ATAG Dedicated Server is up!

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

Not talking about "cool stuff" talking about gameplay stuff. Fixes for base raping/vulching (more anti-air), a purpose to AI bombers (making them mission essential), motivation to not constantly hover around Hawkinge.


I lost my brother to a base raping incident in 2001 so you dont have to tell me about them dasterdly straffers.

Since then I have dedicated my self to never let this happen again.

I never fly without a wingman and upon hearing reports of vulchers near friendly airfields we gain altitude while flying a mission in the area to help my team mates take off safely adding a whole new gameplay element, The Combat Air Patrol.

Regarding game play I have flown on servers with no fly zones/rules of engagement and no vulching.

From my experience, people argued and cried about getting "vulched" all the time and villified a viable mission making there server feel less alive.

Having no rules is way more historical omho and missions invariably, are only as realistic as the pilots flying them.

[SlipBall]

I really don't mind when I get vulched, war is supposed to be hell.:-P

[ATAG_Bliss]

Haha, no one is talking about penalizing...unless you mean losing a round counts as penalizing because you didn't play the mission to its objectives, which makes very little sense. This is a multiplayer game, with set parameters (rules, if you will) for winning as per the objectives/rounds/team-based structure. By your logic, the server should be on free flight with no mission loaded at all...and that's not speaking in hyperbole, I'm being literal.

I'm not the only one frustrated about the issue. A few pages back there's a couple other people citing gameplay changes. So what's ATAG's goal with this server? Free flight do-what-you-want or realistic BoB mission style sorties? Declare it now so I can stop rambling about mission suggestions.

The issues discussed have been long discussed since the inception of this sim. Just like your other misunderstanding about the hard drive issue, this has been discussed in our forums for quite a while now and if you would take the time to do a little reasearch you wouldn't come in here assuming a whole bunch of stuff that I don't need to explain for the 100th time, along with the various reasons why you can't do this, that or any of the other things that the people that don't build missions don't understand why.

That is the exact reason why I stated for you to build a mission, maybe that will be the only way you'll understand why certain things are done certain ways. Then and only then maybe you'll start to get an appreciation for the sheer amount of time and creativity it takes to work around the problems to get mission playability seem somewhat on the norm.

If you're going to be a condesending jack ass, by all means please stay out of this thread.

[5./JG27.Farber]

(more anti-air)...

:confused::rolleyes: :-P:-P Jeepers man!

[AbortedMan]

The issues discussed have been long discussed since the inception of this sim. Just like your other misunderstanding about the hard drive issue, this has been discussed in our forums for quite a while now and if you would take the time to do a little reasearch you wouldn't come in here assuming a whole bunch of stuff that I don't need to explain for the 100th time, along with the various reasons why you can't do this, that or any of the other things that the people that don't build missions don't understand why.

That is the exact reason why I stated for you to build a mission, maybe that will be the only way you'll understand why certain things are done certain ways. Then and only then maybe you'll start to get an appreciation for the sheer amount of time and creativity it takes to work around the problems to get mission playability seem somewhat on the norm.

If you're going to be a condesending jack ass, by all means please stay out of this thread.

My "misunderstanding" was a simple question about whether the server was in-house or company owned and whom was responsible for repairs, I believe it was you and 4-5 others that misunderstood.

I'm flabbergasted by your dickheaded attitude. I take pity on the next person that shows genuine interest in a community that you, Bliss, are involved in and tries to spark up discussion about improving online gameplay in a seemingly dying environment they wish to preserve. You convey a message of elitism from an outside-of-ATAG and non-mission perfection-making god's perspective with your recent posts and it's gross.

EDIT: I've mentioned countless times on forums and in-game how I'm grateful for ATAG's efforts, by the way. And I truly am. If this is the way a civil and intentionally constructive vocal interaction from the community that you host is going to be handled then this game truly is doomed.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Woah!

[Blackdog_kt]

Example, there's not a lot, well...enough motivation and emphasis right now on objectives for the common non-regular player, whether that be to go bomb something (which is not on the common Red pilot's mind/agenda...we only have one buggy bomber),

Well, actually the Blenheim is much less buggy than the 111 currently. The 88s has the same issues as the 111 but it is usable because it can at least dive bomb. I fly all bombers except the Br.20 and have done extensive testing in them, spent entire nights reading up whatever technical resources i could find online about bombsights and their operation, etc.

The Blenheim is probably the most accurate one right now and especially the bombsight is a good mix of realism and functionality. There are a couple of operations that are simplified or handled automatically by the simulator, but other than that it's pretty close to the real course setting bomb sight.

The problem is that it's impractical because it lacks an autopilot and a way to adjust the view to look under the canopy framing in the nose. This means people have to bomb from no more than 4000ft, so that they can see the target early enough to make course adjustments.

I have proposed binding the level stab command that currently does nothing to a new AI control mode that would function somewhat similar to the German autopilots (so that code can be reused) and made available to all bombers. This mode would give control of flying the plane to the AI once engaged, but only the control surfaces. The player would still be able to adjust his engines, but the aircraft would fly straight and level. Then, using the "course autopilot left/right" commands, the player would command the AI to turn. One to three keypresses would result in level, rudder-only turns. Four or more keypresses would result in banking turns, with bank increasing as more keypresses as dialed in. Finally, pressing a key to turn the opposite way would cancel all turns and have the AI return to level flight.

This would simulate the way many bomber crews did it, where the bombardier was guiding the pilot to the target over the intercom: "left, left, steady" etc... ;)

As for the forward visibility issue, the Blenheim sight doesn't have an up/down adjustment neither an automation toggle. Maybe it would be possible to use those keybindings to adjust the view, with the camera rotating up/down in a way that makes it possible to look ahead and under the canopy framing while in bombsight view. Then pressing the automation toggle would return to the proper view angle that aligns the forward and backward sighting rings so that bombs could be dropped.

I think this would be relatively easy to code because it would use existing resources copy/pasted and edited a bit from other bombers, without introducing new keybindings for us.

However, the thread i had opened with bug reports and suggestions didn't gather too much interest apart from the people who fly bombers regularly. So, give me some help you fighter boys and 1C will probably take notice and fix these issues, which will in turn result in more people flying bombers and more targets for you :-P


As for mission design, i agree more or less with what you say, but i don't think it's the responsibility of people like Bliss because they don't have the tools to be effective. There are scripting commands that don't work correctly yet and some netcode issues that prevent the kind of mission environment we would all like to see. Mission designers often have to cut down on features because of this, since there is no known work around for some of the issues.

For example, i was browsing Wolf's thread on the ATAG forums about his new channel command mission and he has had to cut down on static objects quite a lot in order for the mission to run acceptably.

The good thing in all of this however is that focus is gradually moving to the type of missions you describe and a lot of people in the community are engaged in the effort. I think that even with the current problems we can still get a workable mission environment: maybe the scripts will be tweaked a bit to force a work around, which in turn will necessitate smaller amounts of objects on the map to run well, but we can still have maps with interesting objectives that will get people to fly in a certain manner while also enjoying it.

However, this hinges on there being a reason for players to fly bombers. I have been trying to "advertise" this viewpoint for a while because in a sense, fixing the bombers will also give the fighters the kind of engagements they would like to see. However, my success has been limited because everyone was and still is up in arms over getting exact accuracy for fighter FMs, 100 octane and so on.

I'm not insinuating these are not important issues.
All i'm saying is that when the fighters are finally fixed to an acceptable level, there still will be no other use to them apart from your aptly named "battle of Hawkinge" furballs, unless there are bombers around that:

a) are usable and can bomb accurately (fixing the bomber bugs) and
b) the results of that bombing can affect availability/serviceability of fighters (scripting/FMB bug fixes)

So come on fighter boys, rally with us and drum up some support for showing the bombers some love, you'll get free targets out of it :grin:

On another note, let me just say that you guys have always seemed to me like level headed people. I think you are getting in a cycle of misunderstanding because written text on the internet can't convey facial expressions and voice tones, so we all tend to often misunderstand eachother's intent.

In short, i don't have you guys cut out for trolls who stir up trouble on purpose, i've flown with a lot of you on ATAG and while i often don't use a mic because i fly late at night, i've been on voice comms and listening to the lively banter and i didn't get a bad impression about anyone. I think you are genuinely misunderstanding each other. So please be nice and don't go insulting each other over this ;)

[ATAG_Bliss]

My "misunderstanding" was a simple question about whether the server was in-house or company owned and whom was responsible for repairs, I believe it was you and 4-5 others that misunderstood.

I'm flabbergasted by your dickheaded attitude. I take pity on the next person that shows genuine interest in a community that you, Bliss, are involved in and tries to spark up discussion about improving online gameplay in a seemingly dying environment they wish to preserve. You convey a message of elitism from an outside-of-ATAG and non-mission perfection-making god's perspective with your recent posts and it's gross.

EDIT: I've mentioned countless times on forums and in-game how I'm grateful for ATAG's efforts, by the way. And I truly am. If this is the way a civil and intentionally constructive vocal interaction from the community that you host is going to be handled then this game truly is doomed.

No this was your question:

Is this one of the reasons why people give ATAG money every month? Easy, quick replacement of new hard drives, or is this a different sort of issue?

Perhaps your problem is you're unable to type what you actually mean? As I've already stated, all the info is available in the forums on just about anything server-side including answers to your problems.

And I have no "dick head" attitude. You came in here suggesting, even saying "bad mission design". Currently mission design is based upon soo many factors of which you can't even begin to understand until you've actually built a mission. Again, that's why when many of these same questions have been brought up, they've already been answered 100 times.

And perhaps you should look at your own attitude. I wasn't the only one that saw your insults. That's why the others that saw exactly what you did called you out on it. I think you should read what you write before you hit submit. The only person coming on here with an attitude is you.

And there's no elitism in saying that I know what works and what doesn't work in current IL2COD. I've spent literally 1000's of hours testing and building missions. You can have an assumption about something all you want, but until you have any sort of experience with it you really don't know what you are talking about. That's why, yet again, the only way you'll probably figure this out is trying to learn it on your own. It seems you are incapable of believing the person that actually builds missions own words.

Be flabbergasted all you want, but if you honestly think you are trying to have some sort of civil discussion here you truly are lost.

[ATAG_Colander]

a purpose to AI bombers (making them mission essential)

There is one mission like this already on rotation.

[AbortedMan]

No this was your question:



Perhaps your problem is you're unable to type what you actually mean? As I've already stated, all the info is available in the forums on just about anything server-side including answers to your problems.

And I have no "dick head" attitude. You came in here suggesting, even saying "bad mission design". Currently mission design is based upon soo many factors of which you can't even begin to understand until you've actually built a mission. Again, that's why when many of these same questions have been brought up, they've already been answered 100 times.

And perhaps you should look at your own attitude. I wasn't the only one that saw your insults. That's why the others that saw exactly what you did called you out on it. I think you should read what you write before you hit submit. The only person coming on here with an attitude is you.

And there's no elitism in saying that I know what works and what doesn't work in current IL2COD. I've spent literally 1000's of hours testing and building missions. You can have an assumption about something all you want, but until you have any sort of experience with it you really don't know what you are talking about. That's why, yet again, the only way you'll probably figure this out is trying to learn it on your own. It seems you are incapable of believing the person that actually builds missions own words.

Be flabbergasted all you want, but if you honestly think you are trying to have some sort of civil discussion here you truly are lost.

I had no attitude or sarcastic tone from the get-go. You chimed in with essentially a "you don't know what you're talking about or know what works" message when that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I wasn't even demanding anything along the lines of "Why isn't this-or-that in the mission? Make it so!" if you recall my previous posts, I was discussing the logistics and economics of player's actions and reactions given a circumstance in a mission.

Just to touch on what I was talking about and what you're talking about...adding more anti-aircraft to the Hawkinge area as a *possible* way to counter a "Hawkinge furball" and to motivate,not penalize, players *possibly* going out and escorting/intercepting, is **so complex that I cannot even begin to understand until I've built a mission.**

Even though I've never cracked open the mission editor for more than 15 minutes I find that extremely hard to believe.

Just know that I was truly engaging in a civil-mannered discussion and had no ill intentions in my posts. It was an open forum for my ideas to be heard, debated and processed. I had no grandiose visions of superiority in mission structure...just simply wanted some feedback, input/output with no lip, sass, sarcasm, trolling, hatred, or belittling involved.

If my discussion is a demonstration in "condesending" (spelled "condescending", btw) jack-assery then damn, you are some sensitive folk and I need to brush up on my definition of "condesending."

...how was that? Pretty accurate?

[Hooves]

My "misunderstanding" was a simple question about whether the server was in-house or company owned and whom was responsible for repairs, I believe it was you and 4-5 others that misunderstood.

I'm flabbergasted by your dickheaded attitude. I take pity on the next person that shows genuine interest in a community that you, Bliss, are involved in and tries to spark up discussion about improving online gameplay in a seemingly dying environment they wish to preserve. You convey a message of elitism from an outside-of-ATAG and non-mission perfection-making god's perspective with your recent posts and it's gross.

EDIT: I've mentioned countless times on forums and in-game how I'm grateful for ATAG's efforts, by the way. And I truly am. If this is the way a civil and intentionally constructive vocal interaction from the community that you host is going to be handled then this game truly is doomed.


+10


I find the fact that Blue Vulching RED and not the other way around happens 99% of the time, to be a defining failure in ANY mission made by ANY mission maker. And when someone brings up that point they are confronted with... DUH its realistic....... Well DUH no it isn't. The amount of flak that a 109 would face (and the Spit fire DOES face) in today's game. Should be INSANE. You shouldnt even think about going it alone into an enemy base. for fear of CERTAIN death, not "Oh maybe Ill get hit", or "OMG I cant beleive I get hit by flak". That was reality.

And Bliss, chill the F out man, Aborted is making points and has been pretty civil about the whole thing. You may not agree but Jesus man, calm down.


I hope that you can fix the missions, but just allowing the BS vulching, because you "didn't want to tell someone how to fly". Well that's kind of a crap cop out if you ask me. Neither team should want to get even close to the enemy base. And as it is now RED doesn't, for very real fear of not making it 2 miles. It should be the same for Blues. Then you aren't telling them how to fly, let them eat flak to their hearts content.

[JG52Krupi]

I had no attitude or sarcastic tone from the get-go.....

I have to stop you there Aborted, from reading this thread I would say that you were the one that started the "mud slinging" whether intentional or otherwise I don't care cut it out!

[JG52Krupi]

+10


I find the fact that Blue Vulching RED and not the other way around happens 99% of the time, to be a defining failure in ANY mission made by ANY mission maker. And when someone brings up that point they are confronted with... DUH its realistic....... Well DUH no it isn't. The amount of flak that a 109 would face (and the Spit fire DOES face) in today's game. Should be INSANE. You shouldnt even think about going it alone into an enemy base. for fear of CERTAIN death, not "Oh maybe Ill get hit", or "OMG I cant beleive I get hit by flak". That was reality.

And Bliss, chill the F out man, Aborted is making points and has been pretty civil about the whole thing. You may not agree but Jesus man, calm down.


I hope that you can fix the missions, but just allowing the BS vulching, because you "didn't want to tell someone how to fly". Well that's kind of a crap cop out if you ask me. Neither team should want to get even close to the enemy base. And as it is now RED doesn't, for very real fear of not making it 2 miles. It should be the same for Blues. Then you aren't telling them how to fly, let them eat flak to their hearts content.

I have been vulched by reds plenty of times and if you had taken the time to fly a 109 over hawkinge you would realize your not going to last very long... BOFORS BOFORS BOFORS!

[SEE]

All I can say is that when ATAG1 server was down what was left, regards Channel Map servers, was pretty non existent (except for ATAG 2 running the official version). So I trotted off and tried HSFX6, UP3 on Hyperlobby and found that many servers were mainly 'on the deck furballs'. That's what a lot of folks want and enjoy and it doesn't matter how the mission is set up.

The ATAG server missions cater for everyone and is the most popular for that very reason. My own experience is that the current increase in frequent and large AI formations at altitude with fewer RAF AI bomber groups has resulted in far more players providing LW escort at high altitude.

When I first started on ATAG you rarely saw another player at 18K - now you frequently see many players at 22K+ on some of the missions - and of course you have the players who prefer the low level fun and thats the whole point - MP should be enjoyable for all.

If the ATAG server went off line permanently it would kill CloD MP for me and a lot of other peeps I suspect.

[ATAG_Bliss]

I had no attitude or sarcastic tone from the get-go. You chimed in with essentially a "you don't know what you're talking about or know what works" message when that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I wasn't even demanding anything along the lines of "Why isn't this-or-that in the mission? Make it so!" if you recall my previous posts, I was discussing the logistics and economics of player's actions and reactions given a circumstance in a mission.

Just to touch on what I was talking about and what you're talking about...adding more anti-aircraft to the Hawkinge area as a *possible* way to counter a "Hawkinge furball" and to motivate,not penalize, players *possibly* going out and escorting/intercepting, is **so complex that I cannot even begin to understand until I've built a mission.**

Even though I've never cracked open the mission editor for more than 15 minutes I find that extremely hard to believe.

Just know that I was truly engaging in a civil-mannered discussion and had no ill intentions in my posts. It was an open forum for my ideas to be heard, debated and processed. I had no grandiose visions of superiority in mission structure...just simply wanted some feedback, input/output with no lip, sass, sarcasm, trolling, hatred, or belittling involved.

If my discussion is a demonstration in "condesending" (spelled "condescending", btw) jack-assery then damn, you are some sensitive folk and I need to brush up on my definition of "condesending."

...how was that? Pretty accurate?

And yet again, you don't understand. We've already gone to great lengths with the AAA (why in the hell am I typing this for the 1000th time I don't know) but anyhow, not only have we found out what AAA/flak is the most accurate and damaging out of all the types, we've found a grouping that works about as good as it's gonna get in the current way of the non-adjustable AAA/flak. This grouping has the exact same elements for both sides. IE - red and blue pieces acting together. Not only did we spend many many hours testing this to come up with effective AAA/Flak (as with what works in game) we also spent time trying to construct many other ways of Airfield defense. These include hiding tanks, even naval ships, all in the ground along with the AAA. The reason, yet again, that we don't have any more AAA/flak on top of all the work we've done actually making them do something is because, as previously posted many times before, these additional objects/groupings are at the limit of pushing people's FPS. What we have right now is on the edge of hurting people's performance. What you also fail to realize is there has been close to 3000 different versions of some of the same missions. All of these changes constantly being made to work around issues within the game and issues brought up by different patches. I love the comments by people stating we've been playing the same mission for over a year. It just goes to show exactly how much of our work, people take for granted.

Again, it's people like you that think you can simply "place more" and that will cure the problem. That's why every single assumption you have about anything in this game will more than likely be wrong. That's why, yet again, it is very complex in the 1st place to get AAA to do something/be effective. Something you just tried to have an insult at. When I say you don't have the 1st clue of what you are talking about with regarding the elements of online mission building, I mean it. That's why your mock is laughable. That's why you would never be able to build an online mission. Because it literally took a few 1000 hours to work around every single issue to make the appearance of an objective based mission. This includes something what most people think is simple, spawning, AAA, triggers, AI timings etc.

I'm sure those that actually started playing the sim when it 1st came out can remember airfields that used to be littered with wreckage, 50% of the spawn points causing planes to blow up, etc. All this stuff has been a constant work in progress. With comments like yours I honestly don't know why we try to do anything.

[ATAG_Dutch]

With comments like yours I honestly don't know why we try to do anything.

Because for every one of those type of comments, there are hundreds of people who do appreciate the effort involved and the level of balance achieved over time. They just ain't so vocal. ;)

[ATAG_Bliss]

Because for every one of those type of comments, there are hundreds of people who do appreciate the effort involved and the level of balance achieved over time. They just ain't so vocal. ;)

It's very frustrating what people take for granted. I'm just going to put him on my ignore list.

[AbortedMan]

Bliss, your arrogance is legendary.

[ATAG_Colander]

Moderators,
I think is would be better to lock the thread, at least for a couple of days while steam (not the one used on the game) is blown off.

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

+10


I find the fact that Blue Vulching RED and not the other way around happens 99% of the time, to be a defining failure in ANY mission made by ANY mission maker. And when someone brings up that point they are confronted with... DUH its realistic....... Well DUH no it isn't. The amount of flak that a 109 would face (and the Spit fire DOES face) in today's game. Should be INSANE. You shouldnt even think about going it alone into an enemy base. for fear of CERTAIN death, not "Oh maybe Ill get hit", or "OMG I cant beleive I get hit by flak". That was reality.

And Bliss, chill the F out man, Aborted is making points and has been pretty civil about the whole thing. You may not agree but Jesus man, calm down.


I hope that you can fix the missions, but just allowing the BS vulching, because you "didn't want to tell someone how to fly". Well that's kind of a crap cop out if you ask me. Neither team should want to get even close to the enemy base. And as it is now RED doesn't, for very real fear of not making it 2 miles. It should be the same for Blues. Then you aren't telling them how to fly, let them eat flak to their hearts content.

Hooves what the heck are you talking about, there has been multiple airfields including rear fields forever that can be used if you dont want instant action.

[ATAG_Keller]

Bliss, your arrogance is legendary.

C'mon man, Bliss is one of the most patient and easy-going guys I know. I suggest we put this all behind us and move on.

I don't think I've ever seen you on Teamspeak before AbortedMan, you should really get on TS and hook up with some of the guys that fly Red. It's easy to avoid the ground strafers when you're on TS because you hear about them 5 minutes before you even spawn a plane.

[Blackdog_kt]

Moderators,
I think is would be better to lock the thread, at least for a couple of days while steam (not the one used on the game) is blown off.

From where i'm standing it looks like AbortedMan is trying to make some valid points but they are worded somewhat "clumsily", for lack of a better word, and that makes them sound like unfair criticism towards Bliss and the crew managing the server.

I don't want to close a highly active thread about a highly active MP server. What i can do is delete the posts where the arguments take place and leave it at that if the participants here agree.

I already suggested they try to contain themselves without moderator intervention. I really don't want this to escalate further because it puts me in the difficult position of having to apply infractions to people i fly with, talk to on TS and, where certain individuals are concerned, use a service they provide out of their own pockets and tons of their spare time. On the other hand, i can't slap infractions on some people and cut slack for others with a straight face, it would be unfair and compromise my impartiality. If i don't treat everyone the same, then i'm not doing my job right, i hope you all understand this.

So come on guys, please chill out, do it for me and don't put me between a rock and a hard place :-P

[AbortedMan]

Hooves what the heck are you talking about, there has been multiple airfields including rear fields forever that can be used if you dont want instant action.

Nevermind Hooves, he hasn't yet realized that he and I are simpletons and haven't the slightest understanding of what goes on with mission making.

It's not like I spend all day getting paid to comb over .xml code here in Redmond, WA at the Millennium-D Microsoft campus every week day 8am to 5pm or anything. All that mission creating jargon is too complicated for my common forum-going, video game playing, aircraft simulator-keyboard mashing brain.

I are go back to work now, durrrr.

[AbortedMan]

C'mon man, Bliss is one of the most patient and easy-going guys I know. I suggest we put this all behind us and move on.

I fail to recognize that...and this was never in front of me, so it's done.

I don't think I've ever seen you on Teamspeak before AbortedMan, you should really get on TS and hook up with some of the guys that fly Red. It's easy to avoid the ground strafers when you're on TS because you hear about them 5 minutes before you even spawn a plane.

I'm there literally every time I'm on ATAG if the channel is populated and JTDawg is scream-talking into my ear, otherwise I'm tabbed over on ACG's TS.

[JTDawg]

I fail to recognize that...and this was never in front of me, so it's done.



I'm there literally every time I'm on ATAG if the channel is populated and JTDawg is scream-talking into my ear, otherwise I'm tabbed over on ACG's TS.

No buddy ever said anything to me ? ,IF So sorry but you can turn down volume to each player ,which i will do for you ,Aborted you are really reaching hear , we have flown alot together , an now on me!! wow dude , please don't go out like this .

[AbortedMan]

No buddy ever said anything to me ? ,IF So sorry but you can turn down volume to each player ,which i will do for you ,Aborted you are really reaching hear , we have flown alot together , an now on me!! wow dude , please don't go out like this .

No man, just jabbin at ya since I've made jokes to you about it a couple times while we get in furballs together.

[ATAG_Doc]

Well can we get back on topic and talk about my awesomness again? I miss that!

And Blackdog shame on you for not giving the BR.20 her due. She's a sexy Italiano and has radial engines. Takes a lot of abuse to!

[JG52Krupi]

And Blackdog shame on you for not giving the BR.20 her due. She's a sexy Italiano and has radial engines. Takes a lot of abuse to!

No shame on you "timej" was it for using the word sexy and br.20 in the same sentence! :P

[Catseye]

Well can we get back on topic and talk about my awesomness again? I miss that!

And Blackdog shame on you for not giving the BR.20 her due. She's a sexy Italiano and has radial engines. Takes a lot of abuse to!

I've never been able to get a piece of her tail though! Her "engines" get in the way. :)

[ICU_DIE535]

I think ALL the ATAG guys are Awesome. The work they put into these missions and the help they give has no equal anywhere else in this commun ity. If something god forbid ever happened to cause the ATAG servers to go down I would be very depressed, and upset because I look forward to flying, fighting and talking to the people on their servers.

I have been killed, had my plane blown in half or lost an elevator, aileron just flying low over Hawkinge or the British territory and I didn't like it much. But thats realistic to me and it's the chance you take flying low. I didn't cry about it because I understood what would happened if I did it.

As far as vulching goes it is realistic and a part of war. I love it when a group of British fighters comes to France to vulch at Pihen or what ever because it just means that I don't have to fly across the channel to get a kill, and those battles are the most fun in my opinion. Sure I get shot before take-off or shot right at wheels up but, I get back in a plane and go after the guy who shot me, to make them pay.

Some people just can't stand being p/ked right after take-off and have to cry about it.

Thats my two cents.

[AbortedMan]

I think ALL the ATAG guys are Awesome. The work they put into these missions and the help they give has no equal anywhere else in this commun ity. If something god forbid ever happened to cause the ATAG servers to go down I would be very depressed, and upset because I look forward to flying, fighting and talking to the people on their servers.

I have been killed, had my plane blown in half or lost an elevator, aileron just flying low over Hawkinge or the British territory and I didn't like it much. But thats realistic to me and it's the chance you take flying low. I didn't cry about it because I understood what would happened if I did it.

As far as vulching goes it is realistic and a part of war. I love it when a group of British fighters comes to France to vulch at Pihen or what ever because it just means that I don't have to fly across the channel to get a kill, and those battles are the most fun in my opinion. Sure I get shot before take-off or shot right at wheels up but, I get back in a plane and go after the guy who shot me, to make them pay.

Some people just can't stand being p/ked right after take-off and have to cry about it.

Thats my two cents.

I'm not too concerned about getting vulched myself, never really happens to me as I don't put myself in that position. What I do concern myself with is we have about 100 square miles to fly and operate in with various tasks and activities yet most of the time 75% of the people on the server are only interested in the 1 square mile that contains Hawkinge.

[bw_wolverine]

Here's my position:

ATAG's main server offers something you can't get elsewhere online at the moment; consistent high bandwidth connection game server where you are pretty much guaranteed to encounter human enemy opposition in the air using the channel map. That's great. Whether people hover around Hawkinge or meet at angels 18 over the channel is a matter for people to decide on their own.

There are other servers out there that offer other options. If you want more structured missions and raids of a historical nature then try ACG's offering. Want instant dogfights then try the Repka stuff. 71sts server is wonderful as well when it is available. The reason I think we all get in knots over ATAG's style of play (mostly unstructured with symmetrical objectives - just my description of it) is that it has the appearance of "the only game in town" due to its regularly being the only highly populated server out there.

I'd love to get the ACG sever onto a fibre line in North America to guarantee good pings and bandwidth but I can't afford to. I'd love to code up my perfect mission but I don't have the time to get familiar enough with the mission builder to do it. Even then I'm not convinced that server ping or mission type are the issues when it comes to server population.

I don't think the current situation is perfect for anyone. Hopefully when the game is patched up to a point where we start gaining more pilots than we're losing then we'll start seeing a higher proportion of players who are willing to gather regularly for a different gameplay experience. In turn that should allow more servers to prosper and take away the problem of having to decide whether to log into a server that has 30 players on or a server that has 0.

[ATAG_Doc]

Is the channel command on yet or still testing?

[ATAG_Septic]

I'm not too concerned about getting vulched myself, never really happens to me as I don't put myself in that position. What I do concern myself with is we have about 100 square miles to fly and operate in with various tasks and activities yet most of the time 75% of the people on the server are only interested in the 1 square mile that contains Hawkinge.

I'd like to see some evidence for that assertion, the 75%. I'm not saying you are incorrect you understand. I'm no expert on percentages and statistics.

As for me, I fly red and blue about equally, fighters and bombers and I rarely find myself there.

Septic.

[ATAG_Septic]

Is the channel command on yet or still testing?

It's up on Wolf's pc for testing, despite the high pings from here it's very playable :)

Septic.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Here's my position:

ATAG's main server offers something you can't get elsewhere online at the moment; consistent high bandwidth connection game server where you are pretty much guaranteed to encounter human enemy opposition in the air using the channel map. That's great. Whether people hover around Hawkinge or meet at angels 18 over the channel is a matter for people to decide on their own.

There are other servers out there that offer other options. If you want more structured missions and raids of a historical nature then try ACG's offering. Want instant dogfights then try the Repka stuff. 71sts server is wonderful as well when it is available. The reason I think we all get in knots over ATAG's style of play (mostly unstructured with symmetrical objectives - just my description of it) is that it has the appearance of "the only game in town" due to its regularly being the only highly populated server out there.

I'd love to get the ACG sever onto a fibre line in North America to guarantee good pings and bandwidth but I can't afford to. I'd love to code up my perfect mission but I don't have the time to get familiar enough with the mission builder to do it. Even then I'm not convinced that server ping or mission type are the issues when it comes to server population.

I don't think the current situation is perfect for anyone. Hopefully when the game is patched up to a point where we start gaining more pilots than we're losing then we'll start seeing a higher proportion of players who are willing to gather regularly for a different gameplay experience. In turn that should allow more servers to prosper and take away the problem of having to decide whether to log into a server that has 30 players on or a server that has 0.

What it offers is missions designed to work with lots of players. IE - we've constantly changed missions and figured out what works for a larger audience. We've been lucky to have the population as our own beta testers essentially, but I have no doubt the population we have is because we do fix problems and constantly improve. Some of the missions have had 1000's of changes. I'm fairly confident the other servers would be at square #1, where we started at, if they started filling up. This isn't meant to be a bad thing, it's just, like I did early on, I thought I had the greatest mission in the world, then soon found out what I had to do to start allowing more people to join it.

You can make some really good historical scenarios when you have 5 people flying it. You soon realize what types of problems go on when you have 20, then 30, then 40, till 100 players. Again, we've been fortunate to have a population as a test bed to be able to figure out what works and what doesn't. But this is no BS when I tell you missions can run great with low amounts of people, but will go to absolute crap when they fill up unless you know just how much you can push it. I've joined other servers and seen some real nice historical escort stuff and the likes, but immediately thought to myself, "this server couldn't have 20 players join it" simply because what they were trying to do with certain amounts of AI and objects I've tried long ago.

Unless there's been some magic wand out there that has helped people magically figure out how to get missions in line with player numbers (IE - what works) I think most other hosters would go through the same ordeal we have for well over a year constantly working around the issues. The bad part for the other hosters is they don't really get a chance to see these issues until there's some sort of player base join. I'm pretty sure the SOWC has helped Farber figure out just how unhistorical # of bomber flights you can have etc., with a good amount of players. I think he even said he tested himself with large groups everywhere and it worked great. I saw the SOWC and a few people weren't able to join, many had slide shows etc. Now this isn't any sort of jab, it's just that Farber probably now has more of an understanding of what you can do online as he keeps the campaign going. I imagine it's as disappointing to him as it was to us long ago when we were 1st trying to do this sort of thing. So I'd wager a guess that people flock to the server quite simply, because the missions work for that many people, as good as one can expect in the current online state.

This isn't a jab at any server hoster btw, I just think they'd all have to go through the same growing pains and enlightenment we did once we started getting players. Making the missions work is what has kept them IMO.

@ Doc - Channel Command is in the rotation ;)

[ATAG_Doc]

@ Doc - Channel Command is in the rotation ;)

Thank you! You made what could possibly be my last day alive great! Many TANKS!
http://www.thecrosshairstrader.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/tanks.jpg

[AbortedMan]

I'd like to see some evidence for that assertion, the 75%. I'm not saying you are incorrect you understand. I'm no expert on percentages and statistics.

As for me, I fly red and blue about equally, fighters and bombers and I rarely find myself there.

Septic.

Just an observational guesstimation...everyone that plays on ATAG knows to go to Hawkinge for a guaranteed quick fight.

[Warhound]

Channel command up and running right now, just started!
come try it out. :)

[SlipBall]

Is anyone here using the ts plugin-volume control...I can't seem to un-pack it even as administrator.
http://addons.teamspeak.com/director...ous/page3.html (http://addons.teamspeak.com/directory/plugins/miscellaneous/page3.html)

[5./JG27.Farber]

ChannelCommander.

Im trying to look at it with new eyes but Im not doing very well. However I only played it for 40 mins so its early days yet.

I started a "random" axis air mission but there was no confirmation as to where or when to meet the high alt bomber attack... Did or do something wrong or is that point? - Its random.

AA/A - same beef, no need to explain. In fact it is worse than the usual ATAG maps.

The radar/contact reports are mental, spamming every few minutes. Im sure there is a way to limit it in the Conf.ini. I will have to look into that.

Orange Writing..................... I hate Orange Writing across the screen. Its a total immersion killer! Can it not go in the chat?

I know its easy to be negative and hard to be positive and I dont believe I've given it a fair crack of the whip yet. It seems quite allot of work went into it but I dont see anything yet that draws me to it. Will have another go at some point. I can say this though, ATAG are Pioneers of exploring new limits in MP but sometimes "a little is allot..." We always get so much to at once from ATAG this is not always a good thing.

S!

[AbortedMan]

ChannelCommander.

Im trying to look at it with new eyes but Im not doing very well. However I only played it for 40 mins so its early days yet.

I started a "random" axis air mission but there was no confirmation as to where or when to meet the high alt bomber attack... Did or do something wrong or is that point? - Its random.

AA/A - same beef, no need to explain. In fact it is worse than the usual ATAG maps.

The radar/contact reports are mental, spamming every few minutes. Im sure there is a way to limit it in the Conf.ini. I will have to look into that.

Orange Writing..................... I hate Orange Writing across the screen. Its a total immersion killer! Can it not go in the chat?

I know its easy to be negative and hard to be positive and I dont believe I've given it a fair crack of the whip yet. It seems quite allot of work went into it but I dont see anything yet that draws me to it. Will have another go at some point. I can say this though, ATAG are Pioneers of exploring new limits in MP but sometimes "a little is allot..." We always get so much to at once from ATAG this is not always a good thing.

S!

Also thinking the same thing as Farber. I'd been trying to catch the new mission all last weekend with no luck, I kept finding the old mission...why all the hype about this awesome new mission on the forums, yet it's not on the server 24/7. I'd think it'd be on at all times for at least a week just for live testing purposes along with maximum exposure to players. With all the work that apparently went into it, I'd think Channel Command would be ATAG's pride and joy and shown off on constant rotation.

Anywho, I managed to catch it on Monday I believe...4 pilots on the server so I wasn't expecting to see anything or anyone. I tried to get a high alt mission going and was prompted with a vague objective, "LW Bombers heading for Canterbury 15,000ft from French Point 20 minutes" (paraphrasing), I was excited to take off and climb, but wasn't sure if the message meant the bombers would be at French Point in 20 minutes, or at their target, Canterbury, in 20 minutes. I headed to French Point (I took off from Canterbury) and made it to 15k ft well before my destination and saw zero bombers...zero aircraft at all, actually.

I cruised around for about 40 minutes fairly disappointed, especially because a blue pilot was reporting in chat that 3 AI hurricanes just attacked him randomly. I kept hoping for 109s to spawn and bounce me, but to no avail. Never found my bomber intercept objective at French Point, Canterbury, or anywhere in-between. I checked out a low-alt mission and it was to fly low CAP for RAF shipping between Dover and Manston. Hung around a single ship just Northeast of Dover at approx. 6k ft for about 30 minutes and saw nothing. Started my RTB and got jumped by a human 109 on my 6...the fight went sub 10k ft and the anti-air was AWESOME. It was EVERYWHERE. Black poofs all over the place, very immersive. GOOD SHOW. I don't think it was damaging the 109 (we were still moving fast and at around 10k ft) but added a lot to the fight...I lost of course due to the "rocketship" nature of the 109 booming and zooming my genitals off. But kudos on the anti-air implementations!

I'll be trying again this week (if I find the mission in the rotation) and hoping my first experience was just a fluke. I can tell a ton of thought and process went into the mission and I'm excited to see it in action. Great job Wolf!

I guess my only gripe is that the new content isn't in the rotation enough, or on my timezone...maybe I can convince my best-good-friend Bliss (or whomever controls mission rotations) to put the mission up all the time?

[5./JG27.Farber]

Yea more AA just what we needed... AAA fine but AA? I thought it was a flight sim not a AA sim.

Is there AI fighters? :rolleyes:

[w1nd6urfa]

Is anyone here using the ts plugin-volume control...I can't seem to un-pack it even as administrator.
http://addons.teamspeak.com/director...ous/page3.html (http://addons.teamspeak.com/directory/plugins/miscellaneous/page3.html)

Yes, using it very useful in fact otherwise can't hear anyone over the engine noise. I upgraded to the latest TS release which didn;t include it, had to install separately.

[bw_wolverine]

Got a chance with the new mission today:

My first impression is that it needs several small fixes with regard the fighters available. I'm assuming that there are no airstarts for Hurricanes because the patch should be here soon and that's a lot of work to put them in / take them out etc. so that's okay, but there are a few wonky things (like 64 Squadron having Hurricanes instead of Spitfires even though the airfield says the opposite). Just some small tweaks there.

Otherwise, I quite enjoyed the sortie we had. The map is covering a larger area of the battle, so I'm quite happy to see that. Plus the ability to launch mission in those areas makes it much more about finding the current mission that is running and taking part rather than finding the closest point between the bases and running into everyone. So that works nicely.

The orange text: I don't mind it. I would rather turn OFF the text chat and just have appropriate orange text messages at appropriate times than have the messages pop up in chat. It's the people chatting "LOL. where are u?" etc etc that kill immersion for me, not big orange letters saying "Bandits over Eastbourne angels one five. 10 plus. Heading Ashford." It's a shame those messages can't be made from the voice files. That would be perfect. But as it is now, I think it's fine.

Loading time was quite long so that might have accounted for the fewer people on. It's worth the wait though! Didn't play around with it long enough to test out the gameplay of the plane reduction, but it seemed to work. Took three spits out and when we brought them back it said one by one that the number available increased again. Pretty slick.

Also, I didn't think enough of the airfields on Red have the 100 octane versions available. Whether or not it's historical, I think that the option should be there. At least until the FMs have been updated a bit. It's clearly not going to make Red unbeatable, and it'll save people complaining. Really, restricing the versions is just going to make it a little more easy for one side to guess where the others are going to start from.
Now...any London raids in there? HMMM? :) :)

[AbortedMan]

Yea more AA just what we needed... AAA fine but AA? I thought it was a flight sim not a AA sim.

Is there AI fighters? :rolleyes:

Why would you not want anti-air? A single fighter would have to have a death wish to go attack a forward operating airbase alone. IMO, airbases should be no-fly zones effective by anti-aircraft installments for both realism and gameplay sake.

[klem]

ChannelCommander.

Im trying to look at it with new eyes but Im not doing very well. However I only played it for 40 mins so its early days yet.

I started a "random" axis air mission but there was no confirmation as to where or when to meet the high alt bomber attack... Did or do something wrong or is that point? - Its random.

AA/A - same beef, no need to explain. In fact it is worse than the usual ATAG maps.

The radar/contact reports are mental, spamming every few minutes. Im sure there is a way to limit it in the Conf.ini. I will have to look into that.

Orange Writing..................... I hate Orange Writing across the screen. Its a total immersion killer! Can it not go in the chat?

I know its easy to be negative and hard to be positive and I dont believe I've given it a fair crack of the whip yet. It seems quite allot of work went into it but I dont see anything yet that draws me to it. Will have another go at some point. I can say this though, ATAG are Pioneers of exploring new limits in MP but sometimes "a little is allot..." We always get so much to at once from ATAG this is not always a good thing.

S!

I've only played this mission once and hardly had time to read the website info but I understand what you mean about the orange writing Farber but I sometimes find the chat box useless because of the other stuff that rolls through it. Perhaps it needs its own info box. But at least with the orange writing its like a brief verbal message that quickly disappears. Actually I think audible messages can be created, there are a list of them in the Actors folder (or something like that) that I was playing with a while ago and I think it may be possible to create and use new ones. Perhaps have voices supporting chat box text?

Other than that, could there be an option to receive only the Orange messages relating to the mission you have chosen to fly? Just a little more scripting :eek: Perhaps not!

[notafinger!]

My first impression is that it needs several small fixes with regard the fighters available. I'm assuming that there are no airstarts for Hurricanes because the patch should be here soon and that's a lot of work to put them in / take them out etc. so that's okay, but there are a few wonky things (like 64 Squadron having Hurricanes instead of Spitfires even though the airfield says the opposite). Just some small tweaks there.

The blue airfields are the same. Descriptions that make no sense with what is available. It looks like it was built off another mission and the airfield labels were never changed. What's worse is the mission forces the markings of that unit on your plane.

Yea more AA just what we needed... AAA fine but AA? I thought it was a flight sim not a AA sim.

Remember, you're supposed to fly high above all the AA. Oh...but wait there are bomber formations to be escorted operating at 1000m now. What's a pilot to do? :confused:

Also, I saw where somebody posted they fought a formation of Fw 200 Condors at 5.5k, pretty sure they never flew that high or were ever used against ground targets. Long distance Atlantic recon patrols & low level shipping attacks only for those big boys. I doubt any Fw 200 crew even saw an enemy fighter in 1940.

This is not meant to be a dig at ATAG as their server has basically kept the game alive through these many dark months, but when you thirst for realism & historical accuracy some of these little errors/omissions are a big downer.

[bw_wolverine]

The blue airfields are the same. Descriptions that make no sense with what is available. It looks like it was built off another mission and the airfield labels were never changed. What's worse is the mission forces the markings of that unit on your plane.


I actually don't mind that the airfield forces the markings. I'm happy to take off from Croydon (or Northolt) to use No.401 markings. I think this helps to give an incentive to pilots to spread out a bit (which would be a negative if you couldn't kick off mission, but here works well).

I'll just have to wait for the patch to use the Hurricane in this mission. Also, can we please have the 100octane version Hurricane available for No.401 please and thankyou :)

[5./JG27.Farber]

...but I understand what you mean about the orange writing Farber but I sometimes find the chat box useless because of the other stuff that rolls through it. Perhaps it needs its own info box. ...

Yea I know. What would be awesome is if you could move it around like the other windows... ;)

[TRIK]

How do i update my framenetwork pls help cheers ive seen it somewhere on this forum but now i cant find it lol

[SiThSpAwN]

Anyone having issues with timing out on the server? Trying to track down the issue as its new for me since this latest patch...

[JTDawg]

How do i update my framenetwork pls help cheers ive seen it somewhere on this forum but now i cant find it lol

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?1806-If-you-have-not-tried-this-please-do

[ATAG_Colander]

Anyone having issues with timing out on the server? Trying to track down the issue as its new for me since this latest patch...

If you are recording a track, there's a bug that disconnects you randomly.
Feel free to vote here:
http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/373

[SiThSpAwN]

If you are recording a track, there's a bug that disconnects you randomly.
Feel free to vote here:
http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/373

Ok, thanks! Dang it!

[TRIK]

takes me ages to connect to atag server now about 10 mins to be fair and thats if it does connect , i could be waiting a while then it would say connection timed out :( never had trouble like this before

[SlipBall]

Looks like the new patch did a lot for the ping when the server is busy:)

[Hlander]

Had fun over the weekend on ATAG with about 40+ players on, is this the norm?

Also I have been reading through the posts in this thread. Bomber night seems like fun, any chance of bringing it back?

[DUI]

Probably, this topic was already discussed, but as it is quite frustrating: It happens quite often that on the map which has the british convoy as primary target 1 of the 18 british ships is bombed successfully but not registered as destroyed.

As it - to my knowledge - always was max. one ship that was unsinkable: Is there a chance to make the target already accomplished if 17 (or 16) ships of the convoy are destroyed?

[Matze81]

Hey, I tried flying on the ATAG server for the first time today and had some problems when trying to select an aircraft.
When I joined the German side, I clicked on a fighter airfield and then I clicked on the aircraft picture on the right to change the default 109 E-3 to a E-4.
But when this little window with the different aircraft pictures comes up, nothing happens, when I click on the E-4 or any other airplane.
Could be my computer, cause it's acting kinda laggy and slow in the multiplayer menus or am I doing something wrong?

[klem]

Hey, I tried flying on the ATAG server for the first time today and had some problems when trying to select an aircraft.
When I joined the German side, I clicked on a fighter airfield and then I clicked on the aircraft picture on the right to change the default 109 E-3 to a E-4.
But when this little window with the different aircraft pictures comes up, nothing happens, when I click on the E-4 or any other airplane.
Could be my computer, cause it's acting kinda laggy and slow in the multiplayer menus or am I doing something wrong?

Hi Matze81,

Did you double-click on the aircraft you want to fly?
Also, please post you system specs and settings so that someone may be able to make suggestions on settings. Presumably you have shut down all other applications, MSN, Windows Live etc that may be running in the background?

[ATAG_Bliss]

Probably, this topic was already discussed, but as it is quite frustrating: It happens quite often that on the map which has the british convoy as primary target 1 of the 18 british ships is bombed successfully but not registered as destroyed.

As it - to my knowledge - always was max. one ship that was unsinkable: Is there a chance to make the target already accomplished if 17 (or 16) ships of the convoy are destroyed?

Hi DUI,

I actually redid the mission a while back in the hopes that it was my problem instead of the game's. Obviously didn't work :(

Anyhow, I've changed the blue objectives to where 17 ships (out of 18 ) + all the ground objectives should trigger the win. Please let me know how it works.

Thanks!

[5./JG27.Farber]

Will ATAG 1 have have no temp effects soon?

[ATAG_Dutch]

Will ATAG 1 have have no temp effects soon?

No. :)

[ATAG_Colander]

Will ATAG 1 have have no temp effects soon?

Perhaps only allowing G50's and Hurris

[ATAG_Snapper]

Will ATAG 1 have have no temp effects soon?

No, the video you saw was a joke; the man playing Hitler was an actor.

[Matze81]

Hi Matze81,

Did you double-click on the aircraft you want to fly?
Also, please post you system specs and settings so that someone may be able to make suggestions on settings. Presumably you have shut down all other applications, MSN, Windows Live etc that may be running in the background?
I updated my sig with the system specs. Stuff in the backround is shut down. I thought it might be the mouse driver, but pluggin in another regular mouse with windows drivers didn't help.

Yeah, I was double-clicking on 'em. Yesterday I thought restarting Steam did the trick, but it happened again today. Nothing would work, until I restarted the game, went to singleplayer first, changed my airplane there (there clicking on airplanes worked), then went back to multiplayer and suddenly my mouse-clicks would also work in the multiplayer menu again and I could select my 109 E-4. Don't know if it is a permanent workaround or if it was just luck.

I only played offline until now, but I came across this problem already before. For example sometimes (not always) when I'm finished playing and I wanna exit the game, the "do you really want to exit" window comes up and my mouse clicks on "Yes" are not registered anymore. It's not a problem, cause I can just hit return/enter and the game shuts down. Unfortunately hitting the return/enter key doesn't select the desired plane in the multiplayer selection window.

I'll update the post, if the above mentioned seems to be a permanent workaround, just in case someone else has the same issue.

[klem]

I updated my sig with the system specs. Stuff in the backround is shut down. I thought it might be the mouse driver, but pluggin in another regular mouse with windows drivers didn't help.

Yeah, I was double-clicking on 'em. Yesterday I thought restarting Steam did the trick, but it happened again today. Nothing would work, until I restarted the game, went to singleplayer first, changed my airplane there (there clicking on airplanes worked), then went back to multiplayer and suddenly my mouse-clicks would also work in the multiplayer menu again and I could select my 109 E-4. Don't know if it is a permanent workaround or if it was just luck.

I only played offline until now, but I came across this problem already before. For example sometimes (not always) when I'm finished playing and I wanna exit the game, the "do you really want to exit" window comes up and my mouse clicks on "Yes" are not registered anymore. It's not a problem, cause I can just hit return/enter and the game shuts down. Unfortunately hitting the return/enter key doesn't select the desired plane in the multiplayer selection window.

I'll update the post, if the above mentioned seems to be a permanent workaround, just in case someone else has the same issue.

I've never heard of the aircraft picking problem. Have you tried re-validating files on Steam, clearing your cache, then reinstalling the patch?

For your graphics card I'd guess settings starting somewhere between Medium and High but with SSAO and Grass off, both building settings to low, forest to very low or off and experiment with Textures.

[VO101_Tom]

I only played offline until now, but I came across this problem already before. For example sometimes (not always) when I'm finished playing and I wanna exit the game, the "do you really want to exit" window comes up and my mouse clicks on "Yes" are not registered anymore. It's not a problem, cause I can just hit return/enter and the game shuts down. Unfortunately hitting the return/enter key doesn't select the desired plane in the multiplayer selection window.

I'll update the post, if the above mentioned seems to be a permanent workaround, just in case someone else has the same issue.

I had same problem when i want to save the controls.
My guess: open the clod folder (C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\il-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover), right click on the launcher exe. Open the "compatibility" tab, and tick/untick the "Disable Visual Themes" and the "Disable desktop composition" (2nd and 3rd from bottom) check box.

I read somewhere here, that we should tick these boxes, but i had problem when ticked. Since unticked, the game is perfect for me (this aspect ;) )

[DUI]

Hi DUI,

I actually redid the mission a while back in the hopes that it was my problem instead of the game's. Obviously didn't work :(

Anyhow, I've changed the blue objectives to where 17 ships (out of 18 ) + all the ground objectives should trigger the win. Please let me know how it works.

Hi Blisss, thanks a lot, sounds great! I will check what happens with an unsinkable ship next time.

I cannot confirm it myself but when I joined the convoy map today (in the very last minutes), I was told that there were 2 unsinkable ships. Well this surely does not happen too often... ;)

[ATAG_Bliss]

Hi Blisss, thanks a lot, sounds great! I will check what happens with an unsinkable ship next time.

I cannot confirm it myself but when I joined the convoy map today (in the very last minutes), I was told that there were 2 unsinkable ships. Well this surely does not happen too often... ;)


Well maybe I'll have to put a little more leeway into them then. ;)

I think this problem, just like many others online has to do with netcode. It seems it works fine until there's many players on. How I wish we really had dedicated server software instead of the steam server client crap we have now :(

[Matze81]

I had same problem when i want to save the controls.
My guess: open the clod folder (C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\il-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover), right click on the launcher exe. Open the "compatibility" tab, and tick/untick the "Disable Visual Themes" and the "Disable desktop composition" (2nd and 3rd from bottom) check box.

I read somewhere here, that we should tick these boxes, but i had problem when ticked. Since unticked, the game is perfect for me (this aspect ;) )
In my case setting the tick marks actually seems to help. Cool!
Thanks for the advice! :grin:

[ATAG_Bliss]

In my case setting the tick marks actually seems to help. Cool!
Thanks for the advice! :grin:

The problem with desktop composition has been there since day one. I think Luthier (when he actually used to post here) told us all to disable it quite a while back. I think Vista users also have more problems with this compared to Win7 etc. Hey, but the new game is supposed to fix it all :cool:

[ATAG_Colander]

ATAG Server 1 has been updated to 2.0.111

[ATAG_Colander]

ATAG Server 1 is now on V20172

[macro]

Hi atag bods!

Still loving your server!

But recently there been alot of blatant shoulder shooting and kill stealing with complete disregard of friendlies they are hitting in the process. Last 2 nights i played i think im getting attacked by 109 when chasing to find a spit behind me blasting away. And other times i get the 109 burning, the pilot is dead and hes definitly going down yet poeple insist on shooting it to get points.

Any chance of rules against this?

[DUI]

As you did not create a new thread, I just use this one:

Thanks a lot to everyone involved in the new Dunkerque map!

Great to have the main fighting close to the French coast for once, great mission objectives, interesting range of available planes! :grin:

Not totally sure, what I should think about the missing Bf110 C7 (probably historical correct) - at least, it forces me to fly the Ju87 and He111 again. :lol:

[Basha]

+1 one the shoulder shooting rule, i have witnessed it on many occasions recently also and have been hit.

While i am hear would anybody have an idea why the map briefing on your server for me has changed to Russian ?

Thumbs up for the Dunkirk mission :cool:

[ATAG_Doc]

Expand the size of the window. English is at the top. You can't scroll up any more.

[ATAG_Colander]

Server 1 is now running V2.0.332

[ATAG_Bliss]

Ok fellas - Some new cool features:

We are running our 1st server plugin. Many have probably noticed the welcome screen when they join the server, but more importantly you now have the ability to track what damage to the component level that has been done to your plane / enemy's plane / objects etc., from in game.

How this works: Once spawned in a plane, hit escape and you'll be taken to a special stats screen (should be self explanatory from there). But just remember, this only works and keeps track for the plane you are flying. If you leave your plane or are killed in action you will not get this function. So try to do a nice full sortie, make it back alive, and hit escape to get your after action report.

Here's an example of some stuff you will see as a 109 pilot:


***** Damage Caused *****

Plane: SpitfireMkIa_oct
---- Inflicted:
Electrical generator damaged
Engine damage

Plane: SpitfireMkIa
---- Inflicted:
Engine damage
Emergency hydraulics failure
Flaps failure
Engine oil cooling/lubrication damage
Engine water cooling damage
Electrical generator damaged
Hydraulics tank perforated
Pneumatics compressor failure
Pneumatics hose perforated
Engine disabled
Engine damage
Engine damage
Engine damage
Engine water cooling damage
Engine damage
Engine damage
Engine damage
Engine damage
Engine damage
Engine damage

Plane: SpitfireMkIIa
---- Inflicted:
Engine damage
Engine damage
Electrical generator damaged
Electrical battery damaged
Engine damage
Cockpit damage
Cockpit damage

Plane: SpitfireMkIa
---- Parts cut off:
Miscellaneous part


***** Your plane has these damages: *****


***** Your plane is missing these parts: *****

Feature #2 - You no longer will be despawned after you land. This means you can land, shut off the engine, go get a beer/take a leak, and come back to restart your plane and take off again. Your plane will only despawn after you, as a player, has left it.

Kinda hard to have Refuel and Rearm when your plane despawns on the ground. :) Here's a teaser video of the R&R and the effect of having our old despawn :-) : http://vimeo.com/48832383

A big thank you to Colander for all his amazing work.

Hopefully R&R is right around the corner.

Enjoy!

[ATAG_Bliss]

Forgot to mention. Stats were reset as well. This new patch should make it pretty interesting. Loving how much closer the fight is.

[klem]

Ok fellas - Some new cool features:

We are running our 1st server plugin. Many have probably noticed the welcome screen when they join the server, but more importantly you now have the ability to track what damage to the component level that has been done to your plane / enemy's plane / objects etc., from in game.

How this works: Once spawned in a plane, hit escape and you'll be taken to a special stats screen (should be self explanatory from there). But just remember, this only works and keeps track for the plane you are flying. If you leave your plane or are killed in action you will not get this function. So try to do a nice full sortie, make it back alive, and hit escape to get your after action report.

Here's an example of some stuff you will see as a 109 pilot:



Feature #2 - You no longer will be despawned after you land. This means you can land, shut off the engine, go get a beer/take a leak, and come back to restart your plane and take off again. Your plane will only despawn after you, as a player, has left it.

Kinda hard to have Refuel and Rearm when your plane despawns on the ground. :) Here's a teaser video of the R&R and the effect of having our old despawn :-) : http://vimeo.com/48832383

A big thank you to Colander for all his amazing work.

Hopefully R&R is right around the corner.

Enjoy!

R&R? Great news. Bring it on!

Meantime we just need to enforce "CLEAR THE RUNWAY!"

ermmmm, did I miss something in that video? A film showing what happens now, a dark silent stretch then a dark stretch with more BoB music?

[Winger]

Now that the allied planes have been boosted i think its nothingbut fair to at least give the germans the E4 on all maps. Co E everything the 109s can do is hope for the first hit and then run. So be fair and give us the E4 on all maps.

Winger

[ATAG_Snapper]

R&R? Great news. Bring it on!

Meantime we just need to enforce "CLEAR THE RUNWAY!"

ermmmm, did I miss something in that video? A film showing what happens now, a dark silent stretch then a dark stretch with more BoB music?

Heh, Bliss grabbed a video I had made a month back or so when Colander and a few of us were doing the initial tests. There was a glitch which Colander very quickly resolved when our aircraft were suddenly despawned as we were getting refueled and rearmed. I had made this video in a humorous vein (hence the BoB music) to demonstrate the sudden despawn. Actually, Colander had fixed this before I could upload the video.

This video shows how a fuel bowser appears beside your aircraft if you opt to refuel and rearm. Also, at the time you had to have at least ONE bullet left for rearming to work. If you go "winchester", you're outta luck. That's my reference to the red "residual" tracer early in the video. Sorry for the long black sequence at the end -- my bad editing in my rush to upload at the ime.

[Osprey]

Now that the allied planes have been boosted i think its nothingbut fair to at least give the germans the E4 on all maps. Co E everything the 109s can do is hope for the first hit and then run. So be fair and give us the E4 on all maps.

Winger

What? You want to bend history by giving out planes that weren't there? There were only about 30% E4's so lump it mate. I don't remember you supporting the RAF about which planes were in the map. No, just fly better, don't get caught low and slow, stay high and fast, remember - it's the pilot not the plane.

[Ze-Jamz]

Ok fellas - Some new cool features:

We are running our 1st server plugin. Many have probably noticed the welcome screen when they join the server, but more importantly you now have the ability to track what damage to the component level that has been done to your plane / enemy's plane / objects etc., from in game.

How this works: Once spawned in a plane, hit escape and you'll be taken to a special stats screen (should be self explanatory from there). But just remember, this only works and keeps track for the plane you are flying. If you leave your plane or are killed in action you will not get this function. So try to do a nice full sortie, make it back alive, and hit escape to get your after action report.

Here's an example of some stuff you will see as a 109 pilot:



Feature #2 - You no longer will be despawned after you land. This means you can land, shut off the engine, go get a beer/take a leak, and come back to restart your plane and take off again. Your plane will only despawn after you, as a player, has left it.

Kinda hard to have Refuel and Rearm when your plane despawns on the ground. :) Here's a teaser video of the R&R and the effect of having our old despawn :-) : http://vimeo.com/48832383

A big thank you to Colander for all his amazing work.

Hopefully R&R is right around the corner.

Enjoy!

very cool feature mate...

[ATAG_Bliss]

R&R? Great news. Bring it on!

Meantime we just need to enforce "CLEAR THE RUNWAY!"

ermmmm, did I miss something in that video? A film showing what happens now, a dark silent stretch then a dark stretch with more BoB music?

Yeah - that's why I said it was before the change in the way we despawn aircraft. It obviously didn't work out to well with the old despawn method :)

[Winger]

What? You want to bend history by giving out planes that weren't there? There were only about 30% E4's so lump it mate. I don't remember you supporting the RAF about which planes were in the map. No, just fly better, don't get caught low and slow, stay high and fast, remember - it's the pilot not the plane.

I read that the E-4 was the most flown 109 in BOB. E-1 and E-3 Models have even been refitted to gain E-4 Standard.
On allied side is the only plane that wasnt present in significant numbers during BOB. The spitfire IIa. So dude...

Winger

PS:And even if youre right. "only 30%" are you serious?:P
PPS: And please dont start with this its the pilot junk. If youre name was Manfred von Richthofen, H. J. Marseille or E. Hartman i would CONSIDER taking advices. But "Osprey" ... Sorry *grin*
PPPS: Oh and at this point a big thanks to the ATAG fellows for this great server. Having loads of fun there:)

[Robo.]

Great stuff on ATAG, I am looking forward to test that. And RnR coming? Whoooa!

I read that the E-4 was the most flown 109 in BOB. E-1 and E-3 Models have even been refitted to gain E-4 Standard.
On allied side is the only plane that wasnt present in significant numbers during BOB. The spitfire IIa. So dude...

Winger

Emil subvariants mixture depends on the exact date (month) the mission is taking place.

[bw_wolverine]

Has the channel command map gone offline again? I really really enjoy playing on ATAG server 2 with the big map and the great missions.

I'd love to know what's happened to it.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Has the channel command map gone offline again? I really really enjoy playing on ATAG server 2 with the big map and the great missions.

I'd love to know what's happened to it.

It has a mesh error that is crashing the launcher for the server. The problem is being looked at, but won't be back up until its fixed/solution found.

[Deadagain]

I very much enjoy flying on your server ,however could you please ask the Spitfire pilots to refrain from sawing our me 109's in half with their planes as I am bad enough without this happening.

[ATAG_Colander]

I very much enjoy flying on your server ,however could you please ask the Spitfire pilots to refrain from sawing our me 109's in half with their planes as I am bad enough without this happening.

Hi Deadagain,

Sadly, it happens and is unintentional. I've done my self (in a 109).

The best advice I can give you is to not get in a turn fight with them. In the 109 you should always fly at high speed so you only get close to them to shoot and then extend/climb away.
This will minimize the chances of a collision.

ATAG_Colander.

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/forum.php

[ATAG_Colander]

ATAG Server 1 is now updated to the latest Steam version.

[Mi7ch3a2el]

What is the game?
http://www.qmmv.info/12.jpg
http://www.qmmv.info/13.jpg
http://www.qmmv.info/14.jpg

[furbs]

With the netcode improvements in the latest patch, have you thought about allowing stock skins on the server?

Maybe have a test evening?

Cheers.

[Winger]

With the netcode improvements in the latest patch, have you thought about allowing stock skins on the server?

Maybe have a test evening?

Cheers.

Would love to know that too.
Also whats teh status on refuel and rearm on ATAG?
Otherwise having a great time there. Would be even better if both maps would allow E4s and corrensponding Spits instead of only E1 and E3.

Winger

[furbs]

Any chance this post could of stayed in the main forum at least until its acknowledged its been spotted?

A post about "whiners" stays, but a post about online code is moved?

[notafinger!]

Any chance this post could of stayed in the main forum at least until its acknowledged its been spotted?

A post about "whiners" stays, but a post about online code is moved?

Go to the ATAG forums and you will see it has been discussed recently.

[Robo.]

Would be even better if both maps would allow E4s and corrensponding Spits instead of only E1 and E3.

One map represents Operation Dynamo hence the early planeset. I love it to bits btw, great job on that map.

[4./JG53_Wotan]

One map represents Operation Dynamo hence the early planeset. I love it to bits btw, great job on that map.

So - there were plenty of E-4s in service at the start of the BoF - well before Dunkirk.

JG 2, JG 51, JG 52, and JG 77 were equipped, at least partly, by Bf 109 E-4s during the BoF.

For example, a Bf 109 E-4 flown by Major Dr. Erich Mix from Stab III./JG 52 crash-landed at Roye, France on 21 May '40.

Wotan

[ATAG_Snapper]

So - there were plenty of E-4s in service at the start of the BoF - well before Dunkirk.

JG 2, JG 51, JG 52, and JG 77 were equipped, at least partly, by Bf 109 E-4s during the BoF.

For example, a Bf 109 E-4 flown by Major Dr. Erich Mix from Stab III./JG 52 crash-landed at Roye, France on 21 May '40.

Wotan

Good info. By the same token, 54 Squadron flying out of Hornchurch were very active at Dunkirk -- they were flying Rotol-equipped CSP Spitfire 1a's with 100 octane fuel which are not represented in this mission.

For example, Pilot Officer (later Air Commodore) Alan C. Deere of 54 Squadron was likewise shot down flying a Spitfire 1a (100 octane) with the Rotol Constant Speed Propeller on 22 May '40 and crash landed within walking distance of the beach and was evacuated by ship with the rest of the B.E.F.

In fact, ALL RAF fighters (Spitfires and Hurricanes - MK 1's) were on 100 octane fuel during the Dunkirk evacuation. Unfortunately, 1C has chosen not to provide the 2-speed DH-prop'd models with 100 octane so only the 87 octane pump gas variants are available for this mission.

The designer of this mission makes no claim that this is a 100% accurate simulation of Operation Dynamo, and had to make many tough decisions towards effecting the best gameplay -- which he has done in spades. TBH, no E4's is a small price to pay vs the spectre of facing Spits and Hurricanes with 12 lbs of boost WEP.

[JG52Uther]

I think Erich Mix was flying an E3 when shot down near Roye on 21st May, and he was in III./JG2! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JG_2)
Its not easy to assign aircraft in the early years, JG52 were flying a lot of E1's in the BoB.

[Robo.]

So - there were plenty of E-4s in service at the start of the BoF - well before Dunkirk.

JG 2, JG 51, JG 52, and JG 77 were equipped, at least partly, by Bf 109 E-4s during the BoF.

For example, a Bf 109 E-4 flown by Major Dr. Erich Mix from Stab III./JG 52 crash-landed at Roye, France on 21 May '40.

Wotan

Yes I know, but the map represents the majority of the variants and it's just fun to fly de Havilland RAF fighters against the manual prop pitch LW fighters. E-4 is for kids and grannies ;)

[notafinger!]

Yes I know, but the map represents the majority of the variants and it's just fun to fly de Havilland RAF fighters against the manual prop pitch LW fighters. E-4 is for kids and grannies ;)

This was my intention in designing the mission. That both sides would have to manually manage their pitch and based on loss returns the E-1/3 were the most common types employed during the fighting. There is evidence that E-4's were used in small numbers but too allow them then I'm sure I'd hear about no Spit IIa's or G.50's or something else I don't want on the mission. Not every flyable needs to be included on every mission and I think the mission is pretty well balanced as is.

[Robo.]

This was my intention in designing the mission. That both sides would have to manually manage their pitch and based on loss returns the E-1/3 were the most common types employed during the fighting. There is evidence that E-4's were used in small numbers but too allow them then I'm sure I'd hear about no Spit IIa's or G.50's or something else I don't want on the mission. Not every flyable needs to be included on every mission and I think the mission is pretty well balanced as is.

Oh I only now realised you were the author. Great job mate. I agree 100% and you could deploy few E-4 and it would be fair (I wouldn't mind them there unlike Mk.IIa or G.50) but the mission is very cool as it is, I am always looking forward to it.

[macro]

This was my intention in designing the mission. That both sides would have to manually manage their pitch and based on loss returns the E-1/3 were the most common types employed during the fighting. There is evidence that E-4's were used in small numbers but too allow them then I'm sure I'd hear about no Spit IIa's or G.50's or something else I don't want on the mission. Not every flyable needs to be included on every mission and I think the mission is pretty well balanced as is.

And a great job you did too mate. Very enjoyable map. The only gripe is the pauses as you approach dunkirk ( think due to loading objects?) makes a change flying other planes. And a bonus not having hand grana..... Mine shells lobbed at me lol.

[5./JG27.Farber]

And a great job you did too mate. Very enjoyable map. The only gripe is the pauses as you approach dunkirk ( think due to loading objects?) makes a change flying other planes. And a bonus not having hand grana..... Mine shells lobbed at me lol.

I thought this also. However there are not as many staitcs there as you think, my guess is its statics + buildings there... I have buildings on unlimited.

[notafinger!]

Yeah, I chopped the statics pretty hard from what it was. If you're still getting pauses on the newest version (1.3) then I don't know what else to do. It might just be that area of the map.

[macro]

Yeah, I chopped the statics pretty hard from what it was. If you're still getting pauses on the newest version (1.3) then I don't know what else to do. It might just be that area of the map.

Yeah i never get it on any other mission or lication. No biggy anyways

[ATAG_Colander]

I think the "problem" is because that area has objects that are not anywhere else in the map, hence they are not loaded until you get close to them.

Perhaps one solution would be to strategically place some of those objects along the path from the airfields so they get loaded "little by little".

Anyhow, I think the 3 or 4 stutters we get are not that bad as they only happen once.

[5./JG27.Farber]

I think the "problem" is because that area has objects that are not anywhere else in the map, hence they are not loaded until you get close to them.

Perhaps one solution would be to strategically place some of those objects along the path from the airfields so they get loaded "little by little".

Anyhow, I think the 3 or 4 stutters we get are not that bad as they only happen once.


Possibly, and the best way to test this is custom skins... ;) same deal.

[Willia55m]

I'll update the mission briefing's to give co-ordinates for the bomber objectives
http://www.rdox.info/01.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/02.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/8.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/04.jpg

[Al Capwn]

I joined tonight, hopped into a 109 E1, alt tabbed to work on some TS settings for a bit; came back, saw it hang up for a few seconds, then gave me the popup "server fail authentication", tried shutting down steam for a while, tried playing in another server for about 20 minutes, same thing. Any ideas?

Thanks

Edit: Server mission change fixed it, but is there any other way besides a server restart?

[klem]

Good info. By the same token, 54 Squadron flying out of Hornchurch were very active at Dunkirk -- they were flying Rotol-equipped CSP Spitfire 1a's with 100 octane fuel which are not represented in this mission.

For example, Pilot Officer (later Air Commodore) Alan C. Deere of 54 Squadron was likewise shot down flying a Spitfire 1a (100 octane) with the Rotol Constant Speed Propeller on 22 May '40 and crash landed within walking distance of the beach and was evacuated by ship with the rest of the B.E.F.

In fact, ALL RAF fighters (Spitfires and Hurricanes - MK 1's) were on 100 octane fuel during the Dunkirk evacuation. Unfortunately, 1C has chosen not to provide the 2-speed DH-prop'd models with 100 octane so only the 87 octane pump gas variants are available for this mission.

The designer of this mission makes no claim that this is a 100% accurate simulation of Operation Dynamo, and had to make many tough decisions towards effecting the best gameplay -- which he has done in spades. TBH, no E4's is a small price to pay vs the spectre of facing Spits and Hurricanes with 12 lbs of boost WEP.

I'm happy to have the Dunkirk map as it is even if E-4s and 100 octane are missing. It's an opportunity to try that more limited planeset even if not 100% accurate.

btw don't also forget that near the end of the Dunkirk episode Al Deere and Johnny Allen, just the two of them, took on several 109s at Calais Marck between sea level and a couple of thousand feet and shot down 3 of them without loss. Al Deere was convinced that the Spitfire could out turn and out climb the aircraft he shot down although we don't know what mark of 109 it was.

[MadTommy]

then gave me the popup "server fail authentication", tried shutting down steam for a while, tried playing in another server for about 20 minutes, same thing. Any ideas?

Thanks

Edit: Server mission change fixed it, but is there any other way besides a server restart?

Server restart is the only thing that fixes this normally.

I happens when steam/clod does not disconnect you correctly from the game, effectively you are still on the server and often stuck there until the server restarts. You can join other servers but not the one where your 'ghost' is stuck until it restarts.

It sucks when it happens.

[Roblex]

Is there anything in the pipeline to get the silly map errors fixed? We have Cloydon instead or Croydon, Orprington instead of Orpington and the worst for me is that Chatham Naval Dockyard does not exist at all.

[ATAG_Colander]

Is there anything in the pipeline to get the silly map errors fixed? We have Cloydon instead or Croydon, Orprington instead of Orpington and the worst for me is that Chatham Naval Dockyard does not exist at all.

Those names don't come from the server.

[klem]

Is there anything in the pipeline to get the silly map errors fixed? We have Cloydon instead or Croydon, Orprington instead of Orpington and the worst for me is that Chatham Naval Dockyard does not exist at all.

Chinese map maker?

[klem]

Ref the new "They have landed" map, did I miss something? Are there objectives that would "hurl them back into the sea"? Like destroying beachhead facilities etc? If not, could we have something to do please as we flew two long sorties on Sunday with no real objective. Unless I did miss something.

Thanks.

Oh, and on the usual maps is there any way to encourage the Blues to escort their bombing raids more so that we have a more 'Battle of Britain' feel to it. We seem to have either attacking unescorted bombers or 109s vulching and just plain old dogfights.

[Roblex]

Those names don't come from the server.

I know. I am just not sure if we are stuck with the original map or if we are able to use an improved version.

I pointed out the problem with Chatham Royal Navy Dockyard when they first asked for locals to look over their beta maps. I posted 1940s aerial photos of the dockyard, a diagram of the basin layout and an annotated screenshot from their own map to show where it belonged. I also posted aerial shots & an annotated screenshot for Rochester just to the South so they could see where the Shorts factory could be placed. They thanked me for the material and said it would be very useful then completely ignored it and left the map unchanged. A major Royal Navy dockyard in North Kent left as an empty marsh!

[klem]

I passed them details of Tangmere. Its probably one of the best represented on the map as far as having the two runways and the main hangars but it also has hangars on the far side that didn't even exist and there's a serious lack of blast pens that were spread all around the perimeter track. Not a biggie for gameplay but really no excuse for the general Walt Disney map given the opportunities for much better map making these days.

[ATAG_Colander]

Ref the new "They have landed" map, did I miss something? Are there objectives that would "hurl them back into the sea"? Like destroying beachhead facilities etc? If not, could we have something to do please as we flew two long sorties on Sunday with no real objective. Unless I did miss something.

Thanks.

Oh, and on the usual maps is there any way to encourage the Blues to escort their bombing raids more so that we have a more 'Battle of Britain' feel to it. We seem to have either attacking unescorted bombers or 109s vulching and just plain old dogfights.

Operation Daisy (the new map) was designed to have a change of scenery and with the "Italian Job" event in mind. Red objectives are to stop the bomber raids over london.

As for encouraging the Blues to escort, it happens, just not every pilot does it.
I can guarantee that the more reds are attacking the bombers, the more blues will be escorting them. The reason is simple, if the reds are up there and not on the deck, all the action will be up with the bombers.

We all have preferences of how the game should be played, but each person has a different one.
We are not going to force anyone's idea of how it should be played onto others. At the end, It's up to each person to play the way they prefer.

[klem]

Operation Daisy (the new map) was designed to have a change of scenery and with the "Italian Job" event in mind. Red objectives are to stop the bomber raids over london.
As for encouraging the Blues to escort, it happens, just not every pilot does it.
I can guarantee that the more reds are attacking the bombers, the more blues will be escorting them. The reason is simple, if the reds are up there and not on the deck, all the action will be up with the bombers.

We all have preferences of how the game should be played, but each person has a different one.
We are not going to force anyone's idea of how it should be played onto others. At the end, It's up to each person to play the way they prefer.

OK, we assumed it had moved on from the Blitz raids and that the idea was to beat back the invasion forces.

On the other maps I don't think more than one or two Blues are interested in protecting their bombers but they do at least try some 110/109 jabo ground attacks. Its a shame they don't get on TS and organise some escorts but there ya go.

[ATAG_Colander]

That's what I'm saying. Players need to organize.
More than once I've been escorting bombers with a few other 109s just to go all the way to England and back without any contact.
In many other occasions we find a single spit (against 2 or more 109s) trying to intercept. Needless to say that the attempt does not last long :)

[ATAG_Snapper]

Unfortunately, the RAF DM's above 10K are no match for the 109's they encounter with the bomber formations. The 109's ROC is several magnitudes greater even at a co-alt, co-e situation. Further, the 100 octane Spitfires will quickly burn out their engines if they try to match, must less overtake, a 109's climb above 10K. The Hurricane's Merlins have been modelled to be much less prone to overheating, their ROC above 10K is reportedly superior to the Spitfires, but they lack the raw speed of their 109 opponents.

Flying any of the RAF fighters against 109's above 10K is a sucker's game.

Below 10K the RAF fighters, as currently modelled, come into their own. The Spitfires still don't have the sustained ROC that 109's have, but they are well-matched in level speed with their 109 opponents. Their Hurricane counterparts are slightly slower at level speed, but their sustained ROC is better and below 10K can also give good account against co-alt, co-e 109 opponents in the right circumstances.

This is a huge factor why the RAF fighters in this sim stay low -- the Reds prefer to fight on equal terms.

[Kwiatek]

109 is joy to fly even with lower service celling expecially E-4 with auto prop. Spitfires still have engine bugs - e.x. Spitfire MK II doesnt match his RL engine power settings - i got a frequently engine blow using only 2800 RPMs ( RL climb power settings was 2850 RPMs at +9lbs for 1/2 hour).

[5./JG27.Farber]

109 is joy to fly even with lower service celling expecially E-4 with auto prop. Spitfires still have engine bugs - e.x. Spitfire MK II doesnt match his RL engine power settings - i got a frequently engine blow using only 2800 RPMs ( RL climb power settings was 2850 RPMs at +9lbs for 1/2 hour).

No its not. You now have more control with manual pitch in 109's... Also if you use wep with auto pitch it will accerelerate to a certain point but to go faster you have to reduce the throttle... ;) I can't replicate this problem yet but its happened to me several times in combat. Plus is the auto pitch bug fixed yet?

[klem]

Unfortunately, the RAF DM's above 10K are no match for the 109's they encounter with the bomber formations. The 109's ROC is several magnitudes greater even at a co-alt, co-e situation. Further, the 100 octane Spitfires will quickly burn out their engines if they try to match, must less overtake, a 109's climb above 10K. The Hurricane's Merlins have been modelled to be much less prone to overheating, their ROC above 10K is reportedly superior to the Spitfires, but they lack the raw speed of their 109 opponents.

Flying any of the RAF fighters against 109's above 10K is a sucker's game.

Below 10K the RAF fighters, as currently modelled, come into their own. The Spitfires still don't have the sustained ROC that 109's have, but they are well-matched in level speed with their 109 opponents. Their Hurricane counterparts are slightly slower at level speed, but their sustained ROC is better and below 10K can also give good account against co-alt, co-e 109 opponents in the right circumstances.

This is a huge factor why the RAF fighters in this sim stay low -- the Reds prefer to fight on equal terms.

This is one of our main problems and many of the bombing raids seem to be higher now, at least in some maps. They used to be typically 13000 feet but some are now 15000. One of our squadmates who stayed away until this official patch came out was steaming about it and he has a point. There's no point in trying to be 'historical' if we don't have historical a/c performance. Its a great way to finally send the undecided players away from CoD
and he may become one of them. :(

Poor a/c performance is not ATAG's fault but perhaps you could give some consideration to more performance 'balance'. It's a frustrating struggle climbing up to 15000 feet, juggling with reduced rpm and boost, in an aircraft that is supposed to make twice that height.

[ATAG_Snapper]

TBH Klem, I feel much worse for those of us who chose NOT to stay away but refused to give up and persevered, only to be badly disappointed with the final FM outcome.

One of our new forum members is in the process of developing data sheets for each of the C0D aircraft. He's been plugging in the aircraft specs, then getting our input to modify them to CoD-specific. He has the Spitfire 2a listed at 450 mph IAS max speed per spec. To me, this seemed a little high based on my own experience flying the virtual 2a in CoD. Earlier today I took a CoD Spitfire 2a on our ATAG server to 20 angels, levelled out, coarsened prop pitch to bring rpms down to 2200, then gently bunted over into a 45 degree dive. Sure enough, at 430 IAS (captured on FRAPS), the wings flew off at 430 IAS (= 672 kmh IAS). Oops. Compare that to the CoD 109's Vmax of 750 kmh IAS and it's easy to see why a Spit pilot in CoD would be foolish to follow a 109 in a dive. Not historic, but that's Cliffs of Dover.

https://vimeo.com/52493047

Changes in mission design are ongoing, with certain adjustments made to effect better gameplay. I can't personally say if bomber formations will be dropped down to 5 angels to effect fairer gameplay above, co-alt, and below for both side's fighters, nor am I sure that I'd want to see the elimination of high formations. But we've had low AI formations already on ATAG, to mixed reviews from Blue and Red pilots.

There's no pleasing everyone....be sure. The best thing is to mix it up a bit so there's something for everyone at some point.

[klem]

All true.

What do you think would happen if most RAF bomber missions were removed? Do you think they are a distraction for the 109s from the job of escorting and sweeping?

It would be interesting to try one map where the 109s have nothing to do except escort and sweep. No RAF bombers and massive AAA to stop vulching. :)

Of course that might empty the server of Blues, perhaps our best bet is the occasional SOWC for that 'BoB' feel.

[notafinger!]

All true.

What do you think would happen if most RAF bomber missions were removed? Do you think they are a distraction for the 109s from the job of escorting and sweeping?

It would be interesting to try one map where the 109s have nothing to do except escort and sweep. No RAF bombers and massive AAA to stop vulching. :)

Of course that might empty the server of Blues, perhaps our best bet is the occasional SOWC for that 'BoB' feel.

Klem,

From a blue perspective there are several problems with escorting the bombers on ATAG.

For starters there are too many different AI flights at one time. There is a mission where blue AI waves come over every 30 minutes or so which leads to us covering one group while we see server messages about a different group being slaughtered. You simply don't have enough time to cover a wave then return to base to rearm/refuel and cover the next wave. It leads to cheap easy kills for red pilots. That gets frustrating and you stop caring about them.

Then there is a problem where they go on a tour of England after bombing their targets. We end up following them way out over the sea north of Manston or way west past Dungeness only to have them turn around and fly back up the coast towards Hawkinge. Why don't they bomb and get the hell out of there? Again, as an escort this gets frustrating and you stop caring.

Finally, there is the issue of Hawkinge and other forward airbases. Most blues know it's easier to just vulch those bases then to bother with the objectives or escorting bombers. Rather than intensify AAA, which is bad enough as it is, the red bases should be moved to the rear (Eastchurch, Biggin Hill, Gravesend, etc). This removes the temptation of the coastal airbases and would probably push more people to do the objectives but would displease the airquake crowd.

Really there is only so much you can expect from a public game and like you said SOWC is geared more to the historical crowd and we plan on hosting more events in the future.

[klem]

Thanks notafinger,

I understand. I'm forced to the conclusion that its just not possible to expect 'The BoB' on a public server. Even in SOWC the servers just can't handle large numbers so its very limited and I think that's the only reason I'd be interested in a MMO. I was raised, 'virtually', on Air Warrior and Aces High where you could expect 300-400 players in a big scenario run over several weekends.

Ah, the ol' days. :)

[ATAG_Colander]

Custom skins "enabled" in server 1
More information Here (http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?2383-Custom-skins-quot-enabled-quot-in-server-1)

[Roblex]

I posted on the general 'COD multiplayer' forum that there may be a problem with the information given out by Ground Control to bombers but I wonder if it is something specific to ATAGS settings?
Basically if you fly a bomber and ask GC for Vector To Target (TAB, 7, 1) it gives you a vector to your own home base instead. The vector for fighters is fine and gives you a list of vectors to fighter & bomber air targets but when a bomber asks he just gets a single vector to a target that is actually the home base.

******************
Ignore that. I have just done another test and this time it worked. I still got the silly 'Mission Target bearing 0 degrees' but then it went on to tell me about ship and AAA targets. I am not sure why I did not get that last time, it was not the Sealion Mission which has no bomber targets, it was the Dunkirk one and I have just flown that and got targets.

[Redroach]

Heey, the mission which is running right now finally lets us operate over London! Yay! Kudos, guys, even though it's a fictional scenario.
And while I noticed this new scenario, something else came to mind: I wasn't online all too much in the middle of the night, BUT, last time, a few days ago, ingame-nighttime seemed to roughly correspond to real-life nighttime (it got pretty dark, but maybe not AS dark as in RL - you could take off and fly in a single-seater.)
What would be awesome for those nighttime-periods, is a little "Luftwaffe bombs London" scenario! Nothing special; after all, it's at night where a lot of people are sleeping - but I would definately enjoy to intercept German bomber waves, employing Knickebein and the like, with me having to resort to "Wilde Sau" style (the british way ;) ).
I can see it already... the flak searchlights, the tracers, the sweating... :rolleyes:

Oh, one final thing: I noticed that today's been a pretty windy day on ATAG. In fact, it was that windy that I couldn't turn my plane against engine torque at times; when spawning, the plane was already "on the move", being blown away...
Is this intentional? Do you have some kind of random weather setup? Of course, Weather should certainly be included, but... hey... Sandy came 72 years later! ;)

[ATAG_Snapper]

Hi Redroach,

Just after I read your post here re London blitz, I read this thread (check Colander's post #4): http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?2397-Operation-Fire-Storm&p=21892#post21892

[ATAG_Colander]

All,

Please take a look at this thread.

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?2405-Historical-Skins-on-ATAG

[DUI]

Hi ATAGs,

Probably you already know about it, but: On the Dunkerque map the British convoy target can't be accomplished. We sunk the whole convoy and still 0 of 15 ships destroyed...

Still a great map!

Regards
DUI

[notafinger!]

Hi ATAGs,

Probably you already know about it, but: On the Dunkerque map the British convoy target can't be accomplished. We sunk the whole convoy and still 0 of 15 ships destroyed...

Still a great map!

Regards
DUI

The new version (v1.4) corrects this problem but Bliss has not had a chance to put it in rotation yet.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Thanks to Salmo we are running a new mission titled Battle of Britain Operation Sunlight.

This includes radar and a points system.

Here's a copy from Salmo:

I'd be grateful if pilots could pop in & give feedback while it's in development. I'm particualrly looking for gameplay bugs.

POINTS SYSTEM
A compehensive point scoring system that tracks virtually every object in the battle is available. The system has the following features:

Players can view their personal or army's points tally using the custom (TAB-4) menu.
Each item in the battle is assigned a points value. eg. Aircraft have more points than an AA unit, which is worth more than a single vehicle etc.
Points are awarded when an object is destroyed/killed.
Points are awarded proprtionaly to the amount of damage caused to the object by the player. eg if you do 50% of the damage you will be awarded 50% of the object's points value.
Non-primary target objects (targets of opportunity) have points.
All objects destroyed contribute to an army's total points scored irrespective of who or what destroyed them.
Points for objects that are damaged/destroyed/killed by non-players like AA units assigned to a 'miscellaneous' catagory and are added to the army's total score.
Points for objects damaged by friendly fire (friendly kills, AA hits etc) are assigned to a 'miscellaneous' catagory and are added to the opposing army's total score.



STATISTICS
Detailed game statistics are availabe via the custom (TAB-4) menu.

Personal Stats -

Individual (personal) points scored - Points for destroying target objects and aircraft, as well as other targets of opportunity.
Number of air kills - The number of enemy aircraft downed by the player. Half-kills and whole kills only apply.
Number of ground kills - The number of ground objects destroyed by the player.
Number of aiperson kills - The total of Ai & human person kills, including Ai & human pilots, gunners, navigators, bombadiers etc.
Aircraft losses- Shows the number of aircraft destroyed by aircraft type.
Number of ship kills - The number of ships the player has destroyed.



Aircrew losses - These stats are listed for all air crew (Ai & human pilots, gunners, navigators, bombadiers etc.) in the player's army. Stats for the opposing army are not availabe for viewing.

MIA's - Total of human & Ai pilots missing in action. Air crew that bail out over water are initially listed as MIA. The MIA numbers may change over time as aircrew are confirmed as killed in action or as prisoners of war.
KIA's - Total of human & Ai aircrew killed in action. Includes pilot kills, gunner kills, parachutes not opening etc.
POW's - Total of human & Ai pilots taken as prisoners of war. Air crew are taken as POW's if they bail out or crash-land in enemy territory. If they land within 10km of the front line they have a small chance of escaping & not being captured.



Shipping losses- Shows the number of ships destroyed & their approximate total tonnage.

Battle Points - Total points for red & blue armies in the battle. Includes points scored by humans & Ai's (pilots, AA guns etc).

Number of players - Shows the number of online humans players in each army.

AIRCRAFT TRACKING UNITS
Tracking enemy aircraft movements was pivital to Battle of Briatin operations. Aircraft tracking was achieved by use of radar, aerial & ground observations. The following radar units have been implimented to simulate various aircraft tracking techniques used during WW2. This radar simulation is quite complex & life-like.

GERMAN FREYA RADAR
Germany developed Freya radar in 1937. Freya radar was highly accurate in determining aircraft numbers & altitude. Although more advanced than the English Chain radar, Freya sufferered from serious deficiencies including patchy coverage & a poor & uncoordinated reporting & response system.

Freya Radar has these features:

The radar will accurately report the number & altitude of enemy aircraft. This reflects the more advanced nature of Freya.
Freya will report enemy aircraft irregularly reflecting the patchy coverage & uncoordinated manner of German radar use during the Battle of Briatin.
Freya maximum range is about 60km.
Effective range varies between 50km & 60km. ie Any given radar sweep may vary in its range, reflecting variation due to weather etc.
Freya radar projects a upward angled beam above the horizontal. Effective minimum height therefore, varies depending upon the distance from the radar to the target.
Freya radar is an outward-looking radar, it does not report enemy aircraft over France even if the aircraft are within it's operating range.
A radio announcement is made when enemy aircraft are sighted, & aircraft information is posted in the chat bar.
An enemy aircraft icon will appear on your mini-map screen giving the number of aircraft sighted, their approximate altitude & the in-game time of the sighting.
Icons will remain on the mini-map for about 3 minutes after the sighting is made & are only visible to players of the same army as the Freya unit.
Freya units can be destroyed by straffing or bombing.
A destroyed Freya radar unit ceases to operate.



CHAIN HOME RADAR

Chain Home radar (CH) was the code-name for the ring of early warning radars around the English coastline. The system was not able to detect aircraft at low altitude & was used in conjuction with the Chain Home Low (CHL) radar system. Although inferior in accuracy to Freya radar, the English radar formed one part of a well coordinated air defence system.

CH Radar has these features:

CH units are located mostly along the coastline of southern England. They can be distinguished by their in-line array of 3-4 large towers.
CH radar will report the number & altitude of enemy aircraft, but numbers & altitude may vary slightly from true altitude/numbers. This reflects some of the inaccuracy in the CH system.
A radio announcement is made when enemy aircraft are sighted, & aircraft information is posted in the chat bar.
An enemy aircraft icon will appear on your mini-map screen giving the number of aircraft sighted, their approximate altitude & the in-game time of the sighting.
Icons will remain on the mini-map for 3 minutes after the sighting is made & are only visible to players of the same army as the CH unit.
CH radar is an outward-looking radar, it does not report enemy aircraft over England even if the aircraft are within it's operating range.
CH has a range of about 190km.
Effective range varies between 130km & 190km. ie Any given radar sweep may vary in its range, reflecting variation due to weather etc.
CH radar projects a upward angled beam about 15 degrees above the horizontal. Effective minimum height therefore, varies depending upon the distance from the radar to the target. eg. at 5km from the radar the effective minimum height is 1,400m, at 10km from the radar the effective minimum height is 2,600m, at 20km from the radar the effective minimum height is 5,300m, at 40km from the radar the effective minimum height is 10,700m, at 70km from the radar the effective minimum height is 18,750m, and so on.
CH units can be destroyed by straffing or bombing.
A destroyed CH radar unit ceases to operate.



CHAIN HOME LOW RADAR

Chain Home Low (CHL) was the code-name for the ring of early warning radars around the English coastline. The system detected lower flying aircraft than the CH system & was used in conjuction with the Chain Home Low (CH) radar system.

CHL Radar has these features:

CH units are located mostly (but not always) along the coastline of southern England. They can be distinguished by a single tower & nearby buldings with smaller radar units on top.
CHL radar will report the number & altitude of enemy aircraft, but numbers & altitude may vary slightly from true readings. This reflects some of the inaccuracy in the CHL system.
A radio announcement is made when enemy aircraft are sighted, & aircraft information is posted in the chat bar.
An enemy aircraft icon will appear on your mini-map screen giving the number of aircraft sighted, their approximate altitude & the in-game time of the sighting.
Icons will remain on the mini-map for 3 minutes after the sighting is made & are only visible to players of the same army as the OC unit.
CHL radar is an outward-looking radar, it does not report enemy aircraft over England even if the aircraft are within it's operating range.
CHL has a range of about 46km.
Effective range varies between 36km & 46km. ie Any given radar sweep may vary in its range, reflecting variation due to weather etc.
CHL radars can detect aircraft as low as 500 feet (150 meters).
CHL units can be destroyed by straffing or bombing.
A destroyed CHL radar unit ceases to operate.



OBSERVER CORP

Observer Corp (OC) units simulate the Royal Observer Corp , a civil defence organisation operating in the United Kingdom between 29 October 1925 and 31 December 1995. The OC played an important role in tracking aircraft movements during the Battle of Britain.

The OC has the following features:

OC units are located throughout southern England. They can be found along the coast and in or near towns. They appear as a circle of sandbags containing a map board & heightfinder object.
OC units will constantly scan the skies in a 360 degree arc around themselves looking for enemy aircraft within range of the unit.
OC unit range is about 10km, but varies depending upon time of day & weather.
OC unit accuracy (the number number of aircraft sighted & their altitude) may vary slightly from true numbers/altitude.
A radio announcement is made when enemy aircraft are sighted, & aircraft information is posted in the chat bar.
An enemy aircraft icon will appear on your mini-map screen giving the number of aircraft sighted, their approximate altitude & the in-game time of the sighting.
Icons will remain on the mini-map for about 3 minutes after the sighting is made & are only visible to players of the same army as the OC unit.
Observer units are ground units similar to AA batteries (but they do not fire at aircraft), they can be destroyed by straffing or bombing.
A destroyed OC unit ceases to operate.




OBOE RADIO NAVIGATION (available soon)
Radio transponder technology was developed during WW2. OBOE was a British aerial blind bombing targeting system that used a radio beam to guide aircraft to their target. Blenheim bombers are equiped with a simulation of the OBOE blind bombing radio navigation system.

OBOE has these features:

Pilots can turn OBOE off & on using their pitot heater switch.
OBOE calculates a navigation vector from a base unit in southern England to the designated target.
Navigation information is displayed in the pilot's HUD display.
The HUD shows the distance left or right of the straight-line vector from the base unit to the target. The pilot is able to position the aircraft so it remains in the centre of this beam.
Drift left or right of the navigation beam & the display will tell you how much correction is needed to get back on track.
When the pilot is close to the target, a 'countdown to bomb-drop' timer will also be displayed. The countdown takes account of the aircraft's speed & altitude to calcuate the precise moment when to drop your bombs for maximum effect.
With practice, this system is very accurate in putting your bombs in the pickle barrel, even at altitude.



VEHICLES
You may find many different types of vehicles moving throughout the battlefield. There may be mobile civilian & military vehicles in towns, on roads, or at airfields or other locations. You may also encounter goods or passenger trains. Take care taxiing, landing etc as vehicles may be in the area. Naturally, enemy vehicles are always targets of opportunity.

WEATHER
Weather is turned off for pre-beta testing. In due course the weather will have more cloud & wind to simulate some of the poorer weather during the Battle of Britain.

AERIAL RECONNAISSANCE
Aerial reconnaissance is the collection of information about the disposition of enemy units, and about the status of possible targets by aircraft. This is usually achieved by aircraft over-flying areas of interest & reporting observations or taking photographs. A reconnaissance system has been built to simulate the scouting and observation activities of WW2 recon units.

AI Planes - Some Ai bomber aircraft are designated as recon planes. Recon planes may or may not have a fighter escort. When a recon plane reaches it's objective, it radios back to base to report the objective's status. To simulate this action, a message will appear in the player's HUD display and an icon will appear on the mini-map showing the objective location, status & time of the recon event.

Human Planes - (testing at this time) Players may recon enemy objects such as target objectives, AA units, observer corps units, vehicles, factories, etc. Just fly over the object & use the (TAB-4) custom menu 'Recon object' option. The nearest object in range will appear as an icon on the mini-map in a similar manner to Ai Plane recons.

Reconnaissance features:

Recon icons are only visible to players in the same army as the aircraft that perfomed the reconnaissance .
Recon icons show the enemy object's status at the time of the recon, and not necessarily it's current status.
Recon icons for mobile objects (like vehicles) shows their position at the time of recon & not necessarily their current position
Recon icons for fixed (stationary) objectives remain on the mini-map until an objective is reached or the object is destroyed.
Recon icons for mobile objects are removed from the mini-map after 30 minutes.
A new recon event will update the mini-map icon with the target's current status & position.



AI FLIGHTS
At this stage I have Ai flights for both sides spawning about every 10-20 minutes. This will be changed during development to suitably compliment human gameplay. The number of Ai aircraft in any given flight is randomised. Don't expect to run into the same number of aircraft that you encountered last time you played the mission. Bomber flights may or may not have up to nine (or more) escorting fighters. Pair-up, use a wingman or fly with others as a team.

Please leave some feedback here or on our forums.

Enjoy!

[ukBullTerrier]

can someone tell me what the hell is going on,ive only had the game afew weeks and have taking off and landing hasnt been a prolem at all. as of tonight youve made the map bigger and messed around with the wind in the game.take off is a nightmare and taxiing is impossable and landing is a joke aswell.
the bigger map is great but this wind issue ruins the best and busiest server in the game.

[lonewulf]

can someone tell me what the hell is going on,ive only had the game afew weeks and have taking off and landing hasnt been a prolem at all. as of tonight youve made the map bigger and messed around with the wind in the game.take off is a nightmare and taxiing is impossable and landing is a joke aswell.
the bigger map is great but this wind issue ruins the best and busiest server in the game.

I wasn't aware that wind is actually incorporated in the game but even if it is, it isn't noticeable. It sounds to be as though you have a set-up problem of some sort. In first instance I'd suggest you check that all of the control surfaces on your aircraft have a full range of movement and return to the neutral position.

[ATAG_Snapper]

+1

The same has happened to me on occasion. Can't steer when taxiing. A quick check shows the rudder fully deflected (left or right), even though the rudder pedals are centered. Has happened both to my old CH Pedals and my new Saitek Combat Pedals. A quick ALT TAB to Windows Desktop, then a very quick recalibration via Windows Joystick Controller utility fixes it, then ALT TAB back into the cockpit of my idling Spitfire good to go.

[ukBullTerrier]

ok maybe its a problem with my joystick, as looking back lastnight i did plug in my joystick after having fired up my pc.il have check tonight, apologies if i offended anybody as i do love playing on the server and i do plan on giving some £££ as i got this great game so cheap from steam.

[ukBullTerrier]

cant tell now as the server is back to normal size lol oh well it plays like it should now.

[ATAG_Bliss]

There are a few missions with varying differences in wind though. But your problem sounds like it was control related.

[Redroach]

I just flew the new mission and all I can say... What the...?!? This certainly breaks new ground, at least within CoD.
I especially like the new radar features - Chain Home, Freya, even Observer corps, all destroyable and each reflecting historical deficiencies - just awesome.
The only little complaint: Just 30 minutes ago, I was the guy who scouted the 3rd main target for blue, in my Bf-110 ( it didn't appear before on the map, while it did when I overflew and strafed it a bit, so I think it was me :) ) - but you don't get points for this :rolleyes:
Again: Very awesome!

Edit: What I want to emphasize as being a step forward is that, if it's true that you can strafe Radar Stations now, that you can contribute towards your Objectives without having a bomb slung underneath your plane. Definitively a plus, and well-crafted as well, with many targets spread out because every plane is (in theory) able to strafe. Another great thing!

And a Question:
Wasn't the Oboe system supposed to lead you along a circle segment - even if it is a large one?

[bw_wolverine]

Just had a go at the new mission (Sunlight). A great job with the radar work, Salmo! Definitely makes a difference to me as a pilot.

I was able to vector successfully to two contact points and make three kills using good setup prior to making contact (made possible by the radar contact information which was both accurate and timely).

So hats off! Haven't yet tried the ACG CH version yet, but it'll be tough to be this one (though it looks pretty good too!).

Wonderful things ahead for CloD I think!

[ATAG_Bliss]

Thanks for the comments guys. We have many more things on the drawing board we plan to introduce after testing.

On another note, would anyone be interested in a map vote? It would be an option to rotate the mission if a certain percentage of players didn't like the current mission. Any ideas on what percentage of people would have to vote to get the change? Or is this not really needed?

[Redroach]

oh no, I'm certain that Night-Bombing-London missions will always be voted down by the fighter guys! So, rather not imo :rolleyes:

[klem]

Thanks for the comments guys. We have many more things on the drawing board we plan to introduce after testing.

On another note, would anyone be interested in a map vote? It would be an option to rotate the mission if a certain percentage of players didn't like the current mission. Any ideas on what percentage of people would have to vote to get the change? Or is this not really needed?


I don't think we need a voting system, it's bound to lead to bad feeling, but one of our guys was unhapppy with missions lasting 6 hours. This was partly due to wanting to try the new CH radar map and it didn't rotate for several hours. So, tying all these things together it would be nice if the CH radar could be ported into all of your maps as it might encourage more objective-based gameplay and make the missions rotate more quickly. If guys want rotation it might encourage them to go after the objectives in a very focussed way.

[Roblex]

There are a few missions with varying differences in wind though. But your problem sounds like it was control related.

I assumed the wind info was broken. I asked GC about take off conditions at Kenley and it told me the wind was at 30 and seemed to suggest I use runway 240. There is no runway 24 at Kenley

Perhaps I misunderstood and it was telling me that the wind was at 240 and to use runway 30 which would make more sense. OTOH I am sure it gave me exactly the same instructions at Lympne or Hawkinge and they both have a runway 23

[Nephris]

Hi folks,
we are regular y flying a week on your server.
I read custom skin download is activated now, is that correct? Cause I wasnt able to confirm that. Do i have to change also sth to my conf? I guess i havent to.

The past months performance on your server was acceptable without serious problems.
But since (maybe) the beginning of november, we suffer on performance probs and regular warps.
Has there been sth changed that could cause that?

Thx again for your server.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Hi folks,
we are regular y flying a week on your server.
I read custom skin download is activated now, is that correct? Cause I wasnt able to confirm that. Do i have to change also sth to my conf? I guess i havent to.

The past months performance on your server was acceptable without serious problems.
But since (maybe) the beginning of november, we suffer on performance probs and regular warps.
Has there been sth changed that could cause that?

Thx again for your server.

Hi Nephris,

We are currently testing some custom skins incorporated into the server. We have limited the allowed skins to those that came with the sim + a few select others. Anyone using any other skins will only be loaded a default skin. The config for the server still has skins turned off etc.

The problem we've found is regardless if you have the skin or not (even the one's that came with the game) the way the code works is every single player has to download that skin every time your game is restarted. So if someone hasn't downloaded that particular skins (even one's that came with the game) the client is forced to upload that skin to the server and to everyone else for distribution. The kicker is once this is done you'll never have to do it again. So playing for only an hour may cause some freezes because of this process until all the allowed skins have been transmitted. But after that you shouldn't have any problems. It doesn't seem to matter if skins are saved in your cache from the previous session. As this process is seen time and time again (upon a new game session).

A final solution maybe to modify the code so these skins are hard coded and use skin packs. But we are still in the testing phase of it all. Judging by how the skin downloads / custom skins actually work, ATAG's idea of limiting them to a small amount way very well be futile. Time for a mod pack ;)

[ATAG_Colander]

Just to add...
The skins should give you some stutters when first loading and not the warping you are describing.

Warping is due to network packets not reaching the other side (packet loss) or not reaching in time (ping times) but it could be the other player's problem and not yours.

In other words, if player A has internet connection issues with the server, player A will see every plane warping. On the other hand, player A will appear as warping for every one else.

Hope this explains.

ATAG_Colander.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Just to add...
The skins should give you some stutters when first loading and not the warping you are describing.

Warping is due to network packets not reaching the other side (packet loss) or not reaching in time (ping times) but it could be the other player's problem and not yours.

In other words, if player A has internet connection issues with the server, player A will see every plane warping. On the other hand, player A will appear as warping for every one else.

Hope this explains.

ATAG_Colander.

This is true, but a skin freeze that lowers a player's FPS to 0 or close to it also affects netcode even if only for a split second. FPS and netcode are very closely related. Another lovely game problem.

[Nephris]

Thx for your detailed explanations!
:-P

[salmo]

Thanks for the comments guys. We have many more things on the drawing board we plan to introduce after testing.

On another note, would anyone be interested in a map vote? It would be an option to rotate the mission if a certain percentage of players didn't like the current mission. Any ideas on what percentage of people would have to vote to get the change? Or is this not really needed?

I think map-voting would be a useful addition. Something similar to what we had in the L2-1946 server commanders would be OK. From memory this was a simple majority.

[ATAG_Colander]

It's a bit more complicated than that.

We are thinking among these lines
- Simple majority and single user veto.
- If vetoed, a new vote can be restarted in 5 or 10 minutes.

The reason for the veto is in case some one has been flying a bomber for 1/2 hour and is about to drop bombs :grin:

[ATAG_Bliss]

I think map-voting would be a useful addition. Something similar to what we had in the L2-1946 server commanders would be OK. From memory this was a simple majority.

Yeah, we are thinking that way as well. The biggest thing is trying to find a system that can't be abused yet works for the masses.

[klem]

About the only reason I would want to vote for a change is if its a six hour mission without CH radar, i.e. rolling the map might be very longwinded and we'd be stuck with a stale mission for hours.

Can you port the new CH radar into the other existing maps?

[ATAG_Bliss]

About the only reason I would want to vote for a change is if its a six hour mission without CH radar, i.e. rolling the map might be very longwinded and we'd be stuck with a stale mission for hours.

Can you port the new CH radar into the other existing maps?

Understood. I'll ask and see what can be done.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Also: Recoil has been a busy beaver. Check out the new website (still WIP): http://www.theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/atag/

[Roblex]

Also: Recoil has been a busy beaver. Check out the new website (still WIP): http://www.theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/atag/

The link for 'Mission Briefs' does not work. Can we also have the name of the current mission and, ideally, how long before it ends?

[ATAG_Bliss]

Very much a work in progress.

[ramstein]

I was trying to start in the Blenheim, but unlucky me, my plane kept starting real close to a building, and when you start one engine (one at a time) the plane spins around, the differential steering doesn't seem to work in this plane and the brakes will not hold it... and scrambling to get the second engine started, but usually runs into the building and blowing up.. please, move the starting points away from the the buildings?

Thanx..

[ramstein]

update: I will try the 'crew remove brakes' command it should have been named 'chocks' like in IL-2 1946. I hope that command make planes stop wondering around out of control..

[Sokol1]

Use park brakes (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=473693&postcount=6) (undocumented command).

[Jatta Raso]

guys i just checked your new ATAG page, and want to congratulate you for the beautiful UI (if CLoD UI was more like that...), you guys delivered. :-)

i've been away from online for sometime, but i'm hopping for a comeback soon. again, congrats. you help to keep CLoD alive.

aka UFO_113,

[ukBullTerrier]

great fun over christmas, gonna donate again soon, can someone tell me how to rearm/refuel??? i hear players saying this all the time, but i always have to quit the server and restart?

[klem]

great fun over christmas, gonna donate again soon, can someone tell me how to rearm/refuel??? i hear players saying this all the time, but i always have to quit the server and restart?

Rearm/Refuel:

Stationary on friendly field
Engine off (Fuel Off)
Magnetos Off
Canopy Open
Brakes On (? I always do)

enter "<rr" into chat text without the quotation marks.

NB! it can only be done if you are undamaged AND have some ammo left in EVERY gun (don't ask me why the latter, probably a software counting problem). So add some tell-tale tracer to the last 50 rounds of one or more guns and as soon as you see it decide whether you want to be able to <rr or not.

[GF_Mastiff]

ATAG hit 123 lastnight

[Megahurt]

What a great job the guys at ATAG have done providing this community with the ultimate flight fight sim experience. Over 100 flyers out looking for blood in the sun most anytime of day.
Great job.

[Redroach]

Hey,
I've been away for some time, frustratedly, since disaster struck, but now, ATAG and others really seem to put some juice into CoD.. which is very, very awesome! :)

And therefore, I've got a quick question regarding coordination: Does the ATAG server run with that Community patch? (which looks like it is fabulous, too!) If that's not the case, is there any specific reason for this? Is adapting that patch planned in the near future?

Thanks for your work, guys!

[trindade]

[QUOTE=Redroach;500260]Hey,

And therefore, I've got a quick question regarding coordination: Does the ATAG server run with that Community patch? (which looks like it is fabulous, too!) QUOTE]


yes

[Redroach]

awesome! Thanks for the quick answer!

[Swo7pes]

It also keeps ATAG members warm in the winter!
http://www.creditgif.com/02.jpghttp://www.creditgif.com/28.jpghttp://www.creditgif.com/03.jpghttp://www.creditgif.com/05.jpg
http://www.creditgif.com/04.jpghttp://www.creditgif.com/29.jpg

[ATAG_Dutch]

ATAG Forum now fully functional once more. :)

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/forum.php