL to UnitName[n, 1], AND DCG used and evaluated throughout this latter EXCEPT when reading and writing data from and to external files, then the whole problem could be overcome by a simple conversion table as the above one. Then it would be the user’s responsibility to provide DCG-compatible alias-names. Just an idea, again, don’t shoot… [And what if you used one of those useless bits to indicate whether the unit is included in gunits too? DCG would have one less file to process.]

A) Have you tried to add it mid-campaign via DCG's interface on the Ground Unit Editor panel? If yes' date=' ignore the message, and you're done IIRC. Anyway, you may want to have a look at the columns.dcg file (il2path/missions/campaigns/[countrycode']/[yourcampaignname]). If you find the unit there as "Chief_## ... ...)", delete it. Be more specific, please

Yep' date=' this has been discussed here: http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,20774.0.html (with a list of problematic warship designations) Edit: Just an idea. Now you generously spend time to add some code to the routine for processing shipnames. What if you added this code to either gunits or gobjects instead? I mean an added column with a classification code for EACH unit. Something like you have in the class file for planes, but this time for all naval and ground units. You know it much better than me how DCG handles unit types, but it seems that it has a DUKW type, a Tral type, a ZIS-fuel type, a spawn column type, a Carrier-type, etc, each with special 'functionalities'. Now if you could 'read' and assign these types from an external file, all this naming convention nightmare would be gone. Perhaps the last column in gobjects could be used for such functional 'aliases'? Just an idea, don't shoot me...

Thanks for the fix! Now seems to work fine both in the stock game and HSFX, both with and without the _ru prop file. Dunno whether it was related to the LCase/UCase issue, though. I had the problem with a 3rd party campaign with all lcase filenames except for the physical map (MTO) and the master files. As to the new feature, I tested it in HSFX, but no joy. All files in a 3rd party folder. gobjects: gunits: shipnames: timetable: Didn't work, Fulmars deployed on land. It did work when I changed Ships.HMSEagle to Ships.HMSIllustriousCV. Same results when I delete the NewColumn line and place 31_Chief via the master file. That is, DCG doesn't recognize HMSEagle as a carrier despite the code in shipnames. As you don't have HSFX, you'd see the result of a successful tweak only if a Fulmar or Swordfish tried to deploy (and banged) on a non-carrier. Already happened with Wol's CV tankette...

Many, many thanks, Paul, for the upgrade! Nevertheless, I'm still having the problem described by WindWeapon in #33 and confirmed by me in #37. I don't understand why You and Wol (if still around) don't have it. I'm not at all sure that it's related to the _ru file, but both stock 4.12.2 and HSFX 7.1 hangs and DCG quits with an "invalid file" message when I try to use a version past 3.48 beta 3. Prior versions are OK. An X-file, it is. Other: I see that naval units are identified now by a tag in the shipnames file. Provided a ship is both there and in gobject and gunits, should it also work for those placed via a timetable command? Or is it a trial version? As mentioned, files are generated fine, but I can't test them other than in the FMB.

Two small wishes, in case you have time for such vanities: 1) When carrier is sunk, and squads on board are transferred to a land-based airfield, ActivePlanes = 0. 2) Custom Mission Selection, if Day/Night is set to "day", the earliest hour should be 6 instead of 5. At 5 it's bloody dark on most maps at most dates.

Happened to me several times. If not KIA or MIA, you'll fly the next day as nothing happened. Not even a Purple Heart IIRC.

So far as I know, there are no straightforward solutions for your problems other than the workaround suggested by Nephris.

Dear Paul, Lonestar wrote elsewhere that ships are considered destroyers when they are not positively identified as something else, either individually (like the Tirpitz, the Kirov, or Tral) or by means of an ID-tag in their designation (like CV, CA, BB, etc). Can you confirm, please? Or is it only true in relation to the "Ships remain sunk" option? (That is, if DCG finds an "unknown" naval unit called "boat1" or "carrier1", what happens: will it regard it as a destroyer or something else? All this is related, again, to mod contents; see if you wish http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,20774.0.html) Thank you again

I can replicate it with 3.48 beta 4, stock 4.12.2, and 3rd party campaign folder. DCG correctly generates the files, including the _ru, but all this makes il2fb.exe freeze, and DCG quits with a message "invalid file". Manually deleting the _ru.prop file doesn't help, the mission files are there, but the campaign cannot be resumed after restarting Il-2.

A) You try to fly an AI-only plane. "planesUNX" is for listing player aircraft. Unlike the SBD, TBD1 is not flyable in stock 4.12. You can only have it as an AI (simply add it to the master mission file and choose a player squad DIFFERENT than that of the TBD unit). If you have a modded game like HSFX 7.0, where TBD1 is flyable, go to the Aircraft Class Panel in DCG, select TBD1 (upper left), and reset "Flyable by Player(s)" from "No" to "Yes". Restart campaign.

Hi gens, Implementing planes and payloads is not that difficult, only their vast number is a problem. And of course a bit of research is needed as to availability dates and cruise speeds. As to ground and naval units, appr. 60% of them can be implemented without problems. The rest is tricky and doubtful. Here much try and error testing is needed. Unfortunately, the creators of HSFX sometimes ignored earlier naming conventions, e.g. there are carriers without a CV in their name and the like. Many single-vehicle units like HoHa were multiplied in the form of 2-HoHa and 3-HoHa, and it's a question whether DCG can handle them properly. The same applies to new equivalents to old 'special purpose' units like the ISUZU_fuel to the ZIS6_fuel. If DCG identifies fuel units by the tag '_fuel', then they should work as designed -- otherwise not. Another problem is that new column units can have considerably more or less vehicles than the usual 6 or 7. If DCG considers a column destroyed when 'six or more vehicles attached to it are destroyed in a single mission', it means that a 5-vehicle column will never be considered as destroyed, while a bigger one will be, even if 2/3 of its vehicles remain intact. In some cases we can ask Paul to make minor code adjustements (as did Wol with the CV tankette as an exception), but the rest of the problems couldn't be resolved that easily IMHO. So it seems that appr. 25% of the new ground units will never be really usable, and campaign designers will have to be particularly careful not to select them in the FMB.

Yep, see the 3.48 beta thread:

What Wol wishes and describes in his first post sounds like a coordinated attack of multiple squads starting from an AttackRandezvous waypoint, where each squad spawns with air start near THAT waypoint (as they were starting from above one and the same virtual airfield). The real problem with this is HOW to specify WHEN DCG should opt for this type of spawning, and when it should remain with the good old one. I doubt whether Paul feels an irresistible desire to rethink and rework the whole mission setup thingy...

OK, got the picture, thanks for the info!

Paul, can you confirm that squads at the top of the list have a higher chance to fly? (Just curious, I mostly use full density.) I always believed that DCG is programmed in a way that all non-player squads have an equal chance to fly according to the random value set via squadron density. That is, if Red has 9 squads and density is set to 66%, then each turn 6 squads will get airborne, and EACH squad will fly 2 times out of 3 missions.

What do you mean? If you want to suppress individual squads (force them to be 'inactive'), you can 'prohibit' them flying by setting their fuel to zero:

Thank you very much!