RE: Aircraft Loads (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding



Message

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Aircraft Loads (3/23/2014 8:10:16 PM)

Merci, je vais essayer ça!



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Aircraft Loads (3/24/2014 12:52:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gaspote

I'm not an expert but 372-100kg SAP bombs(2) are set in weapon 15 but 1881-250kg SAP bomb are set in weapon 6.
I think weapon matter to link reduce and normal load, so 372-100kg should be in the weapon 16.

For the B case, I think order for filter is important, so you can't have filter 08 after 33


I have linked weapons and missions by slots for normal/extended range and and changed the order of the filters - no joy, same issue.



[image]local://upfiles/1313/25465FBCCA60499E906F026AE7D75EF0.jpg[/image]



Symon -> RE: Aircraft Loads (3/24/2014 4:06:41 PM)

Haven’t the time to really dig into this, but if my ‘senior’ memory doesn’t fail me; a looooong time ago, back in Beta around 11.17, there were some cautions.

If any devices had conflicting Alt Use and Filter pointers, squirrely things would happen. I’m not up on just when the link list is generated, but your 250kg bombs (if unchanged from the std devices) have conflicting pointers for mission profiles. That might screw up your link list. The 250kg GP and the 100kg GP(2) have Filter pointer of 33. That’s not a valid number, should be 32, maybe. It likely won’t hurt much when taken individually, but in an extensive link-list, woof!!

The system looks at values from the top down. i.e., divide by 64 .. and look for a “1” .. if you get it, set a flag and keep the remainder .. then divide the remainder by 64, then 32, then 16, then 8, etc… looking for a “1” each time. With 33, you get a “32” flag = AF Attack, and remainder of 1. Dividing 1 by anything returns a null, and still keeps a remainder. The poor system gets confused and quite butt headed.

There’s also some embedded code for torpedo replacement. I’m also not sure just where and when it impacts the link list. But you can see that the 45cm T-91 “device” has empty Alt fields so the auto-code “replacement” routine goes to work. Once again, it checks the pointers of the “replacement” device and gets confused by mission conflicts.

Your actual link list just might be the auto-code making decisions on its own, because it’s just too confused by all the conflicting mission pointers.

I know this doesn’t answer your question very well, but it might help you structure a test, in a one-at-a-time, step-by-step manner, and see just where the blivet rears its ugly head. Wish I could help more. Sorry. If you really want, send a pm, with some screenies and maybe your device and aircraft files? JWE



oldman45 -> RE: Aircraft Loads (3/24/2014 4:12:28 PM)

Actually that is a BIG help John, thanks.

For the record, after 256 turns I still have not sunk a sub with air dropped DC, but the cat's with their GP bombs have gotten 3. So not convinced its worth the effort to monkey around with the ASW weapons.



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Aircraft Loads (3/24/2014 4:26:09 PM)

Thanks John! I will have a week off in April and plan to do some more testing (without constant interruptions at/by work).



Symon -> RE: Aircraft Loads (3/24/2014 4:45:50 PM)

Well, I don’t want to divert LST’s thread. I think it is very important, but … just to clarify things for you .. and if you need more info, please start a new thread, or send a pm .. you are caught in a similar conflict situation. The Filter value 64 = ASW just means that the “device” may be used on an ASW “Mission”. The “device” itself must be configured for use on aircraft. One cannot use a Naval ASW “device” and expect it to perform the same under the Air algorithm as it does under the Nav algorithm. They are totally separate, and one size does NOT fit all.

What do you think would happen if B-17s started dropping 155mm GPFs, or 6” Naval guns? It’s a slightly rhetorical question, but totally technically feasible. Devices are devices; but they have pointers that make them useful in one algorithmic sense, and useless in another. Devices are fungible; Device “Type” is not.

If you want air-dropped DCs, you must make a separate device, called a “bomb” and give it the characteristics you want (there is NO depth in the air ASW algorithm).

Hope this helps. J



oldman45 -> RE: Aircraft Loads (3/24/2014 9:22:00 PM)

You opened my eyes, I had called it ASW, no wonder it didn't do anything. Thanks!!! Does it matter if I call it a GP or AP bomb?



GaryChildress -> RE: Aircraft Loads (3/25/2014 3:17:43 AM)

Wow! Or to put it in JWE parlance WOOF!! Great stuff! [&o]
One question, though, Treespider says "fully implemented in the 1117 Beta". This being from 9/2012, is this feature fully implemented in the current official patch v1.01.08r9 dated from 2/2012? My guess is the answer is "no"? [&:]




quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

One item all of you serious modders should be aware of...is the use of the Filter for aircraft loads...fully implemented in the 1117 Beta.

By using a filter you can specify which load is carried for which mission.

Filter values are:
2 - used for naval attacks
4 - alternate for naval attack (like torp replacement)
8 - used for land (ground) attack
16 - used for port attack
32 - used for AF attack

[image]local://upfiles/15342/1269A736ECF7462FA73DAFE42707174D.jpg[/image]




Symon -> RE: Aircraft Loads (3/25/2014 3:10:23 PM)

Been there since the beginning, so some form of it is in the official patch, v1.01.08r9. However, it is in the “Original” mission bit values – different from the new “fully implemented” mission bit values. So be vewy, vewy, caweful.

The mission bit values apply to both the Aircraft panel Filter fields and Device panel Alt Use fields, so be vewy, vewy, caweful regarding mission bit conflicts between Filter fields and Alt Use fields and when using different exe files.

OLD MISSION BIT VALUES – BEFORE 11.17c
2 - PM_NAVAL_ATTACK // used for naval attack missions
4 - PM_NAVAL_ATTACK2 // alternate for naval attack (like torp replacement)
8 - PM_LAND_ATTACK // used for land (ground/port) attack missions
16 - PM_LAND_ATTACK2 // alternate for land attack missions
32 - PM_AF_ATTACK // used for AF attack missions
64 - PM_AF_ATTACK2 // alternate for AF attack missions

NEW MISSION BIT VALUES – AFTER 11.17c
2 - PM_NAVAL_ATTACK // used for naval attack missions
4 - PM_NAVAL_ATTACK2 // alternate for naval attack (like torp replacement)
8 - PM_LAND_ATTACK // used for land (ground) attack missions
16 - PM_PORT_ATTACK // used for port attack missions
32 - PM_AF_ATTACK // used for AF attack missions
64 - PM_ASW_ATTACK // used for ASW attack missions



Symon -> RE: Aircraft Loads (3/25/2014 4:06:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45
You opened my eyes, I had called it ASW, no wonder it didn't do anything. Thanks!!! Does it matter if I call it a GP or AP bomb?

Mike. You can "name" it what you want. You can call it a DC, no worries. Thing is, DCs (Type 20 = ASW) have field values that work in the Naval ASW routine, but are not referenced in the Air ASW routine. The Air ASW routine treats attacking a sub the same way as attacking any other ship. It does not recognize "depth" or calculate "hit" or "damage" the same way.

AP/GP does matter somewhat. The difference in "type" is used by the code when evaluating a load-out for use against certain ship types to be attacked in Nav Attack missions. So there is some code that differentiates between the two that needs to be considered; It's not a simple answer. Dropping on subs does not require any AP capability, so your best bet is to configure your air-dropped DCs as GP bombs. You can give them any combination of EFF and ACC values that work best for your purposes.

Before you even ask, the answer is no. There's no way the Air ASW attack routine will get changed. Way too much work for way too minimal a return; and doing it half-arsed is worse than just leaving it as is. [8D]

John



oldman45 -> RE: Aircraft Loads (3/25/2014 4:07:54 PM)

The thought never crossed my mind to ask for a change[8|] Thanks for taking the time to explain it!

What I meant by "naming" it was the pull down menu I called it asw and not a bomb. I assume thats what you were referring to.



packerpete -> RE: Aircraft Loads (3/26/2014 5:16:10 PM)

Don't forget that filter 0=all and 1=city attack. Michael M. added "1" in one of the beta versions. Third page of this thread.



miv792 -> RE: Aircraft Loads (9/4/2014 12:10:33 AM)

Question. Put in the script but Betty filter in the combat log shows that uses more and more bombs. What could be wrong? link1 link2



PaxMondo -> RE: Aircraft Loads (9/4/2014 3:31:04 AM)

YOU have to be casrful with any torpedo bomber. There is separate hard code to swap out bombs for torps. You cannot interfere with that code or you get extra bombs ....



miv792 -> RE: Aircraft Loads (9/4/2014 9:08:48 AM)

And why then Emily took off on the same port is? H8K1 Emily bombing from 6000 feet (SuperPatrolBoat H8K / Combined)
Port Attack: 8 x 250 kg GP Bomb



el cid again -> RE: Aircraft Loads (9/11/2014 3:22:22 AM)

There is also the filter 64 = ASW
also added by Michael

In particular useful if you use AS weapons
like ASW bombs, Air Depth Charges
or even Air ASW Torpedoes



miv792 -> RE: Aircraft Loads (11/19/2014 4:38:47 PM)

Please tell me if you have for example 250 b5n bombs are all kinds of attack, even if the port and make a single 800kg bomb on the port will they cheredovatsya? and as mb example shows b5n so could torpedo and the port from time to time to throw.



miv792 -> RE: Aircraft Loads (5/24/2015 3:01:11 PM)

For the new patch also suitable?
I put suspension x8-100kg bombs for ground targets in the editor in the game when choosing ground bombing in suspensions indicates x8-50 kg bombs .... What am I doing wrong?



miv792 -> RE: Aircraft Loads (9/20/2016 11:10:45 PM)

[img]http://c2n.me/3CrGXBW.jpg[/img] [img]http://c2n.me/3CrHrKT.png[/img] [img]http://c2n.me/3CrHA2I.jpg[/img] ASW patrol no load bomb.....

In general, when viewed in the plane h8k upgrades, it looks like the first image , when he turns asw patrol without suspension even though the editor asked the right kind.



el cid again -> RE: Aircraft Loads (9/21/2016 2:49:25 AM)

The torpedo bomber attack routine works with DIFFERENT torpedoes. It may be that is a way to
evade the code. I have not yet seen it happen with a different type of torpedo.


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

YOU have to be casrful with any torpedo bomber. There is separate hard code to swap out bombs for torps. You cannot interfere with that code or you get extra bombs ....




LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Aircraft Loads (9/21/2016 7:26:50 AM)

quote:

by miv79

ASW patrol no load bomb.....

In general, when viewed in the plane h8k upgrades, it looks like the first image , when he turns asw patrol without suspension even though the editor asked the right kind.


If I am not mistaken, ASW mission will use the reduced bombload load by default, so ASW weapons should be put into slots 11-20.



m10bob -> RE: Aircraft Loads (9/21/2016 2:42:52 PM)

Nice to see this thread was brought active again.



Dili -> RE: Aircraft Loads (9/21/2016 9:10:49 PM)

miv you are missing 1 in quantity. The sum total should be 127 you are missing city attack, the last number should be 123 not 122.

Note that from what i have read you should also have the same correspondence in extended range tab.

So your extended range tab should also have the 4 and 123 in slots 17 and 18, you have not shown your extended range tab in pictures above.

Edit: it might also be the ASW (64) slot needs to be separated but i am not sure.



miv792 -> RE: Aircraft Loads (9/22/2016 1:23:22 AM)

The question of what is better 4 * 250 kg bombs or 20 * 50 kg bombs for bombing the airfield?
The game is important to a lot of bombs or quality?



Dili -> RE: Aircraft Loads (9/22/2016 2:46:10 AM)

Many bombs throws the game engine off specially against ships, i suspect the hit level is by percentage of bomb quantity. I have 6 bombs max for medium bombers and 10 max for heavy bombers.



miv792 -> RE: Aircraft Loads (9/23/2016 5:31:26 PM)

For me, the main enemy planes, the airfield is usually very difficult to bomb, low efficiency of Japanese planes, I wonder what the bomb load is best, when the bombing of airfields.



Dili -> RE: Aircraft Loads (9/23/2016 8:09:22 PM)

It depends what for you it is realistic or not. With more bombs you get more hits now you have to factor that with crew quality, altitude, weather.



witpqs -> RE: Aircraft Loads (9/23/2016 8:37:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

It depends what for you it is realistic or not. With more bombs you get more hits now you to factor that with crew quality, altitude, weather.

Right!

I think the operative example here is the Babes calibration of ASW, which (among changes to many ships) reduced the number of launchers for the IJN E classes configuration from the number they actually had to a number that worked with the game code to provide realistic performance.

If (just for example) 4 bombs works with the game code to yield unrealistic performance, then change it to whatever number works with the game code to yield realistic performance.



miv792 -> RE: Aircraft Loads (9/23/2016 10:34:27 PM)

Random unfortunately too much of the fact that there is not clear at the moment effectiveness at bombing the airfield, but noted that such a thing for example sea g3m, g4m pilots at the beginning of the well-bomb airfields unlike the army with ki-21 4*250.

I want to make a bomb mod for yourself with realestichnost bomb suspension. Some aircraft know a different bomb load, but unfortunately do not have all the information, if any information please share. I take the information on the bombs from here: http://wiki.warthunder.com/index.php?title=Ki-21-Ia



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.514648