IL2DCE: A dynamic campaign engine for IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover

[41Sqn_Banks]

http://code.google.com/p/il2dce/

[adonys]

Let's have a look :)

[41Sqn_Banks]

Enjoy your stay, but respect the license ;)

[adonys]

Have some problems compiling it. what's the path the solution's folder needs to be installed in?

[41Sqn_Banks]

http://code.google.com/p/il2dce/wiki/Build_Instructions

I will try to update the document ASAP.

So long ...

The source has to be checked out in a way that the IL2DCE.sln file is at the following location:
C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\il-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover\parts\IL2DCE\trunk\IL2DCE\IL2DCE.sln

So you have to checkout the folder "https://il2dce.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/" to "C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\il-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover\parts\IL2DCE\trunk"

Of course you have to adjust the path to the CoD installation if it is installed at a different place.

Use the project "Game" as the startup project.

If you use the debug configuration everything (dlls, config files, ...) is placed at the right location and you can "start" the application in Visual Studio to execute the launcher.exe

If you use the release configuration everything is placed into "C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\il-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover\parts\IL2DCE\trunk\IL2DCE\Release" and a NSIS install script is provided to create the installer.

[adonys]

I've figured out the path, atm I'm using "il-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover\parts\_work\IL2CoD_solution" as the svn checkout folder.

There's yet a problem with the Pre-Build Events of the Game project.. they don't seem to work, so the GlobalAssemblyInfo.cs is not created. This is what I'm trying to figure out now.

PS: Got it, there's an error in the Pre-Build script:

SubWcRev "$(SolutionDir)ProjectDir)." "$(ProjectDir)Properties\GlobalAssemblyInfo.templat e" "$(ProjectDir)Properties\GlobalAssemblyInfo.cs"

instead

SubWcRev "$(SolutionDir)." "$(ProjectDir)Properties\GlobalAssemblyInfo.templat e" "$(ProjectDir)Properties\GlobalAssemblyInfo.cs"

you may want to correct this on svn, or give me right access :)

PPS: why x86 and not x64?

[41Sqn_Banks]

Fixed the pre-build event.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Now it is really fixed.

[adonys]

As another suggestion, you might want to add some default GlobalAssemblyInfo.cs and IL2DCEInst.nsi files to svn, as the solution won't "find" them until the used rebuilds the project, then refreshes those files (which are marked as missing in the beginning).

[adonys]

And a bug: after the first mission, the loading of the next generated mission fails with a Mission: xxx group is already loaded error message. It is caused by the fact that player's group gets duplicated (eve more than twice sometime) into the [AirGroups] section (but not in the group properties or group waypints section):

[PARTS]
core.100
bob.100
[MAIN]
MAP Land$English_Channel_1940
BattleArea 0 0 40960 32768 10000
TIME 12
WeatherIndex 0
CloudsHeight 1000
BreezeActivity 10
ThermalActivity 10
player BoB_LW_JG51_II.303
[GlobalWind_0]
Power 3.000 0.000 0.000
BottomBound 0.00
TopBound 1500.00
GustPower 5
GustAngle 45
[splines]
[CustomChiefs]
[Stationary]
Static2 Stationary.Radar.EnglishRadar1 gb 206100.70 212405.80 94.00
Static0 Stationary.Radar.EnglishRadar1 gb 246758.55 235781.94 -77.00
Static1 Stationary.Radar.EnglishRadar1 gb 217627.77 251506.53 71.00
[Buildings]
[BuildingsLinks]
[FrontMarker]
FrontMarker0 214637.11 236043.79 1
FrontMarker1 228831.93 251260.37 1
FrontMarker2 313118.28 192705.55 2
FrontMarker3 284277.76 215934.00 2
FrontMarker4 266612.88 189783.50 2
FrontMarker5 245651.14 234806.56 1
FrontMarker6 236996.88 229320.18 1
[AirGroups]
BoB_LW_KG51_III.13
BoB_LW_JG51_II.31
BoB_RAF_F_79Sqn_Early.01
BoB_LW_AufklGr_ObdL.08
BoB_RAF_F_92Sqn_Early.01
BoB_LW_JG51_II.31
BoB_RAF_F_3Sqn_Early.01
BoB_LW_KG2_I.13
BoB_LW_JG27_III.11
BoB_RAF_F_41Sqn_Early.01
[BoB_LW_KG51_III.13]
Flight0 1 2 3
Flight1 11 12 13
Class Aircraft.Ju-88A-1
Formation VIC3
CallSign 7
Fuel 100
Weapons 1 1 1 1 0 4
Skill 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
[BoB_LW_KG51_III.13_Way]
TAKEOFF 291159.25 216321.09 0 0
NORMFLY 293774.015 216834.095 2595 300
NORMFLY 281743.29625 221327.21125 2595 300
NORMFLY 269712.5775 225820.3275 2595 300
NORMFLY 257681.85875 230313.44375 2595 300
GATTACK_POINT 245651.14 234806.56 2595 300
NORMFLY 257028.1675 230185.1925 2595 300
NORMFLY 268405.195 225563.825 2595 300
NORMFLY 279782.2225 220942.4575 2595 300
LANDING 291159.25 216321.09 0 0
[BoB_LW_JG51_II.31]
Flight0 1 2 3 4
Class Aircraft.Bf-109E-3
Formation FINGERFOUR
CallSign 26
Fuel 100
Weapons 1 1
Skill 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Flight0 1 2 3 4
Class Aircraft.Bf-109E-3
Formation FINGERFOUR
CallSign 26
Fuel 100
Weapons 1 1
Skill 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
[BoB_LW_JG51_II.31_Way]
TAKEOFF 296388.78 217347.1 0 0
ESCORT 293774.015 216834.095 2595 300 BoB_LW_KG51_III.13 1
ESCORT 281743.29625 221327.21125 2595 300 BoB_LW_KG51_III.13 2
ESCORT 269712.5775 225820.3275 2595 300 BoB_LW_KG51_III.13 3
ESCORT 257681.85875 230313.44375 2595 300 BoB_LW_KG51_III.13 4
ESCORT 245651.14 234806.56 2595 300 BoB_LW_KG51_III.13 5
ESCORT 257028.1675 230185.1925 2595 300 BoB_LW_KG51_III.13 6
ESCORT 268405.195 225563.825 2595 300 BoB_LW_KG51_III.13 7
ESCORT 279782.2225 220942.4575 2595 300 BoB_LW_KG51_III.13 8
LANDING 296388.78 217347.1 0 0
TAKEOFF 296388.78 217347.1 0 0
NORMFLY 275950.8625 222021.2725 5962 300
NORMFLY 255512.945 226695.445 5962 300
NORMFLY 235075.0275 231369.6175 5962 300
HUNTING 214637.11 236043.79 5962 300
NORMFLY 235075.0275 231369.6175 5962 300
NORMFLY 255512.945 226695.445 5962 300
NORMFLY 275950.8625 222021.2725 5962 300
LANDING 296388.78 217347.1 0 0
[BoB_RAF_F_79Sqn_Early.01]
Flight0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Class Aircraft.HurricaneMkI_dH5-20
Formation VIC3
CallSign 28
Fuel 100
Weapons 1
Skill 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
[BoB_RAF_F_79Sqn_Early.01_Way]
TAKEOFF 234913.67 232628.68 0 0
NORMFLY 240605.7171875 232049.8709375 2595 300
NORMFLY 246297.764375 231471.061875 2595 300
NORMFLY 251989.8115625 230892.2528125 2595 300
AATTACK_BOMBERS 257681.85875 230313.44375 2595 300 BoB_LW_KG51_III.13 4
AATTACK_BOMBERS 269712.5775 225820.3275 2595 300 BoB_LW_KG51_III.13 3
NORMFLY 261012.850625 227522.415625 2595 300
NORMFLY 252313.12375 229224.50375 2595 300
NORMFLY 243613.396875 230926.591875 2595 300
LANDING 234913.67 232628.68 0 0
[BoB_LW_AufklGr_ObdL.08]
Flight3 31
Class Aircraft.Do-215B-1
Formation LINEABREAST
CallSign 20
Fuel 100
Weapons 1
Skill 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
[BoB_LW_AufklGr_ObdL.08_Way]
TAKEOFF 276921.24 209393.09 0 0
NORMFLY 266940.15 214374.8625 617 300
NORMFLY 256959.06 219356.635 617 300
NORMFLY 246977.97 224338.4075 617 300
RECON 236996.88 229320.18 617 300
NORMFLY 246977.97 224338.4075 617 300
NORMFLY 256959.06 219356.635 617 300
NORMFLY 266940.15 214374.8625 617 300
LANDING 276921.24 209393.09 0 0
[BoB_RAF_F_92Sqn_Early.01]
Flight0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Class Aircraft.SpitfireMkI
Formation VIC3
CallSign 16
Fuel 100
Weapons 1
Skill 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
[BoB_RAF_F_92Sqn_Early.01_Way]
TAKEOFF 221928.32 221357.49 0 0
NORMFLY 228190.7325 222102.719375 617 300
NORMFLY 234453.145 222847.94875 617 300
NORMFLY 240715.5575 223593.178125 617 300
AATTACK_BOMBERS 246977.97 224338.4075 617 300 BoB_LW_AufklGr_ObdL.08 3
AATTACK_BOMBERS 256959.06 219356.635 617 300 BoB_LW_AufklGr_ObdL.08 2
NORMFLY 248201.375 219856.84875 617 300
NORMFLY 239443.69 220357.0625 617 300
NORMFLY 230686.005 220857.27625 617 300
LANDING 221928.32 221357.49 0 0
[BoB_RAF_F_3Sqn_Early.01]
Flight0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Class Aircraft.HurricaneMkI_dH5-20
Formation VIC3
CallSign 33
Fuel 100
Weapons 1
Skill 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
[BoB_RAF_F_3Sqn_Early.01_Way]
TAKEOFF 234505.7 248485.19 0 0
NORMFLY 239757.51125 243037.75375 5962 300
NORMFLY 245009.3225 237590.3175 5962 300
NORMFLY 250261.13375 232142.88125 5962 300
AATTACK_BOMBERS 255512.945 226695.445 5962 300 BoB_LW_JG51_II.31 2
AATTACK_BOMBERS 275950.8625 222021.2725 5962 300 BoB_LW_JG51_II.31 1
NORMFLY 265589.571875 228637.251875 5962 300
NORMFLY 255228.28125 235253.23125 5962 300
NORMFLY 244866.990625 241869.210625 5962 300
LANDING 234505.7 248485.19 0 0
[BoB_LW_KG2_I.13]
Flight0 1 2 3
Flight1 11 12 13
Class Aircraft.Do-17Z-2
Formation VIC3
CallSign 26
Fuel 100
Weapons 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 3
Skill 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
[BoB_LW_KG2_I.13_Way]
TAKEOFF 272033.44 205179.35 0 0
NORMFLY 276592.685 208991.515 1986 300
NORMFLY 264652.49625 219558.72875 1986 300
NORMFLY 252712.3075 230125.9425 1986 300
NORMFLY 240772.11875 240693.15625 1986 300
GATTACK_POINT 228831.93 251260.37 1986 300
NORMFLY 239632.3075 239740.115 1986 300
NORMFLY 250432.685 228219.86 1986 300
NORMFLY 261233.0625 216699.605 1986 300
LANDING 272033.44 205179.35 0 0
[BoB_LW_JG27_III.11]
Flight0 1 2 3 4
Class Aircraft.Bf-109E-1
Formation FINGERFOUR
CallSign 32
Fuel 100
Weapons 1 1
Skill 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
[BoB_LW_JG27_III.11_Way]
TAKEOFF 281151.93 212803.68 0 0
ESCORT 276592.685 208991.515 1986 300 BoB_LW_KG2_I.13 1
ESCORT 264652.49625 219558.72875 1986 300 BoB_LW_KG2_I.13 2
ESCORT 252712.3075 230125.9425 1986 300 BoB_LW_KG2_I.13 3
ESCORT 240772.11875 240693.15625 1986 300 BoB_LW_KG2_I.13 4
ESCORT 228831.93 251260.37 1986 300 BoB_LW_KG2_I.13 5
ESCORT 239632.3075 239740.115 1986 300 BoB_LW_KG2_I.13 6
ESCORT 250432.685 228219.86 1986 300 BoB_LW_KG2_I.13 7
ESCORT 261233.0625 216699.605 1986 300 BoB_LW_KG2_I.13 8
LANDING 281151.93 212803.68 0 0
[BoB_RAF_F_41Sqn_Early.01]
Flight0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Class Aircraft.SpitfireMkI
Formation VIC3
CallSign 27
Fuel 100
Weapons 1
Skill 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
[BoB_RAF_F_41Sqn_Early.01_Way]
TAKEOFF 248422.64 259037.11 0 0
NORMFLY 249495.056875 251809.318125 1986 300
NORMFLY 250567.47375 244581.52625 1986 300
NORMFLY 251639.890625 237353.734375 1986 300
AATTACK_BOMBERS 252712.3075 230125.9425 1986 300 BoB_LW_KG2_I.13 3
AATTACK_BOMBERS 264652.49625 219558.72875 1986 300 BoB_LW_KG2_I.13 2
NORMFLY 260595.0321875 229428.3240625 1986 300
NORMFLY 256537.568125 239297.919375 1986 300
NORMFLY 252480.1040625 249167.5146875 1986 300
LANDING 248422.64 259037.11 0 0

[41Sqn_Banks]

Hi,

about adding a dummy GlobalAssemblyInfo.cs and IL2DCEInst.nsi to the SVN repository. This is unfortunatly not possible. This would lead to uncommited changes in the working copy the first time you build it (because revision number is updated in both files) and when you commit the changes ... the revision is increased which again leads to uncommited changes.

about the bug: Thanks, I will have a look at it. The prototype doesn't support the generation of a second mission at the moment. I think you have to go back to the main menu to property quit the current mission to be able to generate a new one. Of course it will be handled in the future.

Keep in mind that it is really a prototype at the moment. The main goal is to test different things like how to implement a custom user interface, multiplayer addin, ... The features that are present are in no way finished.

[the_soupdragon]

Looking great so far. Keep at it mate this could be a massive breakthrough :D I am really stoked about this.

SD

[41Sqn_Banks]

New release available that allows to create multiple missions in a row without errors. I also improved the menu (spawn parked option, continue current mission, create next mission) and fixed some other bugs (multiple entries of the same item in airgroup and aircraft list).

Thanks to adonys for the bug report.

[lancerr]

This is brilliant - even as a prototype. Thank you.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Are there any problems or is everything working fine?

I'm currently work on the implementation of ground units and getting it integrated into multiplayer. Especially the integration into multiplayer is driving my crazy as there is no documentaiton or examples at all ... so basically everything is try-and-error.

[lancerr]

No issues on the actual mission generation. Works fine with the ones I've tried so far anyway. but I will try bomber missions now.

The main thing I've noticed is that the esc key is taken over by the campaign generator - so no way of starting a recording the mission or changing controls after you start it.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Bomber missions are limited to "area" ground attacks at the moment. They will all perform level bombing (even Stukas). This will be changed when the ground units are implemented.

The menu issue will be addressed, just don't know when :)

[fearlessfrog]

Thanks for sharing the code 41Sqn_Banks :)

[41Sqn_Banks]

I want to give a small developers update for the next release. The main goal of the next release is to provide bomber missions. Therefore the most important new feature are ground attack missions against moving (ships, vehicles, armor) and static (radar) targets.

The vehicles and armors try to find their way themselves using roads and bridges if possible. Ships travel in convoys along waterways that are predefined within the template file. This is done because the calculated ship pathes would be to close to the coast.

The release will contain the campaign "Kanalkampf (July 10 to August 11)".

[Raggz]

The links provided don't work for me. Anywhere else i can download this?

[Blackdog_kt]

May i suggest using www.airwarfare.com for hosting if you're not already using it?

If i'm not mistaken it's ran by the same people who gave us mission4today (and we all know how great of a resource that is for the previous IL2 series), so in time it should be to CoD what M4T is to IL2.

I think it's easier than using rapidshare-type services (downloads won't expire) and after a while everyone will know it's the place to go for community created content. Just a friendly heads-up/suggestion ;-)

[41Sqn_Banks]

The links provided don't work for me. Anywhere else i can download this?

Please confirm if this link is working for you: http://il2dce.googlecode.com/files/IL2DCE-0.1.0.105.exe

[Raggz]

Please confirm if this link is working for you: http://il2dce.googlecode.com/files/IL2DCE-0.1.0.105.exe

This link worked fine. Thanks :)

[_1SMV_Arden]

Hi 41Sqn_Banks, it's a really good job!
I'm writing a script to write a eventlog in order to assign scores to the pilots in any online campaign, you've already thought about this?
The aim is to use a parser in perl like the BELLUM to write score in a MySql DB.

Ciao

[Ataros]

I'm writing a script to write a eventlog in order to assign scores to the pilots in any online campaign, you've already thought about this?

Probably you have seen this mission that outputs statistics to an FTP server directly. http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=24954

The author welcomes using this script in others missions as far as I remember (other part of the script can be switched off).

[_1SMV_Arden]

Probably you have seen this mission that outputs statistics to an FTP server directly. http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=24954

The author welcomes using this script in others missions as far as I remember (other part of the script can be switched off).

This is the target:
Stat: http://bok.il2war.com/all_pilots.php
Dinamic front map :http://bok.il2war.com/mapa.html

We are currently preparing a dynamic online campaign for IL-2 Sturmovik 1946 will start in autumn , but we start working to see if it is feasible with COD in the future.
The only problems are some data available in the log, but I believe problems are solvable.

For example, the old eventlog of IL-2 is obtained for each player also:


Fire Bullets: 588
Bullets Hit: 45
Hit Air Bullets: 45

or

06:51:00 Stab_JG26302 loaded weapons 'default' fuel 70%


Ciao

[FG28_Kodiak]

Use a .Net Ado wrapper for MySQL in CloDo and write the data direct in the database. So no need for a eventlog.

[Ataros]

This is the target:

The stat from the mission I linked to http://r2.repka.su/
You can add anything else what you like with C# script I believe.

No need for eventlogs anymore. You can get mission results in real time, move frontline and upload new objectives and new air and ground units without stopping the server unlike you had to do in original IL-2. This is a new level of online campaigns but it requires some knowledge of C#.

[_1SMV_Arden]

Use a .Net Ado wrapper for MySQL in CloDo and write the data direct in the database. So no need for a eventlog.

is a good solution, but I am creating a system that works without a dedicated server, only HyperLobby (if there is for COD).

@Ataros
Ok, I understand.
I have what I need but I'm just trying another route and check if others prefer the same my way ;)
Bye

[Ralith]

I've got a reasonable amount of programming experience and am interested in contributing. How can I help?

[41Sqn_Banks]

Send me a PM with your email address and I'll invite you to the developers' mailing list.

[41Sqn_Banks]

A lot of good news recently and here is another one: Development of the next release is almost finished. There are a few minor features left but they should be ready until the weekend. Then I will spend the weekend with testing and finishing the new Kanalkampf campaign to make full use of the new features.

A small overview of the features:
- Moving ships (using predefined waterways)
- Moving vehicles and armors (using calculated roads)
- Static ground units (Artillery, Radar, ...)
- Mission types for bombers: Attack ground units, armed recon, recon
- Mission types for fighters: Cover ground units, intercept, escort
- Loadout and altitude for the missions depend in aircraft and mission type
- Rudimental briefing before the flight
- Start a career and gain experience, get promoted to a higher rank and get a higher position within your flight (don't expect to much for now, this will be really really simplified in this release)

If all goes well a beta release will be available next week.

[Ataros]

Hi, Banks!

Did you manage to get any help from naryv on the MP part of your DCE at sukhoi.ru forums? He just mentioned he was/is very busy with the upcoming patch and may have more time next week after the patch is out. You may try contacting him again if it is still needed.

Looking forward to flying IL2DCE online.
Thanks for all your efforts!

[41Sqn_Banks]

Yes I'm in contact with naryv and he helped a lot with API and mission file questions. Unfortunatly he couldn't help solving the problems with the multiplayer addin directly but asked the network developer ... who is unfortunatly even more busy than naryv with the upcoming patch.

I'm confident that the problems can be solved after the patch release. If not directly via a multiplayer addin I will rewrite IL2DCE to work as a regular mission file script for multiplayer.

[Ataros]

Great news! Thanks and GL with it!

[41Sqn_Banks]

Unfortunatly there will not be an release today. The tests on the weekend showed that I need further fine tuning to improve the coordination of air and ground units. Stay tuned ...

[41Sqn_Banks]

Some WIP screenshots of the campaign and career menu.

[tn_prvteye]

Awesome! I finally bought COD last week just because people were finally developing DCs for it!

THANK YOU!

[csThor]

Do I spot certain similarities to another dynamic campaign in a certain other flight sim? No problem, of course, but then copying is the most honest form of appreciation. ;)

I do see areas where more immersion can be inserted ... a pilot picture (which the user can define), a bio (just like in RoF), date and place of birth ... Looks like a good start, though.

[droz]

So, when can we expect an update to include the E-4?

[41Sqn_Banks]

So, when can we expect an update to include the E-4?

I will try to create a beta release of the next version in the next days.

[Rowddy]

now that's what i call "Good news";) Txs i'm looking forward to that very much!

S!

[NedLynch]

I will try to create a beta release of the next version in the next days.

Will this beta release include the features mentioned earlier in this thread?

I do very much appreciate you putting it on yourself to create this DC for the game :grin:. The community needs people like you.

[droz]

Awesome, thanks tons

[41Sqn_Banks]

Will this beta release include the features mentioned earlier in this thread?

Yes, however some features need more fine tuning. For example bombers use always the default detonator independent of the altitude. It's not perfect but definitly a big step forward.

[NedLynch]

Great :grin:. And well, there is always something where you will think it needs some finetuning, all in all, like I said, it's great you are doing what you are doing.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Good day for an update, isn't it?

Here we go: http://il2dce.googlecode.com/files/IL2DCE-0.2.0.302.exe

Please run the uninstaller before you apply the new version. Read more:
http://code.google.com/p/il2dce/wiki/Install_Instructions#Uninstall_IL2DCE

Know issues:
- Deleting a career doesn't update the list, you need to go back to the main menu
- Detonators/Fuzes are not set, depending on the generated altitude the bombs may not explode

Note that this release should be considered as a "release candidate" and wasn't tested on different systems.

[Rowddy]

is it christmas already??:grin::grin: Txs for the Update i'm sure i will enjoy it :)

[NedLynch]

Downloaded it and flew a first mission. Worked very well, many thanks to you :grin:.

Just a couple of questions if I may.
I started as Leutnant for blue, was the last plane on take off, yet had << markings on my plane which leads me to believe I was supposed to be flight leader. My flight did not recognize me (escort mission btw). Should I take off manually or in auto pilot? The first time around I chose auto.

Two flights of emils took off E1s and E4s, my flight was with the E4s. Upon return to the airfiled all the E1s had most unfortunate contact mishaps with the ground, yeah they crashed after being called down for landing.

Other than that everything seemed to work as intended, had even great frame rates, thanks again for all your work you are putting into this.

[adonys]

I started as Leutnant for blue, was the last plane on take off, yet had << markings on my plane which leads me to believe I was supposed to be flight leader. My flight did not recognize me (escort mission btw). Should I take off manually or in auto pilot? The first time around I chose auto.

That's an IL2CoD AI bug, it does not have anything to do with IL2DCE.

[NedLynch]

That's an IL2CoD AI bug, it does not have anything to do with IL2DCE.

I assume you mean the bug is that the flight didn't recognize me, I know that this bug is there, not blaming IL2DCE. With TEF CG for example the workaround was to take off in auto, once airborne you switch back to manual and your flight would follow you. That's the reason why I am asking :).

[41Sqn_Banks]

I started as Leutnant for blue, was the last plane on take off, yet had << markings on my plane which leads me to believe I was supposed to be flight leader. My flight did not recognize me (escort mission btw). Should I take off manually or in auto pilot? The first time around I chose auto.

By default Cliffs of Dover uses the user defined markings which are set in the "Plane Settings" menu in the briefing screen. I will try to correct this in a future release where I will overwrite the player setting.

Two flights of emils took off E1s and E4s, my flight was with the E4s. Upon return to the airfiled all the E1s had most unfortunate contact mishaps with the ground, yeah they crashed after being called down for landing.

I think AI or airfield related bug. Did the other flights land successfully?

[Ataros]

Good day for an update, isn't it?

It is a great day! Thank you for your hard work!

Is there a chance to use it online on a dedicated server, e.g. for generating air-missions on Repka Steppe map?

[addman]

Neat! Will have to try it out, thanks for your hard work 41Sqn_Banks!

[41Sqn_Banks]

It is a great day! Thank you for your hard work!

Is there a chance to use it online on a dedicated server, e.g. for generating air-missions on Repka Steppe map?

Yes this is an option. One could for example generate random air operations periodically. I made a test several weeks ago to proof the concept. Give me some days/weeks to prepare a useful example on how to use the mission generator.

[Ataros]

Yes this is an option. One could for example generate random air operations periodically. I made a test several weeks ago to proof the concept. Give me some days/weeks to prepare a useful example on how to use the mission generator.

Thank you very much! Looking forward to it.

Ideally I would like to combine a ground war generator like this one http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=307600&postcount=9 (in case your DCE does not generate similar ongoing war) with a coop-style air-missions generator like yours on the same server (in particular Steppe map running on Repka #2 and 3 now).

The idea is that all red or blue players on a server receive a message "Next mission starts at the airfield in E3 sector in 5 minutes. Get prepared!" which is repeated every minute before the mission starts. Then when players spawn at a specified airfield (at spawn area) they can read more specific briefing OnPlaceEnter, change the aircraft if necessary, etc. and fly the mission in a good old coop style. The opposition would receive similar messages and directed to the same area to intercept. Players would not be obliged to start the mission on the ground and can join in progress if they took off at a different airfield (some updates on current objectives will be send to everyone like it is done now on Repka 2 & 3).

If a new mission is started every 20 minutes there will be about 2-4 missions simultaneously running on the same server. They should concentrate on the same objective or objectives located close to each other to let most of players find each other.

Hope you like the idea :)

[NedLynch]

By default Cliffs of Dover uses the user defined markings which are set in the "Plane Settings" menu in the briefing screen. I will try to correct this in a future release where I will overwrite the player setting.



I think AI or airfield related bug. Did the other flights land successfully?

Yes they did land just fine. Please note when I write about things that could be considered a bug I am fully aware that it may have nothing to do with IL2DCE but rather with the game itself.
Just thought it might be good for you to know anyways, even if there is not much you can do about it.

Keep up the good work :grin:

[Rowddy]

just wanted to let you know that i found a bug... when play the HE111 career the AI planes all crashe into the hill on the end of the runway and i can't make it either when it's emptey (for recon missions) i can take off but obly with like a meter space between me and the hill. Hope this can be corrected?

S!

[addman]

Small bug report:

1. Playing as Bf-110 pilot, the first A.I pilot to take off crashes in to the small elevation at the end of the runway.

2. Fuses, yes it's a known problem but what's the point of flying ground attack missions in Erg.210 if neither mine or my A.I companions bombs won't explode? Doesn't matter at which altitude I drop the bombs, they won't explode, yes they are armed.

Small requests:

1. Could a Zerstörer campaign be added? i.e. ZG 26 with only air-air/recon missions.

That's all for now, yet again, thanks again for this great addition to CloD. It has really invigorated my interest in the game again.:grin:

[41Sqn_Banks]

2. Fuses, yes it's a known problem but what's the point of flying ground attack missions in Erg.210 if neither mine or my A.I companions bombs won't explode? Doesn't matter at which altitude I drop the bombs, they won't explode, yes they are armed.

Indeed, however IIRC this is mainly a problem of the Bf 110, the other aircraft have more suitable default fuses. I can assure you that this point has the highest priority. Implementation is dead simple, however it is a considerable workload to define which fuse should be used for a specific altitude range and specific loadout.

Just have a look at the file that defines the loadouts for the different operation types (which isn't complete for every type, e.g. Ju 88 has not all loadouts defined): http://code.google.com/p/il2dce/source/browse/tags/IL2DCE-0.2.0.302/IL2DCE/Campaigns/AircraftInfo.ini#
Now multiplicate this by every suitable fuses and delay times configuration. In addition I first need to find out which configuration is suitable. You see it's a mammoth task.

For the other requests/bugs: The missions are generated based on a template which can be created in the FMB. The template file of Kanalkampf campaign is located in <cod steam folder>/parts/IL2DCE/Campaigns/Kanalkampf/Template.mis
You can simply modify the squadrons or add new squadrons in the FMB. The take-off waypoint defines the airfield used by the squadron.

I will give instruction on how create your own campaign or modify a existing campaign soon. So everyone can use his favourite aircraft :)

[addman]

Indeed, however IIRC this is mainly a problem of the Bf 110, the other aircraft have more suitable default fuses. I can assure you that this point has the highest priority. Implementation is dead simple, however it is a considerable workload to define which fuse should be used for a specific altitude range and specific loadout.

Just have a look at the file that defines the loadouts for the different operation types (which isn't complete for every type, e.g. Ju 88 has not all loadouts defined): http://code.google.com/p/il2dce/source/browse/tags/IL2DCE-0.2.0.302/IL2DCE/Campaigns/AircraftInfo.ini#
Now multiplicate this by every suitable fuses and delay times configuration. In addition I first need to find out which configuration is suitable. You see it's a mammoth task.

For the other requests/bugs: The missions are generated based on a template which can be created in the FMB. The template file of Kanalkampf campaign is located in <cod steam folder>/parts/IL2DCE/Campaigns/Kanalkampf/Template.mis
You can simply modify the squadrons or add new squadrons in the FMB. The take-off waypoint defines the airfield used by the squadron.

I will give instruction on how create your own campaign or modify a existing campaign soon. So everyone can use his favourite aircraft :)

Thanks for that quick reply, I took a look at that code and I see what you mean.:) Great job and looking forward to instructions.

[adonys]

it is as simple as adding a flight for Bf-110C-4 or Bf-110C-7, for the BoB_LW_ZG2_Stab or BoB_LW_ZG26_Stab airgroups into the Template.mis file.

[addman]

it is as simple as adding a flight for Bf-110C-4 or Bf-110C-7, for the BoB_LW_ZG2_Stab or BoB_LW_ZG26_Stab airgroups into the Template.mis file.

Never mind, I've figured it all out!:)

[Ataros]

Some questions from sukhoi.ru users http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=72401&p=1715124&viewfull=1#post1715124

1. Many people from sukhoi.ru have problems when starting new compaign. Breafing is empty, no flightplan on map and only available button is aircraft settings. If i press Esc and enter the mission, there ships and radars only and nothing more. I've deleted compaign and trying to start new one many times, it starts on 5th or 6th try. But, when i'm enter the mission, there only my plane, no ai planes, no other combat units. What am i doing wrong? May be wrong installation or maybe i should install something else except binaries?
2. This is a true dynamic compaign, with front movements or its a mission generator?

[41Sqn_Banks]

Small update: http://il2dce.googlecode.com/files/IL2DCE-0.2.1.306.exe

Includes a bugfix for russian language culture, added a Bf 110 C-4 squadron and moved some squadrons to other airfields to avoid takeoff crashes.

[Ataros]

Thank you very much for the fix!

Was it a regional settings issue like decimal comma or data format, anything we need to know?

[41Sqn_Banks]

Thank you very much for the fix!

Was it a regional settings issue like decimal comma or data format, anything we need to know?

For some reason I was unable to post it at sukhoi, thanks for posting the update. Yes I missed to parse 2 values in with invariant culture number format. This caused the flight size to be 0 so no flight was available in the mission.

If you want to convert a string to a double value, for example

string inputString = "0.5";

you should use

double outputDouble;
double.TryParse(inputString, System.Globalization.NumberStyles.Any, System.Globalization.CultureInfo.InvariantCulture. NumberFormat, out outputDouble);


If you want to convert a double value to a string you should use

double someDoubleValue = 0.5;
someDoubleValue.ToString(System.Globalization.Cult ureInfo.InvariantCulture.NumberFormat)


If you don't use the InvariantCulture the default language culture of your system (or application) is used. Depending on this language culture the expected seperator can be "," which causes the parsing to fail if the input string uses "." as seperator. The same goes for the convertion from double to string.

[41Sqn_Banks]

If you are unsatisfied with one of the missions, please give me feedback. At least I need the mission type and a description what you didn't like. Even better if you can provide the mission files. They are located at:

"C:\Users\<windows login>\Documents\1C SoftClub\il-2 sturmovik cliffs of dover\mission\IL2DCE\<pilot name>\<campaign name>_<mission date>.mis" and the .briefing file.

[41Sqn_Banks]

So far everything seems to work as intended. Time to look into the future: What do I plan for the next release(s)?

1. Fuzes and delay times configuration for the different mission types.

2. Ground control that directs patroling fighters to incoming targets in real time. This will give better results for the "cover" mission types and allows patrol mission along a route instead of an area. Intercept missions should also benefit of it. I will try to implement this feature as a dedicated module that can be used in other mission too.

3. Support for all ground targets (it's already implemented, only need to be enabled in the campaign template)

After this steps the mission generation should be very solid and I will look at the campaign progress (squadron managment, moving ground war, ...).

[addman]

So far everything seems to work as intended. Time to look into the future: What do I plan for the next release(s)?

1. Fuzes and delay times configuration for the different mission types.

2. Ground control that directs patroling fighters to incoming targets in real time. This will give better results for the "cover" mission types and allows patrol mission along a route instead of an area. Intercept missions should also benefit of it. I will try to implement this feature as a dedicated module that can be used in other mission too.

3. Support for all ground targets (it's already implemented, only need to be enabled in the campaign template)

After this steps the mission generation should be very solid and I will look at the campaign progress (squadron managment, moving ground war, ...).

Looking forward to your next release!:)

[41Sqn_Banks]

Hi,

I want to give a small status update as the roadmap oulined in my last post has changed. I'm currently concentrating on the online/dedicated server support and a true dynamic campaign (not just randomized mission creation). I think Ataros will be pleased to hear that ;)

Both features involved a rather fundamental rework of the mission generation. The basic features are already working:
- periodic spawning of air groups
- respawning of destroyed ground groups
- dynamic waypoint calculation for ground groups
- moving frontline.
However there is a lot to complete ... so the next release will definitly take a couple of weeks.

[Rowddy]

wow that is awsome news :grin: can't wait to try that hehe good to hear that things go back to normal slowly with COD:)

S! Rowddy

[Ataros]

Thank you very much for update! I love the way it sounds :)

Will it be possible to use the generator with different maps like Steppe, Fields as well (like in naryv's examples) or only the Channel map?

[41Sqn_Banks]

Will it be possible to use the generator with different maps like Steppe, Fields as well (like in naryv's examples) or only the Channel map?

You can use it with every map. In fact I'm currently testing the new features on one of the smaller online map. You only need to create a template with the FMB that contains the front markers, air groups and ground groups.

[Ataros]

You can use it with every map. In fact I'm currently testing the new features on one of the smaller online map. You only need to create a template with the FMB that contains the front markers, air groups and ground groups.

Fantastic! I am thinking of using a version with channel map and/or Steppe map. Taking into account current balance issues one important feature that is required for online is limiting quantities of simultaneously flying bonus planes: Spitfires IIa and 109E4 (ideally depending on total number of fighters of the opposing side for balance, say 20-25%). Additional bonus planes can be available for achieving objectives as implemented on Repka #1 and #3 ATM.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Awesome news!

Thank you!

[335th_GRAthos]

What really impresses me is this:
http://code.google.com/p/il2dce/issues/list

I do not know but I have this feeling in my stomach that I am missing this from some other SW I spent a lot of time with.... ;)

Very impressive Banks, I can not hide my curiocity, what do you do for a living???? LOL


~S~

[Ataros]

What really impresses me is this:
http://code.google.com/p/il2dce/issues/list

Sorry for OT, but is it possible to create a community bug tracker for CloD itself at code.google.com? Does it offer voting/rating tools for bugs? If not, maybe there are other better services?

BlackSix mentioned at sukhoi that they do not have possibility to set up a tracker themselves now. Maybe someone who knows how to do it can help?

If anyone is interested, let's start a new thread on this.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Google Code is only for hosting Open Source software project. However I've read that one could create a google like issue list with "Google Pages". However I think there are better bug/issue tracker like "Bugzilla" (which has voting IIRC) or "Mantis Bug Tracker". To make full use of these the users must be registered to the system. I think this is the main problem.

Anyway ... has been a log time since the last update of IL2DCE. I didn't have much time in the last weeks and was doing a lot of other stuff.

[Ribbs67]

Really looking forward to this also Banks!..will it be possible to use Offline also?



352ndRibbs

[JG301_HaJa]

Great work,
perhaps it's time to try this sim again :)

[salmo]

I'm hoping their are plans for upgrading the DCE to include a "dynamic war" type system. Something akin to the old IL2-1946 Bellum code, or IL2 Wars, Southern Cross War etc.

What I mean is things like...

1. Persistent aircraft states - damage takes time to repair a given airplane, wear persists & increases from flight to flight, maintenance "repairs" wear. maybe maintentance rates could be related to number of workshops at airfield. Destroy workshops leads to reduced maintentance rate.

2. Peristent pilots - "same" AI pilot for a given plane. Same name, skill attributes increase with number of succcessful missions &/or number of kills, targets hit etc.

3. Moving front lines - based on outcome of missions & objectives achieved. Some script for moving front lines is already available.

4. Pilot replacement - Pehaps lost pilots can be replaced at a certain rate.

5. Plane replacement - Perhaps planes can be replaced at a certain rate, maybe related to the presence of aircraft factories. Destroy aircraft factories leads to reduce aircraft replacement rate.

[Osprey]

I'm looking into campaigns for my crew at the moment and this does look promising but there's no update for a while? Is it still being worked on? Just installed it, haven't had a play yet though.

Thank you to Banks, these types are the real heroes of IL2 :)

[Raggz]

Hi, just wondering if the project is still going and if there will be a new update? :)

Thanks!

[41Sqn_Banks]

I'm currently in a creative break. Actually I thought about continuing last week but I must admit that I need to finish two other projects first:
- website of 41 squadron which is about 90%
- a small historical static campaign of 41 squadron covering.

Honestly I think I lost a bit the track of the important features before I halted the development. I experimented to much in dynamic ground war and ship movement, which causes many problems with the current state of the game (e.g. missing bridges) and are not that important for major phases of the Battle of Britain.

When I continue development in a couple of weeks I will concentrate on a persistent world where destroyed objects remain destroyed and must be replaced by reinforcements/supplies. The targets will be static airfields and reinforcement/supply depots and not moving ground objects.

[Raggz]

I'm currently in a creative break. Actually I thought about continuing last week but I must admit that I need to finish two other projects first:
- website of 41 squadron which is about 90%
- a small historical static campaign of 41 squadron covering.

Honestly I think I lost a bit the track of the important features before I halted the development. I experimented to much in dynamic ground war and ship movement, which causes many problems with the current state of the game (e.g. missing bridges) and are not that important for major phases of the Battle of Britain.

When I continue development in a couple of weeks I will concentrate on a persistent world where destroyed objects remain destroyed and must be replaced by reinforcements/supplies. The targets will be static airfields and reinforcement/supply depots and not moving ground objects.

Thanks for the info :)

[41Sqn_Banks]

Today I officially resumed the work and committed the first change (http://code.google.com/p/il2dce/source/detail?r=340) since December 28: The new airfield attack mission type.

As already said in my previous post I will concentrate on static targets (radar, airfields) to recreate "Operation Adlerangriff" for the next release. These targets work much more flawless compared to moving ground and sea units (of course they will be added with a later release). The next step is tracking looses of air units and then implementing some kind of reinforcements system.

[Rowddy]

awsome m8 looking forward to this :)

[Raggz]

That's great news. Looking forward to try the next build :)

[adonys]

Today I officially resumed the work and committed the first change (http://code.google.com/p/il2dce/source/detail?r=340) since December 28: The new airfield attack mission type.

As already said in my previous post I will concentrate on static targets (radar, airfields) to recreate "Operation Adlerangriff" for the next release. These targets work much more flawless compared to moving ground and sea units (of course they will be added with a later release). The next step is tracking looses of air units and then implementing some kind of reinforcements system.

Hi mate, glad you're back! if you need any help, just let me know :)

[41Sqn_Banks]

Hi mate, glad you're back! if you need any help, just let me know :)

Roger. Will try to make the next release quickly and then try to get everything better structured and documented to allow working in a team. I hope I will soon be able to host a server regularly so people can see it in action.

[SNAFU]

Hi Banks,

I understand your system is more or less a script compilation which uses a given template to start with. Is it feasible without too many issues to use the DCE with any other starting template/map?

F.e. if I want to use the whole map and a certain starting condition of 10th July 1940?

BTW:
http://www.emailgoodies.faketrix.com/content/pix/sayings/original-files/never-give-up.jpg

[41Sqn_Banks]

Hi Banks,

I understand your system is more or less a script compilation which uses a given template to start with. Is it feasible without too many issues to use the DCE with any other starting template/map?

F.e. if I want to use the whole map and a certain starting condition of 10th July 1940?


Exactly, it works with every map and every settings. So far the template is created entirely in the FMB (and it's my intention to keep it that way). Simply add the air groups (one waypoint is enough) with the first waypoint set to takeoff and "spawn on script" checked. Then add the front markers and some ground units. The ground units will automatically try to capture the enemy front markers and so on.

There is also a small ini-info file for every campaign that defines the date and the names. You can optionally overwrite the default plane settings for a campaign, e.g. if you want to disable a loadout or change the role of an aircraft (e.g. enable recon missions for Bf 109 or disable airfield attacks for Ju 87 or change the mission altitude ranges).

To keep the world persistent I will write a new "template" when the battle is stopped that reflects the current positions of the units, so basically the mission file is used to store all information and the current state.

I'd recommend to wait with creating a own template at the moment. I need to define the various "markers" in the template first, because at the moment this can change from release to release, e.g. at the moment I use front markers to define the target locations for ships and ground units, which obviously doesn't work if both are on the map.

[csThor]

Exactly, it works with every map and every settings. So far the template is created entirely in the FMB (and it's my intention to keep it that way). Simply add the air groups (one waypoint is enough) with the first waypoint set to takeoff and "spawn on script" checked. Then add the front markers and some ground units. The ground units will automatically try to capture the enemy front markers and so on.
Isn't that a bit excessive WRT the workload in the FMB? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to define the airgroups along with the types they can field, their air bases and pre-defined transfers at certain dates in a separate text file (which DCE can read and interpret)? That would be a lot more flexible IMO. Based on experiences with DGen editing I am not a fan of defining too much in the mission template.

EDIT: To give an example of what I'm talking about WRT "lack of flexibility". The phase Kanalkampf began with a limited number of units doing active missions (i.e. Stab/JG 51 and its subordinated Gruppen, KG 2, the Stukas etc). That doesn't mean there aren't other units still "resting" on the map and those may become active at some point. If, however, we define them and their base in the FMB the DCE will see them as "active" and will use them ... I hope that makes sense. If not we can meet somewhere else to talk about this in german. ;)

[41Sqn_Banks]

Isn't that a bit excessive WRT the workload in the FMB? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to define the airgroups along with the types they can field, their air bases and pre-defined transfers at certain dates in a separate text file (which DCE can read and interpret)? That would be a lot more flexible IMO. Based on experiences with DGen editing I am not a fan of defining too much in the mission template.

EDIT: To give an example of what I'm talking about WRT "lack of flexibility". The phase Kanalkampf began with a limited number of units doing active missions (i.e. Stab/JG 51 and its subordinated Gruppen, KG 2, the Stukas etc). That doesn't mean there aren't other units still "resting" on the map and those may become active at some point. If, however, we define them and their base in the FMB the DCE will see them as "active" and will use them ... I hope that makes sense. If not we can meet somewhere else to talk about this in german. ;)

I don't like to define location based information in a text file, they should be defined on a map for better usability. So either use the map tool that is available (FMB) or create own map tool. The benefit is that everyone can adjust a existing template (e.g. change the aircraft of a squadron) without the need to read the whole manual.
Availability date or more general special events at a certain date are time based information and obviously can't be defined in the FMB and would require a own text file (or for better usability a calendar editor). However so far I have no idea how to combine certain events with the dynamic changing front-line. But this is stuff for the advanced user.

[csThor]

Quite honestly the idea of stuffing most things into the template was proven insufficient by DGen years ago. It was not flexible enough to depict changes of aircraft types (i.e. the switch from Bf 109 to Fw 190 within a sub-campaign, not between two of them) or sudden transfers to other locations for reasons you as a player had no control over, a thing which later happened so frequently (i.e. transfer of parts of Fliegerkorps VIII from Kharkov to Orel during Citadel).

I, personally, believe that only certain things should be defined on the template:

- airbase locations (i.e. deactivating air bases which weren't in use at a certain time)
- major railway lines (= primary supply lines)
- major railyards
- if applicable shipping lines (= major supply lines)
- major roads (= secondary supply lines)
- major harbour installations
- minor harbour installations
- bridges (weak spots of supply lines)
[ - Army Group or Army Level Supply Dump location(s) ]

... basically all things that are mostly static or cannot be moved somewhere else. Anything that is mobile or even semi-mobile should be defined in another file. I mean I am a rivet counter when it comes to historical details and I would invest considerable time into adding such details. But not everyone would do the same and I understand that. But if you cram all such things into the template and don't use external files you're automatically limiting the amount of historical details, accuracy and flexibility your tool can generate.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Quite honestly the idea of stuffing most things into the template was proven insufficient by DGen years ago. It was not flexible enough to depict changes of aircraft types (i.e. the switch from Bf 109 to Fw 190 within a sub-campaign, not between two of them) or sudden transfers to other locations for reasons you as a player had no control over, a thing which later happened so frequently (i.e. transfer of parts of Fliegerkorps VIII from Kharkov to Orel during Citadel).

I, personally, believe that only certain things should be defined on the template:

- airbase locations (i.e. deactivating air bases which weren't in use at a certain time)
- major railway lines (= primary supply lines)
- major railyards
- if applicable shipping lines (= major supply lines)
- major roads (= secondary supply lines)
- major harbour installations
- minor harbour installations
- bridges (weak spots of supply lines)
[ - Army Group or Army Level Supply Dump location(s) ]

... basically all things that are mostly static or cannot be moved somewhere else. Anything that is mobile or even semi-mobile should be defined in another file. I mean I am a rivet counter when it comes to historical details and I would invest considerable time into adding such details. But not everyone would do the same and I understand that. But if you cram all such things into the template and don't use external files you're automatically limiting the amount of historical details, accuracy and flexibility your tool can generate.

The good thing is that the new engine allows to calculate the waypoints for ground units on the fly, so there is no need to define roads, railroads and bridges. (IIRC destruction of bridges can't be logged at the moment). Airfields are also directly available, of course I can't disable a airfield.

I agree it would be practicable to define the locations of cities, rail yards and harbors for every map (the default definition can be overwritten by every campaign). But this would be a "map template" (location of map characteristics) opposed to a "campaign template" (location of units).

I still have some problems with adding "scripted events", of course I can define that unit x was transferred to airfield y at date z. However, what happens if airfield y is already in enemy territory? We see that "events" won't work in combination with a dynamic frontline. Of course a dynamic frontline is not desired if you want to create a historical campaign. So basically if you want to create a historical campaign you want to define the frontline and location of air units and maybe even for ground units. I don't think you want to define that for every day but let's say for every week. Between these dates the frontline may develop dynamically. But what happens if a unit is destroyed? Will it reappear with the next define situation?

I think it would be very possible to add "reinforcement events" to a dynamic campaign that define which air or ground units become available at a certain time. It may be even possible to define a "preferred location" for them that is used if it is in friendly territory.
It would be cool to add some "special events" where a scripted mission is loaded, e.g. to stage a scripted paratrooper operation or a key assault. But then again this would produced problems with the dynamic front line.

One solution for the front line dilemma would be to link the events to the front situation, i.e. they only happen if the corresponding area is still in own hands.

[csThor]

The good thing is that the new engine allows to calculate the waypoints for ground units on the fly, so there is no need to define roads, railroads and bridges. (IIRC destruction of bridges can't be logged at the moment). Airfields are also directly available, of course I can't disable a airfield.
You misunderstand the purpose, Banks. By defining certain roads and railways I force the engine it use it as primary channels for supply traffic. Even today this vital part of military operations is dependent on good railway connections and good roads. Even with our modern offroad vehicles the need for roads is still there as offroad driving considerably increases wear and tear and therefor ups the need for maintenance. These supply lines are primary targets for the medium bombers and ground-attack aircraft of the two sides. Don't forget that!

I agree it would be practicable to define the locations of cities, rail yards and harbors for every map (the default definition can be overwritten by every campaign). But this would be a "map template" (location of map characteristics) opposed to a "campaign template" (location of units).
Guess why I am such an opponent of a "campaign template". It's not able to depict the constant shift of forces that was so common in later years.

I still have some problems with adding "scripted events", of course I can define that unit x was transferred to airfield y at date z. However, what happens if airfield y is already in enemy territory? We see that "events" won't work in combination with a dynamic frontline. Of course a dynamic frontline is not desired if you want to create a historical campaign. So basically if you want to create a historical campaign you want to define the frontline and location of air units and maybe even for ground units. I don't think you want to define that for every day but let's say for every week. Between these dates the frontline may develop dynamically. But what happens if a unit is destroyed? Will it reappear with the next define situation?
Remember when we discussed the issue over at sturmovik.de? I told you back then that I don't think a totally "dynamic" campaign is realistic. I am of the opinion that a single pilot can't influence the course of the war that much because too many factors are totally outside the scope of a flight sim. I do, however, agree that a transfer list is more sensible in a static environment as the BoB. Some transfers (i.e. from one area to another, from one supreme HQ to another) should be pre-defined (i.e. as part of the concentration of forces for a historical operation) or done as reaction to enemy actions.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Remember when we discussed the issue over at sturmovik.de? I told you back then that I don't think a totally "dynamic" campaign is realistic. I am of the opinion that a single pilot can't influence the course of the war that much because too many factors are totally outside the scope of a flight sim. I do, however, agree that a transfer list is more sensible in a static environment as the BoB. Some transfers (i.e. from one area to another, from one supreme HQ to another) should be pre-defined (i.e. as part of the concentration of forces for a historical operation) or done as reaction to enemy actions.

I'm totally with you a dynamic campaign is not realistic. But how to create a semi-dynamic campaign? Which are the dynamic variables, which are static?

If looses are dynamic but front line is static there could be a situation that one side has lost all ground units but still the front line doesn't move. Or a vital air unit can't operate anymore because it lost all aircraft in a unlucky operation. How to have static locations/transfers of air units of the front line moves dynamic?
In addition it's not possible to simulate the whole ground war in detail for performance reasons.

As far as I can see at the moment the only practicable way would be to have a scripted definition of the exact locations of air and ground units for certain dates, e.g. 1 August 1940, 7 August 1940 and 14 August 1940.
Between those dates everything happens dynamic, but when one of the dates is reached the scripted definition is applied and basically resets the dynamic changes to the ones defined for the date.
The only exception could be the squadron of the player where looses and experience of the squadron mates remains throughout the campaign.
This would result in a basically static campaign progress with randomized missions and dynamic development of the own unit.

[csThor]

I took some time to really think about this but quite honestly all I can offer is an opinion and some snippets.

I'm totally with you a dynamic campaign is not realistic. But how to create a semi-dynamic campaign? Which are the dynamic variables, which are static?

Quite honestly I think only the missions can be dynamic, not the setting and the "strategic environment". At first at least I think you should concentrate on making the missions dynamic enough to be believable (use of submissions, triggers, events etc) and logging damage states to static area targets once that is possible (i.e. airfields, bridges, radar stations, railway installations etc). The second step would be to give these things a meaning: damaged railway means impact on supply situation in an area and - if possible - rerouting of supply trains to another line (with all the congestion this overload of traffic causes), damaged airfield means lower maintenance states for your squadron if the hangars are down, etc etc pp ...

If looses are dynamic but front line is static there could be a situation that one side has lost all ground units but still the front line doesn't move. Or a vital air unit can't operate anymore because it lost all aircraft in a unlucky operation. How to have static locations/transfers of air units of the front line moves dynamic?
In addition it's not possible to simulate the whole ground war in detail for performance reasons.

Influencing frontlines is a very difficult matter and I think this shouldn't be attempted too much, if at all, since too many factors and variables are outside the scope of a flight sim. As you said it's not possible to simulate the whole ground war with its ten-thousands of vehicles, guns and tanks so a situation like "one side has lost all its ground forces" just should not happen.

Historically ground warfare was heavily dependant on different sets of factors such as training, doctrine, Command&Control, Communication and whether one side was on the strategic offense or defense. The Red Army of 1941 was numerically powerful but totally unprepared for the Blitzkrieg style of war practiced by the Wehrmacht. The germans won a lot of battles not through firepower but through coordination, movement and training. We can't simulate those advantages in a flight sim ... Which in turn means the impact of a player should be confined to the location he is in and the timetable for the advance/retreat could be shifted only minimally.

As far as I can see at the moment the only practicable way would be to have a scripted definition of the exact locations of air and ground units for certain dates, e.g. 1 August 1940, 7 August 1940 and 14 August 1940.
Between those dates everything happens dynamic, but when one of the dates is reached the scripted definition is applied and basically resets the dynamic changes to the ones defined for the date.
The only exception could be the squadron of the player where looses and experience of the squadron mates remains throughout the campaign.
This would result in a basically static campaign progress with randomized missions and dynamic development of the own unit.

This may be a way. We do, however, have to take into consideration that there were two reasons for unit relocation during the BoB:

1.) A unit may have lost too many aircraft and/or its crew is suffering from fatigue so RAF FC may decide to move it to a secure location to recuperate and bring a fresh squadron to the battle area. Same goes for the LW.

2.) The LW may want to concentrate certain assets in one area for increased impact on operations, just as it happened to the fighter units which were concentrated in the Pas-de-Calais area in August/September 1940.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Dev update. I will host a test server that runs the latest build in a few days. The server will not run 24/7 but for a couple of hours on maybe some days a week.
I have not decided yet if I will include spawn points or instead run a coop script that allows selection of AI aircraft.

[Osprey]

Guys, I have been watching this thread with interest and I'm delighted to see work resume. If I may offer my opinion from a different perspective, one which developers such as yourselves may think is nonsense but this comes from the users point of view, and indeed it may not even be possible, but all the same.

In 1946 i've never flown DCE type stuff and had only done the odd co-op, we always built our own maps versus AI based on history for 're-enactment', immersion and fun only. Competition for me was match based in the USL - my competition days are behind me for now. The point is that I don't care about winning or losing wars, I care about my crew being able to fly together at once in a war like scenario, getting into a fight and returning in 2's and 3's back home, perhaps to prepare for another attack. The whole thing need not run for more than 2 hours. To do that in 1946 I had to have known numbers and spend a long time in the FMB - I don't want this for COD.

My crew is RAF, we are growing a Luftwaffe arm (or trying to).
I would like something which enables players to join the server, warm up their aircraft at our own base and await some sort of instruction, from the game and the flight leader. What the mission needs to do is generate a German bomber formation and a target and let everybody know appropriately. For German flyers they need to be told a rendezvous point, and for RAF they need to be notified of a Luftwaffe buildup over France, where, approximate numbers, height and heading. From that point flight leaders take over, that is perhaps an in game menu available (I've seen code for this) for flight leads only which gives a co-ordinate, height and heading (or vector and height) to the closest bomber formation. The German flyers probably should be told the target/route (maybe this is a briefing option).
The mission can be padded with AI, perhaps by setting a range, when one side has too few humans. We would also want a refly option.

In terms of history there could perhaps be 4 phases (different colour front markers defined on the map?), 1. Kanalkampf, 2. Outer airfield and RDF station attack, 3. Inner airfield attack, 4. Blitz.

I do not mind doing FMB work as long as it is either basic each time or a one off.

Ok, you may think at this stage that I'm talking rubbish but what this does give a squadron is the ability to re-enact the kind of BoB events which happened even though they aren't the actual events and we don't know what is going to happen. The Germans are given escort or the leader can sweep ahead supported by AI fighters (single and twin), the RAF have to scramble and intercept, perhaps with some AI fighters spawned on patrols over the south east.

There is no competition in this at all, I don't care who wins - in fact it's better without competition imho because it's more relaxed and fun that way. Anyway, please tell me what you think, I hope I've provided some info on what quite a few crews would like to see. If you have any questions please ask me.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Once again I'm facing a stupid bug in the dedicated server environment. If a player uses an existing AI aircraft the AI won't interact with it, this means they don't take-off after the player or they will circle infinitely around the airfield as they don't recognize that it has already taken-off. Very frustrating ...

[Osprey]

From my perspective we need not interact with AI aircraft, but I realise that other people may wish to.

Does my previous post make sense?

[41Sqn_Banks]

From my perspective we need not interact with AI aircraft, but I realise that other people may wish to.

Does my previous post make sense?

Your post makes perfect sense, thanks for the feedback.

I'm just tired of those stupid bugs that pop up on every end of this game.

[Ataros]

Try contacting naryv via PM if you need help. He answered questions about FMB and scripts at sukhoi and he speaks English. Here is his profile: http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/member.php?u=1967 Forum interface can be switched to English I think.

He helped Small_Bee with his missions via PM or e-mail.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Try contacting naryv via PM if you need help. He answered questions about FMB and scripts at sukhoi and he speaks English. Here is his profile: http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/member.php?u=1967 Forum interface can be switched to English I think.

He helped Small_Bee with his missions via PM or e-mail.

It's a problem only when the mission is hosted via dedicated server. Only a patch can help ...

But I'll find a workaround as usual :)

[41Sqn_Banks]

It's time for a friday update ;)

First the good news. The current build runs quiet well in dedicated server environment. There are some workarounds required (Aircraft selection by mission menu, Autopilot after take-off) because of bugs in the game engine. Hopefully the upcoming patch will fix them.

The bad news is that I'm not happy with the overall structure and design of the software (well actually there is none). I don't like the rather static generation of the missions. There is a lot of dead code from the single player mode. Adding new features like radar detection to the current code would be very complicated and ugly. In addition the lack of documentation and the not defined development process makes it hard for interested developers to help the project. So this is not going to work ...

I invested the last week to refine the development process, I started defining the requirements and though about a new design of the whole software. A week ago I was close to drop the single player option completely, but my new design has a convenient solution for it. However I must admit, it's not the top priority and will be added at a later stage.

The next steps are: Finish to define the requirements, describe the design and start implementing the basic features. Of course this means that there won't be a release in the next weeks.

Draft documents:
http://code.google.com/p/il2dce/wiki/Software_Requirements_Specification
http://code.google.com/p/il2dce/wiki/Software_Design_Description

If you have some ideas that you'd like to see implement and want to help and take part, please write a "user story" that contains the view of of a user, what he wants and expects and enjoys, much like Osprey did in the post above. I will read it and thinks that I like will be added to the requirements.

[addman]

Sounds awesome, looking forward to the next iteration.:)

[Ataros]

Thanks for update! Looking forward to it!

[von Pilsner]

It's time for a friday update ;)

First the good news. The current build runs quiet well in dedicated server environment. There are some workarounds required (Aircraft selection by mission menu, Autopilot after take-off) because of bugs in the game engine. Hopefully the upcoming patch will fix them.

That is good news :D

Will the new version run as a SP campaign as well?

[41Sqn_Banks]

That is good news :D

Will the new version run as a SP campaign as well?

Short answer: Yes, there will be a single-player mode.

Long answer: Maybe not in the next release but it is definitely part of the design. The single-player mode will have a persistent world as well, however it will not always run in real-time. The time between the missions of the player will be simulated (and thus time-compressed) in the background. The same feature is used by the multiplayer mode to skip night times and bad weather.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Little status update. I'm currently prototyping the new design. Main goals of the design are:
- handle destruction of objects
- add the possibility to simulate the persistent world (needed skip the time between missions in single-player and bad weather/night times in multiplayer).
- add the possibility interact with a web interface to show a map and allow the selection of aircraft
- add a commander interface to give orders to air and ground units

[Ataros]

Thank you for update. Looking forward to it!

[adonys]

mate, if you need any help with the design, prototyping or coding, let me know.

[41Sqn_Banks]

mate, if you need any help with the design, prototyping or coding, let me know.

Good idea. Did you read the SRS recently? http://code.google.com/p/il2dce/wiki/Software_Requirements_Specification

It's rather high level at the moment and needs definitely some more detailing in use case "Attend mission", "Advance world" and "Issue order".
Maybe you have some ideas for the use case description format.

The basic architecture ideas right now are:

* There is a web interface (as its not possible to create a addin for multiplayer) that allow player to view the map with all the units and stuff and select the aircraft they want (there is no dogfight like spawning of single aircraft, but air groups spawn regularly and stay for a short time idle on the ground to allow players to select them). For single player this can be realized as a ingame addin, but thats for release version 1.5
* It's a persistent world that runs in real-time where the ground units travel from capture point to capture point. To be able to skip times between missions in single player and night times in multiplayer there is a simulator for the persistent world that does some simplified calculations but keeps the flow of the world.
There is a IPersistentWorld (http://code.google.com/p/il2dce/source/browse/trunk/IL2DCE/IL2DCE/IPersistentWorld.cs) interface for this. The is derived from maddox.game.AMission and also implements IPersistentWorld. The other components of IL2DCE only communicate through the IPersistentWorld interface with the Mission. The simulator will also implement the IPersistentWorld interface. So they can be exchanged to allow real-time operation and skip a timespan.
* There is a [url=http://code.google.com/p/il2dce/source/browse/trunk/IL2DCE/IL2DCE/IHeadquarters.cs]IHeadquarters (http://code.google.com/p/il2dce/source/browse/trunk/IL2DCE/IL2DCE/Mission.cs[/url) interface that issues commands to IUnits. By default there is an AI implementation for it and an additional web interface that allows humans to give commands and overwrite AI orders (so the human must note be online 24/7)
* There is a IUnit interface (air, ground, sea units) and IBuilding interface (e.g. factories, radar, ...).

Does it make sense so far?

[von Pilsner]

Got the source checked out for a few versions, having fun messing around with the code (good lord random number sets are a pain in C#... ;) (but I finally got it). Added some AI and flight stuff and messing with template files and flights.

I occasionally get a mission where all flights only takeoff and land, but that may be due to the changes I've been making.

I know I'm working on an older codebase than you (cause I'm messing with SP stuff) but I must say again, Nice work !!! Thanks for this, 41Sqn_Banks! :D


EDIT: When (if) I get my code cleaned up I'll send it to you for consideration into the main tree. :D

[adonys]

I'll try to have a look over them this weekend.

[41Sqn_Banks]

EDIT: When (if) I get my code cleaned up I'll send it to you for consideration into the main tree. :D

Maybe I can create a new release of the old SP codebase that incorporates your changes.

[Ribbs67]

Any status update on your project Banks? Since the release of the final patch out?
Eagerly awaiting the completion!

Thanks S!

[Rowddy]

+1 :)