- mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Europe theater

Moderators: Lone Wolf, Snake Man

Cally
Recruit
Posts: 13
Joined: 2009-02-28 22:54:07
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: All, I (try) to edit everything.

Red Thunder OOB part I

Post by Cally » 2009-03-04 03:43:51

OK, here is a huge chunk of what you'd want to get a central europe campaign going (from the OOB standpoint anyway :) ):
>>Mediafire folder<<

In here you will find:
1. A huge Word doc campaign summary (please use the hotlinked table of contents!) containing:
--a) A full list of ground units organized down to the individual vehicle.
--b) Every airbase with its type of aircraft and number (combat aircraft only though, not support)
--c) Map coordinate objectives for every Army/Corps
--d) Every reinforcement by location and time (1/2 day increments)
--e) General areas of supply

And because the campaign refers to Opart map coordinates
2. Two large campaign maps (JPG's; one with starting division/brigade-level units, one without).
--a) Look for some reference coordinates listed in the "no units" map in the form x,y
--b) The hexes are 25km.

I will soon post:
3. A spreadsheet with "average" battalion compositions for US, FRG, UK, and Pact units (I'll add French and minor NATO units at some point).
a) A "translation" table for someone to enter in Falcon4 adjustment values to turn the real-world battalion compositions into something appropriate in the Falcon world (per Molnibalage's suggestion).

(With all due recognition & respect to Norm Kroger and the other folks who designed the Opart scenarios!)

I hope this seriously helps someone out in TacEdit!
-Cal

User avatar
molnibalage
Colonel
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-01-13 07:59:02
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: Modeling
Location: Hungary

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by molnibalage » 2009-03-04 08:19:19

How many real-world MBT = 1 Falcon MBT? How many ZSU-23-4? SA-14?, etc.

Start us out Molnibalage: 1 Falcon SA-14 = how many real-world SA-14's?
This can't be counted that way. I will explain later.
Image
Core 2 Duo E7300, Gigabyte EP43, 4 GB RAM (1066MHz), Shappire Radeon HD4850 1GB

Snake Man
Commander-In-Chief
Posts: 9338
Joined: 2000-07-31 22:01:01
Gaming Interests: ArmA, ArmA 2, Falcon 4.0 and OFP.
Editing Interests: All, I (try) to edit everything.
Location: PMC
Contact:

Re: Red Thunder OOB part I

Post by Snake Man » 2009-03-04 11:14:53

Cally wrote:OK, here is a huge chunk of what you'd want to get a central europe campaign going (from the OOB standpoint anyway
Please next time pack those files up with RAR, much easier/faster to download. Thanks.
PMC Tactical Forum New User Registration please read new info here.

PMC since 1984

Editing knowledge, visit PMC Editing Wiki
The leading, most detailed and comprehensive modification made for the Vietnam War - Vietnam: The Experience homepage
View our videos in PMC Youtube channel

PMC Tactical forum Advanced Search is power.

"ALPHA BLACK TO PAPA BEAR. ALL RUSSIANS ARE TOAST. OVER."

Cally
Recruit
Posts: 13
Joined: 2009-02-28 22:54:07
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: All, I (try) to edit everything.

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by Cally » 2009-03-04 19:22:18

Snakeman: Uh, good point--Done!
Molnibalage: Enigmatic words... do explain when you get a chance. I eagerly await englightenment!

hossa1818
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: 2009-03-31 01:20:37
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: Missions

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by hossa1818 » 2009-04-02 06:52:00

Hi-fidelity jetsim+dynamic campaign+WW3 European battlefield. What could possibly be better? I will help as much as possible but my talents might limit me to cheerleading.

My only suggestion is to start with East and West Germany and then expand from there. Why not start with fighter-regiments? They are easiest to add. The link by Mapi is excellent: http://www.mil-airfields.de/index-en.htm

Using tacedit/AF I can add all the GDR and Soviet fighters to East Germany. It is a sight to behold. But they don't carry loadouts. If I want to make campaign edits for real, I have to switch to freefalcon, correct?

Here is OB for GDR AF, it's quite simple:
Holzdorf
JG-1
Mig21MF

Trollenhagen/Neubrandenburg
AB currently not on map. We could move them to Laage or skip them for economy.
JG-2
Mig21M

Preschen
JG-3
Mig21MF

Drewitz
JG-7
Mig21M

Marxwalde
JG-8
Mig21bis

Peenemunde
JG-9
Mig23MF/ML

That's it for the GDR fighters. I'll come back soon with the Soviets and Americans.

User avatar
molnibalage
Colonel
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-01-13 07:59:02
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: Modeling
Location: Hungary

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by molnibalage » 2009-04-02 07:01:25

As I have said in first step have to be determined the modeling scale. Everything depends on this.

Falcon was created to modeling squadrons and not regiments. We can increase the size of squadron to regiment size but this can cause problems. --> Modeling scale again.

If you just put too many AC AD can be too weak, it won't follow the real AC : AD ratio.

If you put too many AC they destroy all ground units very quickly.


Balancing is not an easy task.

What about force ration sliders? Inventory of each battalion have to be considered counting this. Campaign have to be optimized for Veteran and Ace slider positions. I can explain why I'm saying this. Check in RP5 manual how use game the slots. For red side we need all slots to simulate quite real ratio in battalion between BPMs, tanks and AAA or mobile SAM units. This is also true for blue side. Is it clear what I'm saying?



That's it for the GDR fighters. I'll come back soon with the Soviets and Americans.
We have known the NATO OOB quite well. Pls. check older posts.
USSR OBB is required! I know only in Hungary.
Image
Core 2 Duo E7300, Gigabyte EP43, 4 GB RAM (1066MHz), Shappire Radeon HD4850 1GB

derStef
Banned user
Posts: 696
Joined: 2007-11-14 00:22:45
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: Terrains
Location: Austria

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by derStef » 2009-04-02 12:01:55

Hellos Hossa,
nice that you are willed to help! cheers for that!


molnibalage wrote: We can increase the size of squadron to regiment size but this can cause problems.
or we add 2 or more sqadrons to represent "one" regiment. thats the way i handle that all the time.


an every other point i agree with my hungarian neighbor.

cheers
Stef

hossa1818
Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: 2009-03-31 01:20:37
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: Missions

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by hossa1818 » 2009-04-03 08:24:25

molnibalage wrote:Falcon was created to modeling squadrons and not regiments. We can increase the size of squadron to regiment size but this can cause problems. --> Modeling scale again.
The current campaign is a placeholder, I realize that. But there are no active GDR airbases, and the American airbases are not historical. I was just trying to point out an obvious deficiency. It would be easy to make the airwar in Germany historical and fun to fly, even if other aspects of the campaign are not complete.

I give the GDR OB simply to organize data. I did not mean to imply each "regiment" should be modeled 1:1. A Falcon squadron=20AC. A real life squadron=36-40AC. You are correct, even if you replace each regiment with 1 squadron, there could be too many aircraft. In the GDR there was probably over 1000 total fighters, bombers, and transports. Reducing that by half is still too much. Maybe you should populate every other airbase?

The ground war in Korea always feels totally fictional to me. Events on the ground are determined by events in the air, by what the player achieves. Shouldn't the ground war in Europe also be less historical and more abstract?

User avatar
molnibalage
Colonel
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-01-13 07:59:02
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: Modeling
Location: Hungary

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by molnibalage » 2009-04-03 09:29:52

A Falcon squadron=20AC. A real life squadron=36-40AC.
This is not true. Are you saying that 36-40 AC are in one squadron? Where? Squadrons typical size is about 12-16 AC. Regiment size is 16-32 AC. In USAF there are wings not regiments. I'm not sure but one wing contains 2-3 squadrons as I know.

In Falcon even on ace difficulty you hardly can see 20 AC size squadron.
You are correct, even if you replace each regiment with 1 squadron, there could be too many aircraft. In the GDR there was probably over 1000 total fighters, bombers, and transports. Reducing that by half is still too much. Maybe you should populate every other airbase?
Only fighters with the highest combat capability should be modeled counting the modeling scale. Other problem that in Hungary are non existent airbase in map currently and some other are missing. So in first step we need a list about primarily used airbases from as many countries as possible. We have to eliminate the rest.

This is the modeling scale issue that I have mentioned. Because of supply system the transport AC number have to be much smaller as IRL. Only the largest ones should be modeled. C-5, C-141, AN-124, Il-76 and An-22.

The ground war in Korea always feels totally fictional to me. Events on the ground are determined by events in the air, by what the player achieves. Shouldn't the ground war in Europe also be less historical and more abstract?
I don't understand this. Events in campaigns since RP5 is less player dependent. Problem with most ground units that they didn't get orders from creator. I have done some tests. Units placed by me and and set their orders by me did as I had imagined.

In every theater there are too few engineer battalion. Almost every airbase should get one (or at least the biggers). They have to get appropriate orders. I also have tested this. I could place engineer battalions and they repaired mostly airbases. (Because also a problem that eng. battalions many times spend their times to repair worthless objectives).

Also a problem is the very rough PAK map. Is there anybody here who can create a new one with smaller areas?

What about objectives priority values?

This won't be a short project. My 1 year guess was quite optimistic...
Image
Core 2 Duo E7300, Gigabyte EP43, 4 GB RAM (1066MHz), Shappire Radeon HD4850 1GB

User avatar
Sherlock
Lt. General
Posts: 1167
Joined: 2006-05-24 22:01:01
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: All, I (try) to edit everything.
Location: Arizona, USA

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by Sherlock » 2009-04-05 14:23:51

Just FYI...
In the US Air Force a "pure" fighter wing consists of 72 aircraft in the TOE (generally). It is normally made up of 3 squadrons consisting of 24 aircraft each. Of course, other types of aircraft have different arrangements.
Sherlock
Victurous te Saluto

derStef
Banned user
Posts: 696
Joined: 2007-11-14 00:22:45
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: Terrains
Location: Austria

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by derStef » 2009-11-29 00:48:41

first test drive...

be aware big picutres!!!


scroll down to my screenshots
http://freefalcon.com/forum/showthread. ... 386&page=9

User avatar
molnibalage
Colonel
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-01-13 07:59:02
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: Modeling
Location: Hungary

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by molnibalage » 2009-11-29 21:30:53

derStef wrote:first test drive...

be aware big picutres!!!


scroll down to my screenshots
http://freefalcon.com/forum/showthread. ... 386&page=9
Does this mean that these shot were made in a campaign using Europe theater?
Image
Core 2 Duo E7300, Gigabyte EP43, 4 GB RAM (1066MHz), Shappire Radeon HD4850 1GB

derStef
Banned user
Posts: 696
Joined: 2007-11-14 00:22:45
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: Terrains
Location: Austria

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by derStef » 2009-11-29 22:25:28

molnibalage wrote:
Does this mean that these shot were made in a campaign using Europe theater?

yes.

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc25 ... e14cd5.jpg

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc25 ... 655552.jpg
Last edited by Snake Man on 2009-11-30 15:50:50, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: please dont hotlink very large (file size) images. 100kb per image is ok, 300kb is not.

User avatar
molnibalage
Colonel
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-01-13 07:59:02
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: Modeling
Location: Hungary

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by molnibalage » 2009-11-30 10:01:28

What DB us used for this project? Because it will be good if we can add my database upgrades to this theater for red jets.
Image
Core 2 Duo E7300, Gigabyte EP43, 4 GB RAM (1066MHz), Shappire Radeon HD4850 1GB

derStef
Banned user
Posts: 696
Joined: 2007-11-14 00:22:45
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: Terrains
Location: Austria

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by derStef » 2009-11-30 12:59:02

molnibalage wrote:What DB us used for this project? Because it will be good if we can add my database upgrades to this theater for red jets.

Molni, I'm testing if it will run at all and if my plans/ideas/approaches work at all.
we are far away from discussing the DB stuff. but sure mate, when the time comes, i will SURE get back on that one to you. (latest FF5.x dev DB)

in that testrun, i assembled a ~ 1985 ColdWar scenario, without nukes...

Sweden and Finland got invaded by Sovjets..

i set it up that you can actually fly in that area that you can see on the 2 screenshots. i made the map smaller so to speak, that helpes the ATO extremely.


its running not bad so far, only very few crashes, but Falcon crashes EVERY TIME when i exit to desktop out of europetheater... pretty anoying.

Major problem are the millions of terrain tiling and Object placing bugs as you all know. we would really have to hunt these down before it really makes sense to go forward with everything else.

we would not have to "fix" the whole map, maybe only the most important flying areas, like the Area around Germany...


but we would need more ppl here....

regards

Stef

derStef
Banned user
Posts: 696
Joined: 2007-11-14 00:22:45
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: Terrains
Location: Austria

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by derStef » 2009-12-02 15:57:41

what we to try now is to get some ppl into the seats here to do some terrain bug hunting first.

without that, we cant really go further.

everybody should grab a part of the map and check it for Tiling issues or Object issues.Further it is important to check the existing RWYs and check for missing ones. same counts for armybases and Radar stations..

then we make lists of that collected stuff and it becomes much easier to fix than just have all these loose info...

Gentlemen, i wait for you to join in.

regards


Stef

User avatar
molnibalage
Colonel
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-01-13 07:59:02
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: Modeling
Location: Hungary

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by molnibalage » 2009-12-03 08:38:40

derStef wrote:what we to try now is to get some ppl into the seats here to do some terrain bug hunting first.

without that, we cant really go further.

everybody should grab a part of the map and check it for Tiling issues or Object issues.Further it is important to check the existing RWYs and check for missing ones. same counts for armybases and Radar stations..

then we make lists of that collected stuff and it becomes much easier to fix than just have all these loose info...

Gentlemen, i wait for you to join in.

regards


Stef
I'm in. Checking all objects in map is not so hard if we can ask 5-10 people to do it. You have to fly and nothing else. I can create TEs with steerpoints that cover the region of map. All objects are deaggregated at 5-7 miles. This means the you have to follow a path like this.

Image

You can use time acceleration. If there is no object nearby, you don't have to follow exactly this. As I see this can be done quite fast, we don't need monts. Yes, it will be quite boring...

( 2 years ago in Korea I could test all TACAN channels in Korea during 1 hour.)
Image
Core 2 Duo E7300, Gigabyte EP43, 4 GB RAM (1066MHz), Shappire Radeon HD4850 1GB

User avatar
Luk
Brig. General
Posts: 455
Joined: 2007-04-23 09:59:36

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by Luk » 2009-12-03 09:26:44

everybody should grab a part of the map and check it for Tiling issues or Object issues.Further it is important to check the existing RWYs and check for missing ones. same counts for armybases and Radar stations..
Cecking objectives + looking for some new is allways fine.

But my 0,02CZK to terrain.
I dont want to break your passion gentelmans. I agree that handwork is necessary in final (fixing roadsystem + some tiling errors).

There is a copy of PM a posted to Snakeman week ago:

Code: Select all

Hi SnakeMan.
May I ask you for the fresh new European128 L2/02 file?
I mean terrain in the first stage - DEM2Terrain output? (before CATE).

I am preparing CATE bitmaps for new tiling. L2 included in PMC installer is modified by no.6 CATE pass - rivers are lowered.
It is a problem, because alpine snowcaps(ice) are also lowered in this pass.
Of course, I can reconstruct it (higher/elevate the ice border), but there is still another problem - leveled airbases (a lot of them are in bad location)....
I dont want to process the whole new from scratch, becouse it is not precise enough. No matter I have good coordinates (center etc.).
I want to have PMC compatibile terrain, so you can accept it later.

I want to make forrests, where they are. Contemporary placement(by elevation) produces strange feeling sometimes. For Europe unnatural large forrest areas - like in Brazil. Somewhere forrest free areas...

To your note in txt :
[quote]
    Airbases that are leveled ok will get fucked when pass-6 is done with the rivers being lowered % amount, its tricky... very tricky. These are the known airbases that lose their terrain leveling...etc
[/quote]

I thing it is because AB leveling pass is before the river lowering pass. And river-lowering pass source data is vector/tdf. So you are lowering tiles of leveled base in case, there is some water....
Thank you.
Luk

BTW I hope Eu configs can handle snowcaps. What about other standard types (hills, mountains, rocks etc..?)
Snakeman told me snowcaps support is not included in contemporary eu configs.

BTW -Are your satisfied with contemporary terrain? What about Austrian/Czech border or Alps derStef? You are pilot...
In Czech republic I let only 1 AB where it was (Prague Ruzyne). All other were moved(+changed) about 1/2 segment to new location. I also added many new.
I make the same for Bavaria now...
Ithink AB research transformed to exact config (means name, type, position of reference point) would be helpfull.
I counted to do it by myself in center area. But I did not have plan for check France, Hungary, Italy at the noment.

But do it the way as you wish.

Luk

User avatar
molnibalage
Colonel
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-01-13 07:59:02
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: Modeling
Location: Hungary

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by molnibalage » 2009-12-03 09:43:18

The map should serve ALL eras, especially the Cold War era. It is not a good idea to remove airbases just they are currently not used. I have to say Europe theater can be good ONLY for Cold War era. You are not able to do enjoyable campaigns unless they are very hypothetical.
Image
Core 2 Duo E7300, Gigabyte EP43, 4 GB RAM (1066MHz), Shappire Radeon HD4850 1GB

derStef
Banned user
Posts: 696
Joined: 2007-11-14 00:22:45
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: Terrains
Location: Austria

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by derStef » 2009-12-03 11:36:41

Luk wrote:BTW -Are your satisfied with contemporary terrain? What about Austrian/Czech border or Alps derStef? You are pilot...
In Czech republic I let only 1 AB where it was (Prague Ruzyne). All other were moved(+changed) about 1/2 segment to new location. I also added many new.
I make the same for Bavaria now...
Ithink AB research transformed to exact config (means name, type, position of reference point) would be helpfull.
I counted to do it by myself in center area. But I did not have plan for check France, Hungary, Italy at the noment.

Luk & Molni, you are thinking the same as i do.

for the beginning we should take care of these countries:
Germany (most important > FRONT LINE!!!)
Poland
Czech
Denmark
Sweden

secondary:
Belgium
Netherlands
Luxemburg
Austria
Italy
Hungary
Norway
Finnland
Baltic States
Belarus
Switzerland

we should check them for bad tiling stuff and object placement.
most important are Airbases and Armybases.
for the Airbases, we have to find out which are missing and which need adjustment.

then we make lists of it with F4 X/Y coordinates.

Luk, it would be great if you can take care of the czech and polish area for example.
I totally agree with Molni that we need some more pll, that is why i'm posting.

as i said, some guys will take care of Skandinavia atm, I'm working on Austria and help in Germany.

maybe we can also bring Striker aboard here!

Molni, yes making such TEs is a good idea, you have tó know, we did such a terrain bug hunt already for Taiwan. Tom is very experienced with that, we did a hell of a job there with flying around and note the issues..

as i said, atm we should try to get more ppl into the boat and then we cut the map into pieces and everybody takes a part or more to check for these problems.

with CRTL+Z/Y then L you can let show up the falcon coordinates. if you see something strange, fly over it and note the bug and its X/Y coordinate or make a screenshot of the situation.

then once you are back on desktop, you create a list with all these bugs.

that should be the best way to go, we did it in that way for Taiwan and it worked out good.


regards

Stef

User avatar
Luk
Brig. General
Posts: 455
Joined: 2007-04-23 09:59:36

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by Luk » 2009-12-03 11:48:00

The map should serve ALL eras, especially the Cold War era. It is not a good idea to remove airbases just they are currently not used. I have to say Europe theater can be good ONLY for Cold War era. You are not able to do enjoyable campaigns unless they are very hypothetical.
I did not remove single AB. I have added a lot of them. I wanted only to say, that almost all of them have bad location...
BTW Cold war era is my main focus at the moment...

Image
more here:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=22125
Luk

derStef
Banned user
Posts: 696
Joined: 2007-11-14 00:22:45
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: Terrains
Location: Austria

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by derStef » 2009-12-03 12:11:44

uhm Luk, i really would say that we cut the map down and fly different areas in the 3 different campaigns

one time only over he Skandinavian area and north Germany and Poland, Belarus..

one time the classic Inner german boarder zone... all from Denmark down to Austria

one time everything south of Austria...



Mate that really helps the ATO... trust me on that one.

User avatar
Luk
Brig. General
Posts: 455
Joined: 2007-04-23 09:59:36

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by Luk » 2009-12-03 12:22:39

uhm Luk, i really would say that we cut the map down and fly different areas in the 3 different campaigns
one time only over he Skandinavian area and north Germany and Poland, Belarus..
one time the classic Inner german boarder zone... all from Denmark down to Austria
one time everything south of Austria...

Mate that really helps the ATO... trust me on that one.
Sorry Stef, I dont see a problem here.I dont have problem if somebody will use whole map for his scenario.
I want to update whole map by CATE. Then import some more detailed areas.
Make small and for me doable/winable campaign in the center. You can use only few my objectives, in case you want to do large camp and think
I make it too dense.

Picture in above post anly shows dense Czech area. And remained PMC ABs from 1st campaign. I want to use similar dense area to counter CCCP/W-pact and remain only few Blue ABs for long range bombers/tankers. The same for red. The state on the picture is not the final state..
I want also to remove all the Balcans squadrons. The purpose of that picture was to show Molni, I am not removing Cold war ABs, I am adding them. PMC AB are taken from Scramble source, so they usually miss cold war era ones.

Luk

User avatar
molnibalage
Colonel
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-01-13 07:59:02
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: Modeling
Location: Hungary

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by molnibalage » 2009-12-03 12:57:48

derStef wrote:uhm Luk, i really would say that we cut the map down and fly different areas in the 3 different campaigns

one time only over he Skandinavian area and north Germany and Poland, Belarus..

one time the classic Inner german boarder zone... all from Denmark down to Austria

one time everything south of Austria...



Mate that really helps the ATO... trust me on that one.
What does it mean 'cut'?

Smaller map size? Same map but we put only vehicles and squadrons only for ceration areas and we give less campaign goals?
A smoother PAK map is needed, I think this case ATO problems.
Image
Core 2 Duo E7300, Gigabyte EP43, 4 GB RAM (1066MHz), Shappire Radeon HD4850 1GB

derStef
Banned user
Posts: 696
Joined: 2007-11-14 00:22:45
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: Terrains
Location: Austria

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by derStef » 2010-01-26 10:14:10

molnibalage wrote:
What does it mean 'cut'?

Smaller map size? Same map but we put only vehicles and squadrons only for ceration areas and we give less campaign goals?
A smoother PAK map is needed, I think this case ATO problems.
by removing objects you can define the area of interes/combat.... i tried it out now several times... works MUCH MUCH better than on the big/whole map..

keep in mind, if ther are no objects, they will not go/fly to there.. :wink:

here a test of an northern Europe Coldwar screnarion...
http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/cc25 ... d9398b.jpg

http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/cc25 ... c8f5f3.jpg

http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/cc25 ... 655552.jpg

http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/cc25 ... 1512e2.jpg

ccc
Chief of Staff
Posts: 4857
Joined: 2000-08-06 22:01:01

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by ccc » 2010-01-26 11:44:24

ah, the test sample looks like a cool playground for Sweden, Germany and Warsa Pact forces.. SAAB flyers should be happy :mrgreen:

derStef
Banned user
Posts: 696
Joined: 2007-11-14 00:22:45
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: Terrains
Location: Austria

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by derStef » 2010-01-26 12:51:24

ccc wrote:ah, the test sample looks like a cool playground for Sweden, Germany and Warsa Pact forces.. SAAB flyers should be happy :mrgreen:
true i also did one that reaches from Denmark down to Austria, to have the full inner german border major frontline on it.


now i just need Luk's new terrain in here!!!! woowwooooooooooo!

toonces
Brig. General
Posts: 484
Joined: 2008-07-20 19:43:12

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by toonces » 2010-04-17 12:54:15

Since there seems to be some renewed interest in Europe (about time gents), I thought I'd bump this topic rather than start a new one.

My thoughts essentially mirror Derstef's. I read Tobias' other thread about adding more objectives than the current 12,000. Bad idea IMO.

Modelling campaigns in Falcon is all about scale. In a perfect world, in a perfect sim, we'd create a perfectly build European terrain, with every real objective where it belongs, with each airfield properly laid out, with a TACAN station and all, with a completely historical OOB for both sides, with the proper number of units per battalion, squadron, etc, with historical aircraft at historical bases, and everything would run perfectly with sensible tasking on the ground and air war, etc, etc.

Ok, that's not really going to happen in our lifetime. We have to work with what we HAVE, not what we WANT. Well, we could work with what we WANT, if we're willing to BUILD IT, but guys, I'm telling you, if we ever want to see a premier PMC release, we have to narrow down the focus to something that we can do with what we have. And this is totally doable, and doable with a handful of people and not that much time.

First, instead of going bonkers about how many objectives, airfields, my little favorite part of the world isn't represented, etc, etc, we need to focus on what is absolutely essential to a Europe theater. Essential...what is critically required for the campaign to be modelled. Every single little airstrip in Europe doesn't need to be present. The big ones do. The vital ones do. The ones that have some squadron that has a big role to play in the war needs to be present. For those that aren't? They were hit by chemical weapons, tactical nukes, clobbered by preemptive airstrikes, the union workers went on strike...whatever little story you need to tell yourself to provide a reason it's not there.

Next, the terrain has to be acceptable. We can go the Derstef route and make it perfect. IMHO, I'd just use what we have. You're looking at such an OOB-building and objective building nightmare already, and since nobody has stepped up in the last year to bug hunt the terrain, why not just use what we have? I flew 30 some missions in the Europe AAR I posted, and I never really felt my immersion go to shit just because of some goofed up terrain. I say just use what you have, unless there's some critical deficiency, like a main airfield improperly levelled or something.

Then, we need to decide on the scope of the theater/campaigns. We don't HAVE to model the entire European war in one campaign. OR, we can, but then it needs to be cut down to the essential parts. The main combat routes need to be defined by links and objective priority numbers so that the units will fight along the major axes. Critical objectives for victory need to be defined- in fact, victory objectives in general need to be defined. This actually isn't too hard; we can borrow from any number of wargames and I can do this in an afternoon. So, I recommend either: 3-5 small campaigns focusing on a "sector/front" of the whole war in detail, or "one big war" but at a smaller level of detail. IMHO, if you go big and in detail, the sim is just going to barf. You really, really have to have your OOB squared away for Falcon to understand what to do with a huge, densely populated map with 12,000 objectives. In Panama and Kuriles, I'm getting 16-ship strikes scheduled from the ATO. You're going to have to have a TON of planes to get the sim to do that in Europe. Will the sim even be playable with that many jets flying at the same time?

Both Stefan and I have done experiments on this theater. It really isn't an insurmountable project for even a tiny team, if the team is focused. The only thing that holds me back from working on it, besides not really having the time right now, is that I'm deathly afraid to dump 1,000 hours of my life into it, only to find v.07 has scrambled the terrain and rendered my work unusable.

You decide how you want to proceed gentlemen. This isn't hard and Stef and I know how to make campaigns that work now. But without focus and some sort of agreement on the terrain issue, I'm not going anywhere near this, unless it's for my own personal pleasure.

Snake Man
Commander-In-Chief
Posts: 9338
Joined: 2000-07-31 22:01:01
Gaming Interests: ArmA, ArmA 2, Falcon 4.0 and OFP.
Editing Interests: All, I (try) to edit everything.
Location: PMC
Contact:

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by Snake Man » 2010-04-17 16:13:02

toonces wrote:Every single little airstrip in Europe doesn't need to be present. The big ones do.
Europe has lot of objectives, I don't have tacedit at hand so I cant check, but most of them are factories and bridges.

I linked this theater which was good deal of work, I'd hate to lose even some of that... however I am OK to remove many if not most of the factories from this theater to cut down the objectives count.

Bridges... well these effect ground unit movement. Unless we find some work around for this, if we remove some bridges we need to alter the terrain at the same time.

Removing bridges opens up brand new can of worms. Factories can be nuked quite easily, especially those "far away from FLOT" ones.
Next, the terrain has to be acceptable. We can go the Derstef route and make it perfect. IMHO, I'd just use what we have.
Use what we have + some quality assurance tiling which is fast, its mostly checking that everything is OK then moving to next segment.
I flew 30 some missions in the Europe AAR I posted, and I never really felt my immersion go to shit just because of some goofed up terrain.
Mostly its those over decade old korean tiles that kills immersion.
I'm deathly afraid to dump 1,000 hours of my life into it, only to find v.07 has scrambled the terrain and rendered my work unusable.
Well naturally we need to coordinate the efforts that such things wont happen.
PMC Tactical Forum New User Registration please read new info here.

PMC since 1984

Editing knowledge, visit PMC Editing Wiki
The leading, most detailed and comprehensive modification made for the Vietnam War - Vietnam: The Experience homepage
View our videos in PMC Youtube channel

PMC Tactical forum Advanced Search is power.

"ALPHA BLACK TO PAPA BEAR. ALL RUSSIANS ARE TOAST. OVER."

User avatar
Luk
Brig. General
Posts: 455
Joined: 2007-04-23 09:59:36

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by Luk » 2010-04-18 08:30:05

Next, the terrain has to be acceptable. We can go the Derstef route and make it perfect. IMHO, I'd just use what we have. You're looking at such an OOB-building and objective building nightmare already, and since nobody has stepped up in the last year to bug hunt the terrain, why not just use what we have? I flew 30 some missions in the Europe AAR I posted, and I never really felt my immersion go to shit just because of some goofed up terrain. I say just use what you have, unless there's some critical deficiency, like a main airfield improperly levelled or something.
What does it mean - "Derstefs route - perfect route" ?
Does it mean "flying and screenshooting..."?
Sorry there are a lot of waste time in this process. You can do the work imediately - find your combat routes, build the OOB, then integrate it + fix the terrain in 1 pass.

BTW I seamlessly imported my previously created segments. I have also added US ABs in my area of interest last week. I think I can call it terrain bug hunting. But I am tunning the terrain, which is worth to tune IMHO.
This hand-tile part of work is really fast and entertaining compared to previous months of CATE configs/source maps creations.
..just because of some goofed up terrain
now you feel hurt, but you have written already before, that you never really entered into the EU modding. It was too large and buggy for you. Thanks for the appreciation, by the way 8-)

Luk

post edited:
perhaps I just did not understand what you wanted to say. In case you dont want to revert back to PMC ver6 terrain - ok, of course we can discuss some acceleration (CATE ABs pass). Then it will be finished and you dont need to worry about somebody's tile work. I opened this in another topic and nobody answered. I also wanted to sort out the areas of interrest (big rectangles), but nobody was interested as well.
CSV airbases are not so bad placed. I was missguided a little bit before - some ver.6 ABs in the Czech republic were really moved about 1 segment away(even 20-30km). I thaught it was becouse of bad projection (worried that they are placed according to reallife GPS possition, which is very different in F4 world). But it was caused rather by mistake in CSV. A lot of bases(most of them) are well positioned (I dont speak about orientation) in standard Eu PMC6 theater. But still - AB is quite important objective. It should be conected to the road system. CSV file can place it over river etc. When the AB is handtiled, you can fine tune its neighbourhood. Its not so time consuming and it makes the terrain very nice.

Tobias Adam
Recruit
Posts: 35
Joined: 2000-11-18 23:01:01
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: Terrains
Location: Germany

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by Tobias Adam » 2010-04-18 20:44:52

toonces wrote:I read Tobias' other thread about adding more objectives than the current 12,000. Bad idea IMO.
We do not have a single harbor or helicopter base yet, even army bases are very, very few.

Until now, I got a fully working Tac/save0.cam file which does not crash at all in F4AF. In FF, there is some database problem which I did not figure out yet. So until now, I'm stuck with F4AF which doesn't hurt me either- I want to check the terrain and objectives which can also be done in AF. As soon as I find the objective that causes FF to crash, I will fix it and we're done. So, if somebody tested the whole thing with F4FF- it could also be some database problem which is not related to the number of objectives at all. FF crashes everytime I try to save a TE. I already tried to delete some changes we made which also didn't help- but the same file works in AF, so I'm pretty much stuck with that.
Basically, the state I did achieve now is:
1. There are no nowhere objectives now and all parent links are done. The only objectives with Parent ID=0 are the PAK cities.
2. I have no crashes when editing a TE/flying it (in AF, in FF, it does not work at all).
3. I did not test the campaign yet because until now, there is no working state. Also, the PAK map doesn't work out yet and the painting of the team map does not work either which I also didn't figure out yet.

I personally think that the objectives are not the total limit and that we need another maybe 50-500 objectives (harbors, army bases, SAM sites) to get a real campaign without only air war going on. But it is indeed very difficult to simulate such a big terrain. I do not have a real solution for this yet. But I think that it would be possible to extend the number of objectives. It may be the case that we have too much objectives- but at least I will try.
The idea of not modelling the full war seems very logical to me. Every version, regardless of AF, FF or whatever would be completely overloaded by the number of units. The machine that runs such a campaign with an acceptable FPS is not invented yet, I think... I also don't think that it is possible to get real close and model every squadron, every SAM site and so on. IMHO, we need to keep it flyable and with a number of units that the engine can handle. So, in my opinion, we won't be able to get a fully historical campaign with correct unit numbers working. But I won't mess around with that until somebody wants me to do so.

I think the current file would work and could be tested. It's something that we HAVE, and I would like to add some more objectives to increase the immersion (harbors, some army bases...). But I would only start adding more objectives after the current state works.

I would also want to do test flights, but I didn't get Luks new file working yet, so I would have to test with the current terrain- which means double work... So, I will wait for Luks terrain.bin file.
However, I never had the time to fly online the last years and never went online with F4AF, so I'm a complete newbie with online flights. A friend of mine would be very happy to test the new terrain, I think we would do whole germany. We both live here, I tend to come around a lot, so I know how it should look like and also, there is still google earth...
So I would start with what we have, test that, and release it in v0.7 (and earlier via rapidshare or mail or whatever) to have a working objective file.
I'd like to keep the objective work with Luk and me (maybe one or two people additionally) to avoid having five different objective files. But I don't think I'm the man to create campaigns- so when the objectives are done, I'd like to hand the files to the campaign makers. And I promise I will stop editing the file then, with the exception of bugfixing or addition of important objectives, but only after checking back with the campaign makers. I'd then like to do the testing and help out where help is needed.
Comments? Opinions?

I would volounteer to test all airbases to be leveled and do a touch'n'go on every single airbase. That's at least a start.

Best regards, Tobias

Snake Man
Commander-In-Chief
Posts: 9338
Joined: 2000-07-31 22:01:01
Gaming Interests: ArmA, ArmA 2, Falcon 4.0 and OFP.
Editing Interests: All, I (try) to edit everything.
Location: PMC
Contact:

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by Snake Man » 2010-04-18 22:19:33

Luk wrote:some ver.6 ABs in the Czech republic were really moved about 1 segment away(even 20-30km).
Could you please list these airbases so we can get them rechecked. Red Dog was the man to do the airbase realism work. Maybe I goofed the csv import or something, dunno.
Tobias Adam wrote:We do not have a single harbor or helicopter base yet, even army bases are very, very few.
Could you make me a list of the missing objectives?

BTW there is army bases which host helicopter squadrons.
I got a fully working Tac/save0.cam file which does not crash at all in F4AF
No buffer overrun error in 3D?

Could you please rar up the file where you have the latest objectives and send it to me?
The machine that runs such a campaign with an acceptable FPS is not invented yet, I think...
This is just nonsense.

In 1998 when Falcon 4 was released we ran what, 486 machines or something? At that time if you'd ask that how would the sim run on 2 gigabytes of ram, super sick fast 3D card and quad core processors... I mean come on.

Computer hardware has little to do how quickly the engine runs, if its slow, it is slow. Very simple.
So I would start with what we have, test that, and release it in v0.7 (and earlier via rapidshare or mail or whatever) to have a working objective file.
Just send me the files and I'll create installer as usual.
I would volounteer to test all airbases to be leveled and do a touch'n'go on every single airbase. That's at least a start.
Its much quicker in Terrainview, use my modified airbases.TDF file, load segment up, check elevations, then remove the just checked airbase from the TDF, reload TDF and continue to next airbase.

Very efficient and quick :)
PMC Tactical Forum New User Registration please read new info here.

PMC since 1984

Editing knowledge, visit PMC Editing Wiki
The leading, most detailed and comprehensive modification made for the Vietnam War - Vietnam: The Experience homepage
View our videos in PMC Youtube channel

PMC Tactical forum Advanced Search is power.

"ALPHA BLACK TO PAPA BEAR. ALL RUSSIANS ARE TOAST. OVER."

User avatar
Sherlock
Lt. General
Posts: 1167
Joined: 2006-05-24 22:01:01
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: All, I (try) to edit everything.
Location: Arizona, USA

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by Sherlock » 2010-04-18 23:49:14

Notes to Tobias Adam:

FYI. There may be more than one objective that is bad. Just be aware of that.

Also, once all objectives, links and PAK city selections are 100% complete, I will work to get the PAK selector map working as well as the team map painting for TEs. I am speaking only for AF, however. If it works in FF then great, but I don't fly FF so I won't be committing to completing that part. I'd say chances are, however, that if it works in AF it will probably work in FF (since it isn't DB related). I've done PAK map before for IRAN and I understand how the RSC files and the UI screens work and interrelate.
Sherlock
Victurous te Saluto

User avatar
Luk
Brig. General
Posts: 455
Joined: 2007-04-23 09:59:36

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by Luk » 2010-04-19 06:59:56

Luk wrote:some ver.6 ABs in the Czech republic were really moved about 1 segment away(even 20-30km).
Could you please list these airbases so we can get them rechecked. Red Dog was the man to do the airbase realism work. Maybe I goofed the csv import or something, dunno.
Its not problem now. Tobias uses the cam file, where the ABs are good positioned (I did it by myself). It is compatibile with my last stage of terrain - I already imported my handtiled segments. So in the new terrain everything in the area is positioned well.
And there is also that FF problem. I wrote it to Tobias some time ago. Its just becouse I have added few forrest objectives FFdb has not. Its really easy to remove. I will fix it. I was just revised doing the terrain and did not have time to do so.

But what about the sudden large impatience?
It was a pretty big job retiled maps. And now, when it begins to be fun we will drop it overnight? When I gave the L2 to download, it did not mean it as impuls for hiring people. Actually, I did not want to block one's desires. Are you sure you have someone flew over that terrain? Have you seen hundreds of lakes in Poland, highways in Germany.. etc? My new version is even better, but did not feel any need to give each revision for instantaneous download.

Can somebody hear what I tell you? Cate placed AB (even in good location) can be (and usualy is) placed far away from nearest road(so it is disconected). You were calling for fine tuned terrain for small campaign/essential objectives for bigger one campaing, and now you need hundreds ABs for it...???
You want to waste a time flying/making terrabytes of screenshots (well now I can save your HD space, becouse the terrain has much less errors :mrgreen: ), while you can tune everything directly by utilities.

My idea was to make 1 fixed cam as basic background. Then sort out the areas and make particular campaigns + terrain enhancements. The terrain changes then itegrate into the final L2.
When there are some bases, you need for your part (and placed in mine) - ok I can send it to you in preference.

But ok, we still can make that premature AB pass.
I can send latest L2. You will just remove this ABs from TDF/CSV (becouse they are already placed+leveled by hand):
remove
all Czech ABs,
US ABs from Germany - Bitburg, Spangdahlem, Zweibrucken, Hahn,Wiesbaden, Sembach, Ramstein, Rhein-Main
and also remove one Swizz AB Meiringen

Then you can make AB pass over the new L2, I can send.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Well, if you want to drop my new terrain totally, just say it directly and openly. I feel I am on the good route and have the drive to finish it even separately. My main goal always was to make sexy and well running campaign, useable for online flights 20+ people. And I know I can do it well even by myself.

Luk

User avatar
Luk
Brig. General
Posts: 455
Joined: 2007-04-23 09:59:36

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by Luk » 2010-04-19 07:26:48

Here it is small example of ABs added by hand. You can fine tune their position according to terrain situation. You can also combine different tiles - it mean one AB type can be partialy in forrest, also in the farmland. You can connect it to the road network + enhance at least few surrounding tiles.
You can do the same after the CATE AB pass - but it will fuck up your terrain, than you will place new AB + fix the fucked terrain also :mrgreen:
http://i844.photobucket.com/albums/ab4/Luk77/4.jpg
http://i844.photobucket.com/albums/ab4/Luk77/3.jpg
http://i844.photobucket.com/albums/ab4/Luk77/5.jpg
http://i844.photobucket.com/albums/ab4/Luk77/1-1.jpg
http://i844.photobucket.com/albums/ab4/Luk77/2.jpg

Luk

Link edited: I removed direct images (they were 150-196 kB)
Last edited by Luk on 2010-04-19 08:08:22, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
molnibalage
Colonel
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-01-13 07:59:02
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: Modeling
Location: Hungary

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by molnibalage » 2010-04-19 07:50:00

I appriciate your work on terrain Luk, but derstef way if maybe better. He has made something usable and flyable. Only thing that I don't know that why he did not relesed for testing...

I rather see a well working campaign in Europe using old terrain. A campaign is good if in can provide different atmosphere then the very, very old Korea. Erope is perfect, because all soviet AC and SAM can be used, but if you choose a good modeling scale the "density" of campaign can be different.

I could start work on new campaign for Korea, itt will be different from al current campaign that you have seen. ;)
Image
Core 2 Duo E7300, Gigabyte EP43, 4 GB RAM (1066MHz), Shappire Radeon HD4850 1GB

Snake Man
Commander-In-Chief
Posts: 9338
Joined: 2000-07-31 22:01:01
Gaming Interests: ArmA, ArmA 2, Falcon 4.0 and OFP.
Editing Interests: All, I (try) to edit everything.
Location: PMC
Contact:

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by Snake Man » 2010-04-19 08:18:48

Sherlock wrote:Also, once all objectives, links and PAK city selections are 100% complete
They are now, been for some time already.

Sure if we tweak the terrain by removing this and that etc, then it changes, but I've already posted it years ago that linking is done etc.
I will work to get the PAK selector map working as well as the team map painting for TEs.
I've done PAK map before for IRAN and I understand how the RSC files and the UI screens work and interrelate.
Is it something different than on our PAK tutorial, any new info/perspective you can share?
Luk wrote:But what about the sudden large impatience?
I have no impatience, just a comment, maybe you didn't even direct this to me.
It was a pretty big job retiled maps. And now, when it begins to be fun we will drop it overnight?
No. I am not dropping anything.
Cate placed AB (even in good location) can be (and usualy is) placed far away from nearest road(so it is disconected).
Its not "CATE placed", its just what comes out of the TDF files, the data we get from internet is usually not showing roads leading to airbases. We have to manually add roads to them.
and now you need hundreds ABs for it...?
Well I'm not sure what you mean by this. Europe has had the excellent Red Dog airbase realism work in for long time now.
I can send latest L2. You will just remove this ABs from TDF/CSV (becouse they are already placed+leveled by hand):
With your bad English I'm not really sure what you mean here... but if you do mean my comment about checking airbases in terrainview then removing it from the TDF, it means just that the airbase is removed from the temporary TDF file, NOT from terrain. The TDF file is your temporary list of airbases what to check, every time you check one you remove it from the list, this way you can quit, go outside, work, sleep etc, then come back and continue without having to worry about if you already checked this and that airbase. It saves you tons of time and hassle.

I'm not going to remove any airbases from the theater.L2 file.
Well, if you want to drop my new terrain totally, just say it directly and openly.
I do NOT want to drop your new terrain.
I feel I am on the good route and have the drive to finish it even separately.
No need for that, everyone's work (withing the scope) will be wholeheartedly accepted and added to the next release.

I have been working "alone" for theaters for best part of the ten years now, hell yes I'm accepting other peoples help.

Don't even think about spreading info or posting things sounding like I don't want peoples help. I do want and appreciated every bit of it.
You can connect it to the road network + enhance at least few surrounding tiles.
You have not connected them with roads yet?
molnibalage wrote:but derstef way if maybe better. He has made something usable and flyable. Only thing that I don't know that why he did not relesed for testing...
What derStef way, please be more specific?
PMC Tactical Forum New User Registration please read new info here.

PMC since 1984

Editing knowledge, visit PMC Editing Wiki
The leading, most detailed and comprehensive modification made for the Vietnam War - Vietnam: The Experience homepage
View our videos in PMC Youtube channel

PMC Tactical forum Advanced Search is power.

"ALPHA BLACK TO PAPA BEAR. ALL RUSSIANS ARE TOAST. OVER."

User avatar
Luk
Brig. General
Posts: 455
Joined: 2007-04-23 09:59:36

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by Luk » 2010-04-19 09:38:10

I am sorry for my English Snakeman.
I see it is much my language problem in relation to you, then enything else :) .
I have no impatience, just a comment, maybe you didn't even direct this to me.
You are right.
Its not "CATE placed", its just what comes out of the TDF files, the data we get from internet is usually not showing roads leading to airbases. We have to manually add roads to them.
I know. I called it CATE placed. I just juxtaposed two different approaches to the ABs placement. One is manual. The second is "CATE+TDF".
The manual approach is more slow at first sight. But it has many advantages and is more efficient in fine.
Luk:.... and now you need hundreds ABs for it...?
Well I'm not sure what you mean by this. Europe has had the excellent Red Dog airbase realism work in for long time now.
I wrote it for group of people around toonces/derStef.

Of course I appreciate RedDogs work Snakeman. Its about timeline. We can use most of his work for CATE pass (in case of hurry/for most parts of the terrain)....
Luk: I can send latest L2. You will just remove this ABs from TDF/CSV (becouse they are already placed+leveled by hand):
Snakeman:
With your bad English I'm not really sure what you mean here... but if you do mean my comment about checking airbases in terrainview then removing it from the TDF, it means just that the airbase is removed from the temporary TDF file, NOT from terrain. The TDF file is your temporary list of airbases what to check, every time you check one you remove it from the list, this way you can quit, go outside, work, sleep etc, then come back and continue without having to worry about if you already checked this and that airbase. It saves you tons of time and hassle.

I'm not going to remove any airbases from the theater.L2 file.
I have to explain primarily this particular part of conversation.
I meant it the same as you. I did not comment your mention about terview.
I tried to find some FAST solution, how to integrate contemporary RedDogs TDF with latest stage of my terrain (in case all the people are very impatient - but they are not :D ).
The bases I mentioned are already placed in terrain (the only them, this L2 is without CATE AB pass). So I wanted to remove them from TDF (to not double them).
Luk: You can connect it to the road network + enhance at least few surrounding tiles.
SM:You have not connected them with roads yet?
Of course I did. Its my language problem. When I write "you can", I mean it generally. It means also "we can" or "it is possible". I am sorry for it.


---------------------
My specific proposal is to continue the work. I can fix the CAM with Tobias. I can continue to add ABs for "my part" of Germany + Swizz/Austria.
I can tune the CAM with Tobi to match those bases. Then we can remove already handtiled bases from TDF and make CATE AB pass using this TDF.

Toonces and his friends can focus on Vietnam/Taiwan/.....etc etc etc for some weeks. Its not so bad IMHO. Or they can place some of their favourite airbases, if they want.

Luk
Last edited by Luk on 2010-04-19 12:27:37, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Luk
Brig. General
Posts: 455
Joined: 2007-04-23 09:59:36

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by Luk » 2010-04-19 11:33:32

note: I wrote in some previous post: "remove from TDF/CSV"
It was my misstake. Of course I ment just TDF file. But I was not sure which file does the CATE use for it. Of course it is TDF file- just like for roads/rivers.
Sorry.
Luk

Tobias Adam
Recruit
Posts: 35
Joined: 2000-11-18 23:01:01
Gaming Interests: Falcon 4.0
Editing Interests: Terrains
Location: Germany

Re: - mid eighties (1984-1989) campaign editing/creation -

Post by Tobias Adam » 2010-04-19 19:50:08

Sherlock wrote:Notes to Tobias Adam:

FYI. There may be more than one objective that is bad. Just be aware of that.

Also, once all objectives, links and PAK city selections are 100% complete, I will work to get the PAK selector map working as well as the team map painting for TEs. I am speaking only for AF, however. If it works in FF then great, but I don't fly FF so I won't be committing to completing that part. I'd say chances are, however, that if it works in AF it will probably work in FF (since it isn't DB related). I've done PAK map before for IRAN and I understand how the RSC files and the UI screens work and interrelate.
I am still checking the file. One thing I did not sort out yet is that some objectives, mainly bridges, are still shown as "nowhere" in the OOB, but show up correctly on the map. I THINK that I have fixed all borders and so on, but I am not 100% sure and it would be fine if somebody else would check it.
But I am sure that the objectives are OK, my work is based on Luks work (worst thing that could happen is that I did move something by mistake), "check objectives" does not bring any fault to me either. But it is based on the SP4.2 objectives.
It would be very nice to have these files working.
I would just like to hand the file over to Luk to do a last check- it's his work, I just did the linking. So all credit goes to him. I'd like him to release it when he thinks it's OK- or, if I get the OK from him, I'll send it to you if you give me your email adress via PM. Maybe he gets the file working with FF...

The objectives I would like to have added:
- Harbor in Hamburg. Real important one.
- Harbor in Kiel (north of Hamburg). Was and is base for german marine in the baltic sea.
- Helicopter base / Army base in Kiel, 5th marine wing equipped with sea hawk helicopters is stationed there (is no must- have, belongs to the harbor more or less).
- Harbor in Rotterdam
- Harbor in Antwerpen. Together with Rotterdam and Hamburg, those three are the biggerst harbors in europe.
- Harbor in Bremen (Bremerhaven)
- Luebeck, Wismar and Rostock also have harbors, with Rostock and Wismar in east germany. I think there has also been a GDR shipyard in one of these, if not both.
- Brest in France should have a harbor, as well as:
Cherbourg, Basse-Normandie, France
Caen, Calvados, Frankreich
Calais, Dept. Pas-de-Calais, Region Nord-Pas-de-Calais, France
Dieppe, Dept. Seine-Maritime, Region Basse-Normandie, France
Dover, England
Le Havre, Haute-Normandie, France
Newhaven, East Sussex, England
Portsmouth, England
Plymouth, Great britian
Shoreham-by-Sea, West Sussex
Southampton, England
Oostende, belgium
Bergen, Norway
Emden, Germany
Leer, Germany
Oslo, Norway
... to be continued... (baltic sea, north sea not complete/ missing in this list)
Makes up a total of about 20-50 harbors/ shipyards.

@Snakeman: I thought that having so much airplanes as in the real OOB would simply overload the campaign engine (in 3D world, not in 2D). If you say it doesn't, it's OK for me.

No, I did not get any buffer overrun error in 3D. But I admit that I didn't test the campaign yet, I also deleted all units in the save0.cam (although there is the possibility to re-import them via the csv file).
I will send you a PM.

Best regards, Tobias

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: semrush.com [Bot] and 14 guests