4.11 General debugging

[Treetop64]

Originally Posted by Fall_Pink?

Well, ahem, that's not the reason I posted that... I was merely thinking about the ai dll.
I didn't have any java crashes anymore tonight, so maybe's something is going on here.

Although, some others reported it works fine when it's only associated with core 1. Afaik, il2 can only run on 1 core, but this extra dll can make a difference. Weird.

Rgs,
FP

Interesting. I'm getting similar results since changing the "ProcessAffinityMask=" line. I actually left it enabled and set it to "0", which is it's default setting. That was several hours and game sessions ago, and no CTD as of yet.

Promising...

[crucislancer]

Originally Posted by Fall_Pink?

Well, ahem, that's not the reason I posted that... I was merely thinking about the ai dll.
I didn't have any java crashes anymore tonight, so maybe's something is going on here.

Although, some others reported it works fine when it's only associated with core 1. Afaik, il2 can only run on 1 core, but this extra dll can make a difference. Weird.

Rgs,
FP

I just want to point out that I run IL-2 on a single core system, and I did have a CTD around 15 minutes in.


I haven’t had the chance to really dive into the changes in the patch, but I like what I’ve seen so far and the only real issue I’ve noticed was the CTD.

Thanks for all the hard work!

[_=JR=_]

please move this if it is in the wrong place i dont really use forums but i think this is important due to the effect it my have in online games...
i have intel dualcore 1.6 g 2 gigs of ram in an intel 965 express with vista 32bit

while experiancing low fps after the applied 4.11 patch i turned the gfx settings down to minimal which resulted in the following glitch.....

[Fall_Pink?]

Small update:

Changing the process affinity produced mixed results. Sometimes it does not crash (exception), but most of the times game crashes. I checked by using counter attack mission of hs129b. Nearly every time the flight nears the town to start its ground attack, the games crashes. Out of 10 attempts, only 1 or 2 times it does not crash.

Rgs,
FP

[Aardvark892]

There are two strange triangular objects that can be seen from the cockpit of the IL4 (very well done cockpit BTW) that seem to pop in and out erratically. See photo.

[Ventura]

SBD-3 default skin is the same regardless of year on Coral Sea Map (Haven't tried others).

The early 1942 versions had the red ball within the white star (as in the TBD-1 and F4F-3)


ALSO The I-153P's wheels have a ground shadow that shows them wobbling badly.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Ventura

SBD-3 default skin is the same regardless of year on Coral Sea Map (Haven't tried others).

The early 1942 versions had the red ball within the white star (as in the TBD-1 and F4F-3)

Something I'd very much like to see change in the future... SBD models served a great deal of the war. It'd be nice to see the markings change a bit as time goes on.

Actually there were four significant changes to markings and three basic camo schemes used. Might be nice to see all of these...but I dream big

[Uzin]

Does anybody tried to create or change missions for QMB in 4.11?
In my experience, you can build new QMB missions with a full editor - FMB only at the default maps, not at added ones, their name appears in QMB , but they can not run. Even at default maps, you cannot change QMB missions using new take off options - Pairs or Line, because in QMB the planes are wildly scattered around the airfield.
Did anybody mention this weird behaviour, please ?

[FC99]

Originally Posted by Uzin

Does anybody tried to create or change missions for QMB in 4.11?
In my experience, you can build new QMB missions with a full editor - FMB only at the default maps, not at added ones, their name appears in QMB , but they can not run. Even at default maps, you cannot change QMB missions using new take off options - Pairs or Line, because in QMB the planes are wildly scattered around the airfield.
Did anybody mention this weird behaviour, please ?

It is normal that you can't made missions for maps that are not included in 4.11. If you are using mods and they are installed correctly you should not have problems to create QMB missions for these maps and use them in your modded install.

As far as Line and Pair take off are concerned you have to understand that QMB have built in parser for mission templates( that's what you create in FMB). Actual mission,one you play after you hit "FLY" in QMB is combination of mission template and the settings read from QMB menus.

Problem for you is that parser doesn't know how to read new take off parameters. My only question is , is it really important to have this in QMB, you can play such missions as single missions, you can play them from FMB so is it justified to spend lot of time on tweaking QMB just for that or it would be better to spend that time on things that are more critical.

FC

[Uzin]

Originally Posted by FC99

It is normal that you can't made missions for maps that are not included in 4.11. If you are using mods and they are installed correctly you should not have problems to create QMB missions for these maps and use them in your modded install.

Missions made in FMB on newly added maps run well in FMB, but not in QMB.
New maps are, obviouly, installed correctly.

Originally Posted by FC99

As far as Line and Pair take off are concerned you have to understand that QMB have built in parser for mission templates( that's what you create in FMB). Actual mission,one you play after you hit "FLY" in QMB is combination of mission template and the settings read from QMB menus.

Problem for you is that parser doesn't know how to read new take off parameters. My only question is , is it really important to have this in QMB, you can play such missions as single missions, you can play them from FMB so is it justified to spend lot of time on tweaking QMB just for that or it would be better to spend that time on things that are more critical.
FC

I think QMB possibilities should be consistent with those of FMB, just my 2pence.

Another inconsistency, in FMB: with Normal option in take off you must, as earlier, position the waypoint which is next to the first one, away from the runway, while with new options - Pairs and Line - you must position that next waypoint over the runway, to its opposite end. Why not to remove this inconsisteny, please ?
Thank you for your time you devoted also to these small bugs on the beauty face of 4.11.

EDIT:
As an offliner, I am used to record my flights frequently. Anf I have never met so much wrong records, differring essentially from the situation that was in the flight, as now with 4.11+Hotfix .
I am sorry for being so negative, but I have seen better programming work as this.