RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich



Message

Turner -> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (10/31/2013 1:29:20 AM)

???

Which column in the device tab would change the number of a/c in the pool???



warshipbuilder -> RCAF OOB BoB 1941 (10/31/2013 9:01:58 PM)

Here is the final version of the RCAF OOB for BoB41.

If somebody would implement these changes in the editor and then u/l it to the forum it would be appreciated.

Better still, if somebody could walk me through on how to make the changes I will gladly do it myself. Give a man a fish you can feed him for a day, teach him how to fish.........

Off to 1943!




Creeper -> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (11/1/2013 9:58:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Turner

???

Which column in the device tab would change the number of a/c in the pool???


Sorry for the confusion; I meant the scenario tab, of course!



Turner -> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (11/1/2013 11:11:27 AM)

Ok!



rob89 -> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (11/2/2013 2:07:54 PM)

Some questions for the database experts :

a) why german AA Radars (FuG 202, 212, 218, 220, 240) have 'effect' = 0, while british AI Mk IV, VII and X have 1000, 2000 and 3000 (but Mk VIII = 0) ? What's the meaning (and the impact) of this parameter and the ratio of those values ?

b) why the 128mm Flak is not produced during the game ? Only 148 guns, from the scenario start, without day by day production (historically, 600+ produced in 1944 alone). Is there a parameter - somewhere in the database - ruling the issue ?

c) why Ta 152C has a fuel consumption = 4, while Ta 152H, Fw 190D, etc = 2 and all german 2E = 2 or 3 ? Error ?

d) Does the combat engine have some parameter ruling the ammo consumption, during the fight ?

e) what's the meaning of 'default' in the 'doctrine' ?


thank you in advance

Rob



Creeper -> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (11/3/2013 9:09:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rob89

Some questions for the database experts :

I'm not an expert, but...

a) why german AA Radars (FuG 202, 212, 218, 220, 240) have 'effect' = 0, while british AI Mk IV, VII and X have 1000, 2000 and 3000 (but Mk VIII = 0) ? What's the meaning (and the impact) of this parameter and the ratio of those values ?

Where do you see an effect = 0?
In the editor all german aircraft radar has an effect parameter.
Only radar receiver doesn't need an effect.
What's the meaning? I don't know...


b) why the 128mm Flak is not produced during the game ? Only 148 guns, from the scenario start, without day by day production (historically, 600+ produced in 1944 alone). Is there a parameter - somewhere in the database - ruling the issue ?

That is WAD.
Somewhere in the manual is written that there is no production of the 128mm flak.
Also there is no parameter ruling this issue..it's hardcoded that there is no production.



c) why Ta 152C has a fuel consumption = 4, while Ta 152H, Fw 190D, etc = 2 and all german 2E = 2 or 3 ? Error ?

d) Does the combat engine have some parameter ruling the ammo consumption, during the fight ?

no, the combat engine only uses the fuel, respectively the endurance parameter of the planes.
(except AA rockets)


e) what's the meaning of 'default' in the 'doctrine' ?


thank you in advance

Rob




rob89 -> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (11/4/2013 11:30:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Creeper

a) why german AA Radars (FuG 202, 212, 218, 220, 240) have 'effect' = 0, while british AI Mk IV, VII and X have 1000, 2000 and 3000 (but Mk VIII = 0) ? What's the meaning (and the impact) of this parameter and the ratio of those values ?

Where do you see an effect = 0?
In the editor all german aircraft radar has an effect parameter.
Only radar receiver doesn't need an effect.
What's the meaning? I don't know...




You can see the values in this picture, from the editor.

German AA radars seem to have 'effect' = 0, while british radars have 1000, or 2000, 3000 ...

regards




[image]local://upfiles/44541/38884DCDB54243589323EE689EB9874C.jpg[/image]



Creeper -> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (11/4/2013 12:42:50 PM)

That is interesting, rob.

I'm using a different device database (the one from Turner),
where all german aircraft radar devices have an effect value.



[image]local://upfiles/30442/E12112BAF34A4C26ACE23316B5AE2376.jpg[/image]



Turner -> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (11/4/2013 7:57:09 PM)

Yes... but only because I edited the data... [image]http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/2114/p9tinp5cce3h4mb6g.jpg[/image] it's experimental and very uncertain what effect it will really have. So far in my game it does not seem to have any effect at all, but I guess one would need to track all data and compare statistically to see any detectable pattern.



Turner -> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (11/4/2013 10:29:43 PM)

By the way, I think one of the major flaws in the game is that it makes no difference between various .50 BMG installations. I'll be the first one to admit I'm no expert on allied fighters, but as I understand it the standard .50 BMG setup on the P51 and P47 was that each pair of BMG had their convergence at staggered distances. I don't know the exact distances, but say the outer pair on the P51D was set at 450 yds, the middle pair at 400 yds and the inner pair at 350 yds, this would give a good coverage in terms of volume. The purpose was to make the average pilot a better shot, the drawback being that good pilots (with good aim) would be less accurate. Since there were more average pilots than good pilots the intention was to get better overall results in combat.

For the .50 BMG mounted in a bomber defensive position, there is a huge difference in accuracy between a manually held and operated gun, and a turret installed gun. The turret would typically have a much greater effective range usually in a twin configuration.

So as you look into this you can easily see that the single type of .50 BMG in the game grossly simplify the situation, and imho the performance can and probably should be slightly better for both the allied fighters using the .50 BMG and the bombers with turret operated guns.

Any thoughts on this? Do anyone have the correct data for the P51 convergence setup???

Thanks



warshipbuilder -> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (11/4/2013 10:58:30 PM)

Various distances that were employed in WWII by American fighters using .50 inch (12.7 mm) heavy machine gun rounds include 500 ft (150 m), 750 ft (230 m), 900 ft (270 m) and 1,000 ft (300 m), with the longer distances favoured later in the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_harmonisation

According to the P-51 Pilots Manual there are 400 rounds in the inboard guns and 270 each in the centre and outboard guns and that they are normally set to converge between 250 and 300 yards but they can be adjusted to the pilots preference.




Turner -> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (11/4/2013 11:05:35 PM)

Found the setup for the P47.

[image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/P-47_gun_harmonization_1945_page_35.jpg[/image]



Turner -> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (11/4/2013 11:07:29 PM)

[image]http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/5801/fightergunharmonization.jpg[/image]



Turner -> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (11/4/2013 11:10:00 PM)

Later in the war longer distances were favored because of the higher speeds. Higher speeds meant greater separation during combat and longer shooting distances. So it became necessary to adjust accordingly.



Turner -> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (11/7/2013 9:37:07 PM)

Anyone happen to have a list of which rows in the 'aircraft' tab of the DB editor needs to be empty?



Turner -> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (11/9/2013 7:47:29 AM)

This seems to be a 'device' tab problem and related to production. The 'aircraft' tab seems to be unrestricted in terms of #of aircraft types. The limit seems to be that the number of 'device' rows is limited.

Devices or aircraft production data entered below row ~270 or thereabouts are not pooling when built.

Anyone know more about this????



Creeper -> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (11/11/2013 10:22:14 PM)

Is the pooling issue solved?
I could investigate if needed.



rob89 -> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (11/12/2013 4:02:15 PM)

As well known, if the start-date of a model has been advanced by R&D, the related (up-gunned) sub-version doesn't.

Is it possible, by the editor, to link the version and sub-version start-dates, to bypass that problem ?

thank you

Rob



Turner -> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (11/12/2013 5:57:20 PM)

No it is not possible to link them, the only way around that if you want to make a sub-version available at the same time as the main type is to set the availability date for the sub-version to a earlier date than the buildable model. Since the sub-type is only accessible through manufacturing the main type it won't matter if the sub-type is available from start, if you want them to become available at the same time. It won't affect research. This setup may be desirable in some cases and some other times not. I chose to lock the sub-types of the Ta152A versions to a later date in my mod because of game balance, imho it would also be too ahistorical to have such heavy hitters available earlier.



warshipbuilder -> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (11/12/2013 6:16:35 PM)

How about adding 413 Squadron RCAF for April 1, 1945 flying Lancasters? The squadron had been recalled from the far east to do just that, but it was decided to disband it instead.



Turner -> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (11/12/2013 6:53:45 PM)

Do you have a roster? Also which base did they deploy to?



warshipbuilder -> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (11/12/2013 7:59:37 PM)

They were at Bournemouth and they were disbanded on Feb 28 1945. They were suppose to go to Linton-on-Ouse as part of 6 Group, flying Lancs. April 1st is a ball park figure, they should have been operational around that time. That is all I got.

It would have been the Lanc X. The Canadian government was very anxious for the RCAF to start flying Canadian made aircraft.




Turner -> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (11/14/2013 8:41:05 AM)

So the unit was historically speaking disbanded on Feb 28 instead of being deployed to 6 Group in April? To implement it the minimum info needed is the name and rank of Squadron CO, and aircraft performance data. Since the Lancaster X is not in the game currently.



warshipbuilder -> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (11/14/2013 11:12:44 AM)

Last commander was W/C SR McMillan. Lanc X was a Canadian built III, so no problem using that instead.



Turner -> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (11/14/2013 12:52:50 PM)

Ok!



Turner -> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (11/15/2013 6:22:46 PM)

413 Squadron RCAF is in from April 1st 1945. Flying Lancaster IIIs only the CO is on the roster so they will be reinforced to full strength from replacements.

Wrapping up v1.03 now.



warshipbuilder -> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (11/15/2013 11:51:16 PM)

Bravo Zulu!



warshipbuilder -> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (11/24/2013 7:38:59 PM)

Here is the amended OOB for the RCAF. As you can see it is a lot different than what is in the game. You are going to have to get a little creative when dealing with 420, 424 and 425 squadrons. [:D]



rob89 -> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (12/6/2013 9:04:04 PM)

Does anyone know if/how the code 'type' = 01 of the device tab (= 'GA rocket', i.e. Ground-to-Air rocket ???) work ?

thank you in advance

Rob



warshipbuilder -> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? (1/10/2014 2:50:28 AM)

It seems rows 1-200 are for axis a/c and 201-400 are for allied, below that there are a number of allied a/c that are repeated, plus the pacific a/c. Did you notice that some of the stats are different for the repeated allied a/c?

Did you also notice the B-36 in bmp slot 131? Just sayin'.

Do the P-47M, XP-72 or P-51H show up in any of the games? If not, I think they could be usable slots for other allied a/c not already on the roster.

By making any mods to the game, does that mean you won't be able to PBEM with another player who has the "original" game?



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.546875