Suggestion for database, data supply
-
The dispensers for Su-17 are not active. This is a very serious issue. It should be fixed ASAP.
As long as the game models the M3 or M4 variant this is quite a strange setting to me. All of Su-17 had dispensers from 0 just their qty. was increased during their service.
The loadout setting of the Su-17 is very inaccurate.As linguine I recommend this combined with the image above. I created this for my old MOD when AI was not able to use unguided rockets well, just ignore the sq. stores. The point of the image is the bomb-HP clo
You can add if you wish but IHMO because of campaign it should be considered to set only 1-2 type for them. The UB-32-57 has enough firepower to make a real effect at least for less armored units. -
I checked some red jets which still have strange loadout.
If I make a loadout suggestion will be applied for them?I would make it that I consider also the ATO.
It is not worth and wise to model every possible loadout option because it just make the work of the ATO AI harder.For ex the FAB-100 has so little firepower and 6x of them have so large drag which makes it unpractical.
The n+1 different RBK (CBU) is also not worth. The type against tanks/vehicles and the anti runway is important which is even has overlapping in role with the BetAB…I also will check their dispensers.
-
I checked some red jets which still have strange loadout.
If I make a loadout suggestion will be applied for them?I would make it that I consider also the ATO.
It is not worth and wise to model every possible loadout option because it just make the work of the ATO AI harder.For ex the FAB-100 has so little firepower and 6x of them have so large drag which makes it unpractical.
The n+1 different RBK (CBU) is also not worth. The type against tanks/vehicles and the anti runway is important which is even has overlapping in role with the BetAB…I also will check their dispensers.
Even BLUEFOR jets have very poor loadout choices…
No 6x bomb for F-111F.
No CBU for F-111F.IMHO the loadouts needs some updates.
It would be great to know a little bit more about the ATO AI to set the best options while we still keep valuable choices both to the AI and players. -
It all code. And VERY painfull to work. For now priority is somewhere else (for me at least).
-
We are lacking of dev to make everything. Anyway : too much dev is also difficult to manage
-
It all code. And VERY painfull to work. For now priority is somewhere else (for me at least).
@Bad:
We are lacking of dev to make everything. Anyway : too much dev is also difficult to manage
RGR
Regardless of these I can make some examples and check how use them the ATO.
-
Regardless of these I can make some examples and check how use them the ATO.
Sure … but unfortunately … dealing this is now more or less behind me as we are 100% on other aspects. But someday I will be back on it.
One solution we’ve discussed in the past is data text defining for each a/c and each mission what should be the best configuration … It would allow more relevant and real life load-out depending on target and task … etc …I let you imagine how many different configurations we should define (and keep up to date with data and code changes) along the time … and by considering all the possibilities in stock and available weapons, and weather, and day vs night …
So for the time being, we still rely on a code routine which is … no perfect (can’t be).
-
Sure … but unfortunately … dealing this is now more or less behind me as we are 100% on other aspects. But someday I will be back on it.
I’m still somewhat focused on that.
One solution we’ve discussed in the past is data text defining for each a/c and each mission what should be the best configuration … It would allow more relevant and real life load-out depending on target and task … etc …
Yeah but that would not take into account all what’s going on in the campaign.
And if so, choosing between the different “static” loadouts (I mean defined in some text files) in code will lead to the same maybe sometimes even worse situations like we have them now.Basically that’s what you get if you have a dynamic campaign engine running in the background.
But still we can improve that code, just what we need is some input on “bad” loadouts, so we can work on that.E.g. report like that:
- Mission type (maybe with an additional screenshot of the mission planning on the camp map)
- Current loadout (screenshot) with a description what is wrong
- Expected loadout (screenshot of manual adjusted) with a description why that weapons are chosen
So for the time being, we still rely on a code routine which is … no perfect (can’t be).
But maybe the coder can be educated to improve it.
-
-
Considering what I experienced so far with 4.34 the main issue if you allow too many types and qty of loadouts and AI cannot use them in one pass for ex. against an airbase strike.
This can be handled in many ways.For ex. it can be allowed many different weapons but in campaign availability of some weapons are denied. For example to F-111E which is only low level bomber BSU bombs should get the priority and Mk-84. The Mk-82 should not be allowed.
The M117 also can be allowed because of historical accuracy but in campaign also should be denied. In reality the plane can carry 24x500 lb bombs but in RL because of drag they carry 4xMk-84 or or only 8-12 smaller bombs. Because the 2000 lb bombs are allowed to any HPs restriction for 500 lb to be carried only inner HPs the in not an issue to me.F-111F was THE PGM platfrom –-> Only LGBs, GBU-15 and 1-2 types of CBU just in case. Lots of Mk-20 and fewer CBU-87 or any realistic CBU.
Su-24 also can be similar to this. There is no need more than 2-3 1500 kg bomb and carry besides them more smaller. For TE can be allowed any but in campaign also should be denied many of the AG weapons and only 250-500 kg bombs are important and only some of them.
UB rockets also should not be allowed only for very light and small planes.
Allowing only some HP for lots and heavy bombs for A-10 + Su-25.
Using this rule of thumb I could get quite a good results in my MODs.
-
Hi Molni,
Considering what I experienced so far with 4.34 the main issue if you allow too many types and qty of loadouts and AI cannot use them in one pass for ex. against an airbase strike.
This can be handled in many ways.For ex. it can be allowed many different weapons but in campaign availability of some weapons are denied. For example to F-111E which is only low level bomber BSU bombs should get the priority and Mk-84. The Mk-82 should not be allowed.
The M117 also can be allowed because of historical accuracy but in campaign also should be denied. In reality the plane can carry 24x500 lb bombs but in RL because of drag they carry 4xMk-84 or or only 8-12 smaller bombs. Because the 2000 lb bombs are allowed to any HPs restriction for 500 lb to be carried only inner HPs the in not an issue to me.F-111F was THE PGM platfrom –-> Only LGBs, GBU-15 and 1-2 types of CBU just in case. Lots of Mk-20 and fewer CBU-87 or any realistic CBU.
Su-24 also can be similar to this. There is no need more than 2-3 1500 kg bomb and carry besides them more smaller. For TE can be allowed any but in campaign also should be denied many of the AG weapons and only 250-500 kg bombs are important and only some of them.
UB rockets also should not be allowed only for very light and small planes.
Allowing only some HP for lots and heavy bombs for A-10 + Su-25.
Using this rule of thumb I could get quite a good results in my MODs.
what you describe is already possible to do, you can overwrite default database values with campaign specific data, just have a look into “/Data/Add-On Korea TvT/TerrData/Objects/SSD”.
Cheers
Biker -
Hi Molni,
what you describe is already possible to do, you can overwrite default database values with campaign specific data, just have a look into “/Data/Add-On Korea TvT/TerrData/Objects/SSD”.
Cheers
BikerI know the Editor can handle this as in old time the F4Browse.
Whoa, that was long time ago. -
I know the Editor can handle this as in old time the F4Browse.
Whoa, that was long time ago.But that’s not what I mean…
You can adjust the values of some specific squadrons without touching the database files in your base install.
BMS Edit -> adjust the values you want for your theater -> right click -> Export …
To get it override the default values in DB, you need to add a directory structure like in TvT and place the exported file(s) there. -
But that’s not what I mean…
You can adjust the values of some specific squadrons without touching the database files in your base install.
BMS Edit -> adjust the values you want for your theater -> right click -> Export …
To get it override the default values in DB, you need to add a directory structure like in TvT and place the exported file(s) there.Are you speaking about a 100% separated theater?
SSD = sqadron stores data I guess. -
Are you speaking about a 100% separated theater?
Don’t understand what you mean with 100% separated?
All what is done for TvT can be done for any other theater also.SSD = sqadron stores data I guess.
Yes.
To make it more clear:
- Open BMS Editor
- Switch Theater to Korea TvT and start again
- Now go Options -> Color Marking -> Mark external data
What you’ll now find in green colors is all that items in the database which are overwritten from external XML files you can find in the TvT directory structure under “TerrData\Objects”
- SSD -> Squadron Stores Data
- UCD -> Unit Class Data
- VCD -> Vehicle Class Data
- WCD -> Weapon Class Data
- WLD -> Weapon Load Data (Hardpoints)
The same directory structure can be used for any third party theater inside the theater specific “TerrData\Objects” directory.
-
Don’t understand what you mean with 100% separated?
All what is done for TvT can be done for any other theater also.Yes.
To make it more clear:
- Open BMS Editor
- Switch Theater to Korea TvT and start again
- Now go Options -> Color Marking -> Mark external data
What you’ll now find in green colors is all that items in the database which are overwritten from external XML files you can find in the TvT directory structure under “TerrData\Objects”
- SSD -> Squadron Stores Data
- UCD -> Unit Class Data
- VCD -> Vehicle Class Data
- WCD -> Weapon Class Data
- WLD -> Weapon Load Data (Hardpoints)
The same directory structure can be used for any third party theater inside the theater specific “TerrData\Objects” directory.
I still do not understand the point of your post.
Since ever the DB which was read by F4B then now is Editor contained the different kind of data in different files in Terrdata\Objects directory.
The sq. stores always could be changed with F4B or Editor.I always created my MOD as a 100% separated theater with had its own Terrdata\Objects directory.
This is doable, so I can set as usual the HPs and the availability can be restricted by SSDs as usual. -
What Biker explains it that you do not have to edit/modify all the stock DB, you can “export” some parts of the core DB for a given addition theater (ex: KTO TvT) that will use the core DB of the main theater (KTO) and will read & apply the delta defined in those “exported” files so you can modify one a/c or some weapon data without the need of altering the main/core DB.
This is a huge help for 3rd party devs : Look in …:\Falcon BMS 4.35\Data\Add-On Korea TvT\TerrData\Objects
-
What Biker explains it that you do not have to edit/modify all the stock DB, you can “export” some parts of the core DB for a given addition theater (ex: KTO TvT) that will use the core DB of the main theater (KTO) and will read & apply the delta defined in those “exported” files so you can modify one a/c or some weapon data without the need of altering the main/core DB.
This is a huge help for 3rd party devs : Look in …:\Falcon BMS 4.35\Data\Add-On Korea TvT\TerrData\Objects
Oh, I guess I get it now. It is enough only that SSD is link to a theater therefore we do not need GB of space just because hardpoints and SSDs and sq./batt. sizes are different
-
According to the FM of the F-4 on inner HPs 2000 lb bombs are not possible. While in the Falcon always was cleared the Mk-84 and GBU-24.
Which is the real?
I was not able to find any images about F-4 with so long bombs. So far what I could find some ppl. said to me that the long Mk-84 and any similar loadout was not possible because the landing gears would hit the stores. -
Not a yes/no answer probably
the 1990 F-4E manual shows GBU-24 and GBU-15 loadouts for the inner MAU-12s on 2/8.
the 1979 manual shows GBU-10s on 2/8 but not the basic MK-84s.It looks like they just forward mount them so the back does not go past the back of the pylon.
This photo with Pave Tack is test shot
Pave Knife was used operationally on those inner pylons and that looked massive.