Community Vote needed!!!!! - FSIC Messageboard

FSIC Messageboard

SDOE General

Community Vote needed!!!!! (Page 1)

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long: 1 2

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: Community Vote needed!!!!!
Jeeves JAG	posted 06-03- 08:07 AM OK-- this one really pertains more to mission makers and to modelers....but I want a large sample to go from- so I didn't want to narrow things down too much As I am working through these loadouts, I am finding vast amounts of redundancy here. Light and Heavy bomb loadouts....and then below the same loadouts under different headings.....so on a P-51D- a "Light Bombing" loadout may have 2X 500lb bombs.....and then lower down the ppf-- there may be "2_500lb_Bombs".....what I want to know is-- is this needed? When you guys make ground attack or bombing missions-- what loadout options do you use? Do you go with the descriptive (Light or Heavy?) or with the detailed ones? I could easily add Medium Bombing to the list and cancel out a lot of duplicity here....but if many use the detailed options, I will leave them alone. The reason I ask-- I am actualy adding some new weapons to some of the planes, like the Mossie-- and at present, there are like 12 options for it-- when I add the new weapons, that makes for another 5 or so....I would really like to make things easier for us all. I am sure Falck worked hard on these when he did them-- and the last thing I want to do is detract from his work--- but it seems that there are cases where less is better. So please.... Vote or Flame away!! ------------------ Brought to you by the campaign for a better Dauntless! Jeeves =FC= IP: Logged
Snake Pilot	posted 06-03- 08:38 AM Go for detialed ones like 2_500lb_bombs etc. The other way is useless because how can you say what light bombing is? Its different for every aircraft! Snake IP: Logged
Da Jug head Pilot	posted 06-03- 09:27 AM I agree with Snake IP: Logged
Jeeves JAG	posted 06-03- 10:28 AM OK...before we carry this too much further-- I should probably bring up that most of the current training missions for the PP planes probably use the Light or Heavy Bombing options in the missions-- so if I do away with them, those missions will not work. I don't know about you guys, but I don't have the free time to go through all of those and change them! The question is-- do any current missions use the detailed loadouts? We could easily just classify each-- for fighters-- Light Bombing-- 2 250's Medium-- 2 500's Heavy-- 2 1000's For attack bombers: Light-- full bombbay Medium-- 4 pylon bombs Heavy-- Bay and pylon bombs Heavy Bombers: Light-- light bay load...etc It appears that it may be best to leave them alone--- but if that means that these new weapons I have (which are awesome by the way)- may not make it in, I am for revising some loadout options.....my vote is to toss the detailed loadouts.....but I will go with the consensus here So far: General Loadouts- 1 Detailed-- 2 ------------------ Brought to you by the campaign for a better Dauntless! Jeeves =FC= IP: Logged
Maury Markowitz Pilot	posted 06-03- 10:57 AM quote: Originally posted by Jeeves: I believe that many of the loadouts are primarily historical - meaning they were in previous versions of the loadout files and never got cleaned out. So now's our chance. So here's a question, can the loadout selected for a mission be "seen" in the MIS file? What I mean is there just a string in the mission file like "Light Bombing"? If so, couldn't we fix them all with a grep? I agree with the others in that the 2x500 makes more sense that Light, but as you note this might be a problem with the missions... but if we can change the missions easily maybe this isn't a real issue. Maury IP: Logged
Pye Pilot	posted 06-03- 01:04 PM I always wondered why there were two! I've always tried to use the numbers not really knowing how effective they would be. So would be better and more relistic to have the weight of the bombs displayed, as the new patch will make the weight to corresponding explosive impact equal, so would be nice to see the effect for educational purposes Ideally replacing the training missions, that could be done later if felt necessary by someone. [This message has been edited by Pye (edited 06-03-2001).] IP: Logged
Werner Molders JAG	posted 06-03- 01:33 PM Ditto Pye pretty much, we can always go back and fix the missions. Personally I'd like to know number and weight of bombs carried. Light Medium & Heavy works fine if you have three choices, but that is rarely the case any more. Add one for detailed. Werner ------------------ Visit Abbeville Field Today! IP: Logged
Diego Lozano Pilot	posted 06-03- 01:35 PM Detailed loadouts IP: Logged
wakeup tailgunner JAG	posted 06-03- 01:50 PM another tick in the 'realistic' box for me! I would much rather know what I was carrying over 'heavy' etc. We have the information, we have the bombs, so lets have the loadouts IP: Logged
semmern Pilot	posted 06-03- 02:21 PM Go for them detailed ones. IP: Logged
Commando Pilot	posted 06-03- 02:26 PM Detailed here too, when you get to the Heavy bombers especially you need to know how many and what size, we also need more bomb types eg where's the Cookie carried by the large bomb bay Mossie, in fact where's the large bomb bay Mossie . IP: Logged
Jeeves JAG	posted 06-03- 03:12 PM Well-- I could wait for further responses-- and please-- more are welcome-- I see 1142 of us here -- but I could also start changing the stuff I have already started-- shouldn't be toooooo much work IP: Logged
HeinzBaby Pilot	posted 06-03- 04:37 PM Detailed loadouts, old chap IP: Logged
Psi Pilot	posted 06-03- 05:01 PM Jeever, Before (your work and until then) I use "Light" or "Heavy" and really didn't pay much attention to the specific poundage(?) . Reason being is because of the bomb radius damage, like you said if I wanted to blow stuff to hell I selected heavy, if I wanted to have repetitive bombings I used light. Now if you are changing the radius damage and it becomes more accurate then I suppose I would be more accurate in my selection. And you know me I like accuracy and realizm... P IP: Logged
nealg Pilot	posted 06-03- 05:02 PM 1142? Well, if you get THAT many responses, you'll need to hire someone to count them! My vote shouldn't count, since I want nothing on my plane but guns - hehe - but if I am understanding your question correctly, then I'd say 'detailed'. ------------------ nealg=FC= IP: Logged
Jeeves JAG	posted 06-03- 05:12 PM OK....I will make sure to add some 30mm cannons to the Spit 1a and V.....just for nealg. That's accurate, right? I have made a few changes to guns as well-- where planes had switches to cannons-- I have those as separate options-- so like the 109G6 has an option for the MK 103 AND the MK108 ------------------ Brought to you by the campaign for a better Dauntless! Jeeves =FC= IP: Logged
Snake Pilot	posted 06-03- 06:28 PM Now I LIKE that! Snake IP: Logged
Jeeves JAG	posted 06-03- 06:37 PM quote: Originally posted by Jeeves: I have made a few changes to guns as well-- where planes had switches to cannons-- I have those as separate options-- so like the 109G6 has an option for the MK 103 AND the MK108 Actually-- that should read MK 103 OR the MK 108...sorry for the discrepancy ------------------ Brought to you by the campaign for a better Dauntless! Jeeves =FC= IP: Logged
BULLET Pilot	posted 06-03- 11:56 PM DETAILED! I've been playing with the B-26 and doing a lot of reading on it, and appearently they flew with half or 3/4 of a full load on a fairly regular basis. I've made my own smaller loadouts and knowing exactly what is in there really helps you adjust for shorter runways. IP: Logged
Karaya 2 Pilot	posted 06-04- 05:06 AM Jeeves go with the detailed! Your work on them to date has been far too valuable to lose by not have the ordnance as detailed as possible.. Changing the missions wont be that difficult I'm sure. S! ------------------ IP: Logged
Major Hippie Pilot	posted 06-04- 08:18 AM Details, always.... hip63 ...remember always fly HIGH!!! http://groovygalaxy.50megs.com/psychedelicsquadron.html [This message has been edited by Major Hippie (edited 06-04-2001).] IP: Logged
Sunray Pilot	posted 06-04- 10:12 AM I really haven't noticed much difference between 2,000lbs of HE and 1,000. If either dropped in on you unexpectedly, you get blown to hell and part way back. Either way, it should be standardized to one or the other. However, detailed is more fun. IP: Logged
Snickers Pilot	posted 06-04- 02:30 PM Detailed. But then, ... you knew that... IP: Logged
Jeeves JAG	posted 06-04- 03:19 PM Well-- bomb warhead values have been changed to be as accurate as possible-- I got the US values straight from a WWII bombing manual and the others through other reliable sources. For the most part-- the US GP bombs were 52% explosive-- and with the bomb radius work Bryan has done with the beta patch, that means that even though the warhead values have been tuned back up, you still shouldn't be able to blow up a whole airfield with 2 1000 pounders ------------------ Brought to you by the campaign for a better Dauntless! Jeeves =FC= IP: Logged
ArgonV Pilot	posted 06-04- 03:52 PM Go with the detailed. But remember to get rid of the non-detailed options and then update ALL the missions... IP: Logged
Jeeves JAG	posted 06-04- 04:46 PM Uhh...Argon-- Read above there--- consensus is to go with the detailed and worry about the old missions later. This loadout project is a handful enough (and all the non-detailed ones will be eliminated)-- I am sure there are plenty of mission makers here capable of updating them, but I am not signing up for that job--- not with my list of new training missions I already have to do ------------------ Brought to you by the campaign for a better Dauntless! Jeeves =FC= [This message has been edited by Jeeves (edited 06-04-2001).] IP: Logged
Jeeves JAG	posted 06-04- 04:54 PM I can say this though-- when the first installment of the update project is done-- the trainging missions for the original 10 will be "updated-loadout compliant"....that is as soon as I get my team those new loadouts LOL ------------------ Brought to you by the campaign for a better Dauntless! Jeeves =FC= IP: Logged
ArgonV Pilot	posted 06-04- 05:38 PM Ah ok... Sorry, I didnt have time to look through the entire post. IP: Logged
ReaperMan Pilot	posted 06-04- 10:07 PM I say go detailed! Either we keep just the three loadouts for each plane, "Light," "Medium," and "Heavy," or we drop those all together and go with the detailed loadouts. With all the new armament options, detailed is looking like the way to go! ------------------ -=TheReaper=- IP: Logged
Maury Markowitz Pilot	posted 06-05- 02:22 PM quote: Originally posted by Jeeves: Actually-- that should read MK 103 OR the MK 108...sorry for the discrepancy NOT a good idea. The 103 was a LOT heavier and since you can't put that in the loadout then we have a problem with realism. I don't believe the MK108 ever saw combat in the G6, and even if it did, it was SUPER rare. Please remove! On the other hand, how do we do the G-6/R6? Maury IP: Logged
Jeeves JAG	posted 06-05- 02:57 PM quote: Originally posted by Maury Markowitz: NOT a good idea. The 103 was a LOT heavier and since you can't put that in the loadout then we have a problem with realism. Well-- I am not sure I understand Maury--- I have been able to put it in the loadout as a different option-- so one has "Guns" and then one has "Heavy Cannon"-- each wth the different cannon. I imagine the only problem I could foresee is that someone could put the Heavy Cannon as a loadout option online and have an advantage...although-- they would have sufficiently less ammo! Besides-- I am 100% sure that this loadout was already an option-- I see the "Heavy Cannon" as an option in the G6-- it has been for a while now. Please explain why it is so bad to have it in? I will check my sources again-- but I even have some pics of them in combat use somewheres. ------------------ Brought to you by the campaign for a better Dauntless! Jeeves =FC= IP: Logged
Jeeves JAG	posted 06-05- 02:58 PM I just reread your post and now I understand-- the FM should change for the 109 with a heavier cannon....hmmm..... Let me think a bit on this....... ------------------ Brought to you by the campaign for a better Dauntless! Jeeves =FC= IP: Logged
Jeeves JAG	posted 06-06- 06:03 AM OK I am back after thinking this through a bit (and with some help from my good friend Nat!). Heavy guns can have an effect on FM's-- but they have to be modeled that way if I understand Nat right....in fact I noticed this using Harman's Grounnd Pack-- you fire the heavy cannon while driving, I notice a huge slow down.....or even standing still- there is a visible bounce when firing it-- and if the brake's off-- a slight backwards motion. In Nat's words: You give the gun Inertia properties and weight, then when it's used in the loadout just doing that will change the FM, you'll notice the extra weight, for example, the Mig3 gun pods are set at 100Lbs each and if you're used to the Mig you notice the difference when they aint there (yes I tend to fly with them added LOL) So the question is-- will the heavyier cannon have inertia properties? I am not sure if it does-- but it may be something to be added.... ------------------ Brought to you by the campaign for a better Dauntless! Jeeves =FC= IP: Logged
Nat JAG	posted 06-06- 11:00 AM Guys, you're missing something here.. Adding phyLBS and Inertia boxes to gun pods, bomb pylons and rocket mounts DOES affect the FM, you all know I'm working on the Mig, and I've added weight to pylons and especialy the Gun Pods, this greatly changes the FM. Unless an aircraft has a vastly different engine or design, then there's no reason at all why different versions shouldn't be contained in Loadout options. Having weight added to gun pods etc makes a very big difference to the FM, so in the example of converting the G6 to it's other configuration of Cannons, there's no problem at all in doing that because the guns are simply given inertia and a weight value.. you'll see the difference You don't add weight to the loadout, you add it to the part in the SM file.. Viola. Even if not used on the G6, I'm sure this could be an issue with other aircraft, infact, the Mig-3 for example was re-designated Mig-3U when gun pods were carried, it was still the Mig 3 though but with slightly different flight charachteristics due to the pods being added. IP: Logged
spin Pilot	posted 06-06- 11:29 AM On eliminating the original loadout designations: Jeeves, I just want to emphasize the potential scope of eliminating the original loadout names (personally, I like the detailed versions). I don't believe it will be practical to do this unless you are talking about releasing modified parfiles for the original shipping files. All of the original "shipped" missions, training missions and hangar missions, would have been written for the old loadout names. In addition to this we have all of the user created missions (thousands) that may or may not use the original designations. So despite the redundancy, I think they need to remain - they don't have a huge effect on file size anyway. IP: Logged
Jeeves JAG	posted 06-06- 03:37 PM They do seem to have effects on some planes though Spin....the Lanc and Mossie have HUGE loadout.ppfs....and I have three or four more weapons to add to the mix-- and that would make it worse. There is a bug with the new patch-- Argon and Jerry know of it...when there is too much in the loadout.ppf-- it tends to corrupt the mission editor. So damned if I do....damned if I don't---but I will be damned if these new weapons won't be in these new loadouts. I can vow to go through all my old campaigns and missions and change them for the new loadouts-- if everyone else does the same, then this is a nonissue. What do you say guys? ------------------ Brought to you by the campaign for a better Dauntless! Jeeves =FC= IP: Logged
Jerry Pilot	posted 06-06- 04:13 PM Jeeves, whatever causes the Mission Editor corruption isn't related to the patch. Argon and I started having problems long before the first (Bryan, et al) patch. IP: Logged
Jeeves JAG	posted 06-06- 10:44 PM OK....rereading that last post-- I seem a bit demanding.....not my intentions. It is just that I have spent almost a month on these loadouts-- am 3/4 done....have already deleted the Light and Heavy loadouts in those 3/4...and the prospect of having to go back through all these and add them in again is a bit daunting I will finish what I have done and then decide what to do about what spin says-- you bring up some very good points man....I just wish I had waited before going delete crazy ------------------ Brought to you by the campaign for a better Dauntless! Jeeves =FC= IP: Logged
Nat JAG	posted 06-07- 05:15 AM Argon and I talked along time back about this problem of loudouts and screwed up mission editor, I think at the time we showed that if the size of the TOTAL ppf files matters, I'm pretty sure he deleted all the other languages from his PPF files and this fixed the problem, ie he reduced the overal size of the combined ppf files and mission editor worked again. If thats right then there's some limit set in Mission Ed, and when reached nasty things happen, not everyone noties this yet, but the more beta and experimental aircraft you get the sooner the problem will occur, or, if the ppf files are made bigger. Argon, can you confirm any of this? I know it's quite a while back now. Myself I'm for listed loadouts rather than generalised, but I do understand this could cause problems with missions meaning that every SDOE mission would have to be checked and altered. IP: Logged
Maury Markowitz Pilot	posted 06-07- 07:30 AM Jeeves, the Go 229 DEFINITELY had 4 MK108's, or alternately 2 MK103's. The later was not used, but might be a good alternate loadout. Maury IP: Logged

This topic is 2 pages long: 1 2 All times are CT (US)	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | Fighter Squadron Information Center