Korea '80s Theater - discussion
-
What coordinates should be set for ECM pod LODs and where?
i mean move sorbtsiya pod lod itself ( CT#492) upward and backward in LodEditor. do the tweak for Lod1-3.
In this way, once it’s loaded on flanker, the pod model will overlap-and-mask wingtip pylon, then it looks wright as real thing.
your new flanker has wingtip slot cooridinates changed, you need 611-eagle to help the pod lod tweak. -
News about campaign editing. The OOB of blue side of the 1982 campaign is almost done. Some HP and sq. store changes should be considered, but regardless of my efforts the manual stores setting for AI controlled squadrons still be recommended. The ATO system is too hardcoded to achive what is required for different missions.
The OOB of red side is under construction. Squadrons are done, SAM layers mostly done, the and about 25% ground troop positions have been set.
I got feedback only from Hungarian community regarding trees. I reverted the database, the old trees now are the default, but the Release Notes will explain how can be changed the DB to use JanHas trees. The models are in DB only some values shall be changed with LE6.23, no LOD import/replace is required.
-
Will the next expected update have the Su-27 in the theater? Will the Su-27 Pit be added to the database as well?
-
It have been done with the bue skin and rescaled LOD distances to better FPS.
I wanted to wait the Su-27 pit to be playable the Eurowar campaign from both sides. -
Don’t wait, just release it.
-
-
I found something.
http://www.ellsworth.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-121022-062.pdf
What is your knowledge? Can be installed on A-10s the same ALE-47 cartridges what are used on F-15/F-16 AC?
I’m asking because Falcon is not able to simulate different type of flares. The A-10 has 4-4 gear and 4-4 underwing cartridges. Normally I saw 1x1x8 inch size holes, this means 16x30 = 480 smaller charge in dispenser system. Even if ALE-47 cannot be installed in RL I’m considering counting the half of dispenser qty. of A-10 modeling somehow the difference between the smaller and bigger flares.
-
The new Su-27 in dogfight.
WIP '82s campaign. It has not been finished, but you can see the difference comparing wit original. The OOB os SAMs and ground troops are much more differt. The campaign uses less units that original campaign but the forces are close to FLOT. There are 1st and 2nd wave (at least as placing) and the SAM defense is layered. There are heavy SAMs along the FLOT and battalions have different type of mobile SAMs. Besides the FLOT SAM cover all airbases are defensed by at least one heavy SAM and MANPAD/AAA.
-
Nice 1st pic.
-
I deleted small MG from one of M2 Bradley. Result? They somehow started to use TOW. On ACMI.
I tweaked the FM and guidance values too. Of course the trajectory is not the best but better then nothing, the lofting guidance value may can be smaller.
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/0i5944r6tazjw/TOW-test
Some red vehicles also have TOW type weapon but as I can remember they do not use regardless I delete small MGs.
-
I uploaded another video about a very small TE test. Strange that sometimes some vehicle seems to me invincible somtimes is simply slaughtered. I did not change any ground weapon modeling values I changed only the battalion roster. Only that I can promise that ground war won’t worse than that core DB can support.
-
After series of test I made a decision. So far I found only two functional ATGM in the DB regardless I tried to use the same dat files and modeling values for rest. Because of test result I plan to set generic ATGM for both sides. Because Falcon is not a very detailed RTS as Wargame ALB, IMHO it is better to have at least a generic ATGM than not at all. Some vehicle will has over modeled ATGM, so well modeled. Because the DB is restricted to '80s, this means only from late '60s stuff shall be modeled.
I was able to set such a modeling values for TOW which provides a bit randomness in accuracy and firepower. APC and other stuff mostly do not survive an ATGM attack, their only chance is a miss. (ATGM now has some kind of natural inaccuracy as other AG missiles.) The strongest tanks somtimes is able to survive more than one near miss launch and a hit.
-
Nice find.
I used to test this a lot in AF in the past. I tested ground battles, sea battles, AG, SA and various combination. I was quite sure, HIT chance value in wep. data(vs tracked, wheeled, naval etc.) is key factor here. I said it here on the forum some time ago and someone (perhaps u? : -) told me its rubbish - these values are for 2D war (simdata PK is 3d only in his opinion IIRC). It is not true imo, 2D war computes mostly agregated unit vs unit boardgame (or outside bubble weapon hits…etc). Are there even any weapons interaction computed in 2D battalion vs battalion engagement ? I guess no.
My observation was 50 hit chance - 1 hit, 1 miss…quite regulary…AT missiles are about 30, so 1/3 hits the target (that is why u have different result each time imo). If it was in case ASM vs ship, the missile just exploded in front of target. When I tried to balance enviroment, I have used Hit chance, Fire rate and availability (per falcon round) and blast efficiency(called damage IIRC) . I did not touch simdata (these were encrypted in AF). Although the effect was clearly visible, i can be wrong.randomness in accuracy - did u use your favourite guidance inaccuracy method to achive this? Seems to be more “low level” tweak, than mine, above mentioned tweaks.
I am a fanboy of well modeled and tested generic weapons for enviro-war instead hundreds buggy and useless lumber BTW.
P.S. I really dont want to missguide you…it just brings some funny memories…and I am still curious although inactive in this area
-
I do not touch 2D modeling values, there can be only exception, I plan to decrease the 2D accuracy of ARMs to increase the surviveability of SAMs (because of many reasons). In 3D world the accuracy can be set by the good combination of blast radius, damage and guidance values in dat files.
The default ATGM model provide 100% unreal high speed which can be a problem because of max. G and guidance values. (Too big loft, etc.) In my video you can see that ATGM speed is quite real, but I will try to set more constant speed after the boost phase.
-
I do not touch 2D modeling values, there can be only exception, I plan to decrease the 2D accuracy of ARMs to increase the surviveability of SAMs (because of many reasons). In 3D world the accuracy can be set by the good combination of blast radius, damage and guidance values in dat files.
The default ATGM model provide 100% unreal high speed which can be a problem because of max. G and guidance values. (Too big loft, etc.) In my video you can see that ATGM speed is quite real, but I will try to set more constant speed after the boost phase.
-
Status report.
- Modeling values of the two types of ATGMs which are used in 3D world have been finalized.
- ATGM infantry has been reallocated for infantry and recon infantry battalions, as well for HMMWV equipped recon battalions. (For better recon this kind of recon battalion has only vehicles and has bigger speed comparing to inf.)
- Setting ATGM on red side vehicles in progress.
- About 90% of OOB has been set for Iron Fortress campaign. Only campaign which has not been done the Eurowar campaign which will model a NATO vs WPACT conflict on Korea map.
- All campaigns will be semi fictional to make a bit mor challenging. For example DPRK has more MiG-21bis and MiG-23ML, and MiG-23ML has dispensers even in RL did not have. DPRK have some SAMs (SA-4/6/8 and very few SA-13) and vehicles (T-72) which never had. Not only because of challenge level but for limitations of the AI and code forced me to used them. (I also wish to see their performance and capabilites in campaigns.)
After I have finished the DB and campaigns the Release notes can be finalized then can come the release video and the complete release.
-
If one invests so much time into a project, the question raises what the reason is. What is your reason Molni? Passion, Hobby, what?
-
@A.S:
If one invests so much time into a project, the question raises what the reason is. What is your reason Molni? Passion, Hobby, what?
What was your reason? You also did changes and released 3rd party theater.
Ok, here is the main resason why I’m doing.
- Not only me likes better the '80s, the most inconic Cold War era than the 21th century, especially counting the limitations of Falcon.
- Regardless I created the MolnyFalcon for FreeFalcon it simply became outdated after the release of BMS4, and especially after the death of FreeFalcon. I put so many hours into MolnyFalcon that it seemed to worth investing lots of time again for a big MOD, especially that the accuracy and the scope of the mod - modeling, new 3D models - could be strongly enhanced comparing to MolnyFalcon.
- Demonstrating the capabilites of current code and DB options.
- Testing the possible changes and recommendatons.
- A small hope that a part of tweaks can find way into the core DB, showing another aspect how should work the game.
My work on the MOD is very random. Sometimes I’m working 3 days in a row, sometimes I did not do anything for months.
-
Just wanted to understand your motives, fair enough.
My reasons are simple.
As BMS came out i saw a huge potential basis for the MP community, but the available theaters did not suit well for a MP environment on “bigger” scale, so i started developing a more suitable one. Along this path there is the phaszination of improvement but also the frustrations due limitations included. After month of work one reaches a limit, because how
much can be done with simple edits in the database without having code access and other peripherial files, which do not operated as external controls anymore becuase elements
are hardcoded meanwhile. Its a balance of “i wish i could own this project completly and rework it completly” and “what for am i doing this actually” considering the huge amount of time it takes :).
But nevertheless, the goals and the results were(are) concentrated on what is achieveable with what is given, and that it is solid, reasonable and most of all stable.True, database wise there are improvements and better linkings and variations possible here and there, but those are just peripherial tweaks. I see DB work as expanded TE editor, as mission editor tool so to speak, because much more it is not without having more access or permission.
Alot of things had to be found out by experiments as over the time the whole matrix mutated, but i try to remember and understand what the code + the database were supposed to do initially as they were designed the first times, while also looking at what others did with it (like AF) - functionality wise. The original campaign code (perfect or not) was written with INTENT and PURPOSE, meaning those elements should be still “there” such as the GCI C3 radar network and the SAM-tactics i.e
Besides opening a plattform for the community so they can enjoy themselfs together, the realistic training conditions matter for me alot - from flying perspective - and if the sim allows to do so, meaning do i operate under the same variables as a fighterpilot or do i just adapt to game-matrix and just “play it” wisely to win. Because virtual kills dont matter much to me, but the skills (others incl) do. Its maybe just my way of seeing it. The path is more valueable as the goal as one can take this expirience with him into the future and the stats are just numbers forgotten quickly.
In that context, F4 is also a path of learning, improving and evolving …therefore progress and fun -
@A.S:
In that context, F4 is also a path of learning, improving and evolving …therefore progress and fun
Hope we all never stop :dhorse: for the fun of it!!
The Beatch is gett’n thereDemer