Lowengrin

Has 4.12 had any impact?

If you'd like to email me the details of your tricks, I might be able to tweak DCG accordingly.

Yeah, I could see how the larger maps would cause more issues with patrols and even worse with interceptions. It's difficult to calculate interception points given speed (level vs climbing) and distance so the further the distance, the less accurate it becomes. But frankly, interceptions probably shouldn't be happening on really large maps unless the bombers begin in the air and near the interceptors airfield (or some other defended place with communications to the airfield). Anyway, I'll give it some thought.

I think what you want is in the dcgerror.txt file. Sorry for slow response. I've been on vacation.

As you can probably guess by my delay in replying, I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I will look at this when I get a chance.

I think what you want is in the campaign.dcg file.

Is this with the same bomber type or different types?

If the squadron is available in the Full Mission Builder, then yes. You just need to copy it's ID from a mission file and add it to the squadids.dcg file in the DCG DATA folder along with the name of the squadron. Drop the last two characters of the ID when you do.

Interesting. I'll see if I can tweak the code for both ... although it's been years since I looked at bomber attack paths!

The order of ships in the columns section is: Carriers (PRD) Escorts for carriers (PRD) Transports (SRD) Escorts for transports (SRD) As soon as you add a transport, all other ships below it will end up using the SRD routes.

I had a look at the code last night. It all seems fine - there's a 100% chance a unit will unload at a contested or enemy harbour and a 50% chance elsewhere. I'm thinking of refining this a bit and having it check the locations further up the route from the harbour for enemy/contested locations to determine if they should unload or not.

I never had a chance to look at the code this weekend. Five days away from work, and my wife kept me busy for most of it.

Hi, I still haven't had a chance to look into this one, but I will soon.

A beta of the latest DCG is available here for those who wish to give it a try: http://members.shaw.ca/lowengrin/il2dcg348beta1.zip Please post any bugs to this list. Additions (so far) to Version 3.48 Fixed "Ace" AI pilot bug. Tweaked some static objects from a number of campaigns to avoid collision. Note: Install over a complete copy of DCG 3.47 as this beta only includes files that have been modified from the previous build. After installing, remember to reset your basic options and, if using DGen or NGen Replacement modes, make sure these options are re-checked before running IL-2 Forgotten Battles, Pacific Fighters or 1946. Mods which have made changes to the event log may not work with IL2DCG. [Note: the most recent DCG ver. 3.48 URL can be found at the end of this thread. -- Klaiber, 21 July 2014]

Thanks again for the reminder. I'll fix it one day....

If you add modded units (including infantry) to the armor.dcg file (and the gunits.dcg as well), they will act as armor and capture territory if the DCG infantry points are reduced to zero.

So now you know. Happy New Year!

The "official" 3.47 version has been posted at www.lowengrin.com. Thanks, everyone who participated in the open beta discussion. Best wishes in 2013.

It's a simple thing to reduce the radius setting to 500m. Just adjust the slider all the way to the right on the Dogfight Server Settings panel.

You must be mistaken. DCG has never kept the stats of deceased pilots. They get replaced on the roster by new pilots as there are only 16 slots for each squadron. It might not be a bad idea to make a new file preserving the "memories" of the dead and missing pilots....

Sorry, the link was case sensitive. Fixed now.

Latest beta is available here: http://members.shaw.ca/lowengrin/il2dcg347beta8.zip Hopefully it will fix the lockup caused during the log file processing when using HSFX 6.17.

ShipSpeedReduction was the culprit in the log you send me last week. I've fixed it in the latest beta.

I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't work having both key words in a single location's name. But it should end in _Bridge436. So maybe Camp_Merderet_River_Bridge436 would be the best way to name it.

That would require me to actually add/change some code.