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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Thanks for the info

[41Sqn_Banks]

Today I officially resumed the work and committed the first change 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]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

Today I officially resumed the work and committed the first change 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]

Originally Posted by adonys

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:

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

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.