Mission Commander beta release
-
- Thank you for the update and the explanations.
- Another relevant intervention from white_fang. It’s a shame we have to put up with this character’s high level of bullshit every time we visit the forum.
-
@Rouge1512 said in Mission Commander beta release:
- Thank you for the update and the explanations.
- Another relevant intervention from white_fang. It’s a shame we have to put up with this character’s high level of bullshit every time we visit the forum.
Hah… I suppose what I suppose, but if what I suppose happened, keep in mind that you can block anyone in these forums… the consequences being that you’re down to supposing things could have happen, but that will only be funny.
My train of thoughts about it led me to revise the forums rules, but I can’t find them. Anyway, forget it. Supposing is way more fun ;).
-
@Rouge1512
2. Ok nuff with bs. No more chit-chat, OK?. Back to school.
Maybe you’ll learn something. It is interesting read.https://www.falcon-bms.com/news/air-combat-sim-podcast-episode-28/
-
Interesting stuff.
-
Now that peace is restored.
I’m pretty sure 686 is ready on everything and it’s just a few of us trying too much complexity, but I’ll report not being able to use invalidact.xml tool from MC, except within TvT as far as I’ve tried.
KTO does that. Invalid becomes Valid and NOT selectable becomes selectable (up the right list). Nothing is saved (and I can’t read the display on the left. Time for glasses maybe? )
-
No need for glasses dear Lorik if you can’t read this - nobody can.
Anyway, I confirm same graphical glitch in curr version .686.Seems “UNIT/PLANES” - ‘ONLY! validAC.act’ table affected, spills/leak over previous screen and over itself.
If you came from “clean” previous screen/table , with no data, eg. ‘stats’, then is somewhat readable but as soon you scroll, it overwrites itself.
Nothing can’t be done here, bad build. but again not so crucial, not that need this table too often., there’s always npp++ -
I hope it’ll be fixed, doing invalidactype manually would be painful.
-
@luke777 said in Mission Commander beta release:
I hope it’ll be fixed, doing invalidactype manually would be painful.
If that helps, use the file from TvT, it will help MC open it and process it. You can try to work it around this way for now, maybe.
EDIT: forget it, Luke tried.
-
@luke777
InvalidAcTypes.XML is generated by using the BMS Editor :Class Table->Units->Squadron->select all the squadron you want to fly with->mouse right click- >Export As Flyable
=> InvalidAcTypes.XML is then generated for the current active theater in the Editor
Cheers
BB -
@Bad-Boy Thank you BB.
-
@Bad-Boy Many thanks!!!
Cheers
-
@Bad-Boy Now that’s neat new little feature. Nice.
- but Imho … - I’ve never used it … since capmaign/te is already “restricted” by airplanes in file , for IA/DF … whatever , use what you want
I’ve never touched act (and it was bin before) file again in BMS … some 10-15yrs ago … enabling the other “UN”/flyable planes
-but since here… one question tho, “CampObjData.XML” ???
- in Balkans I’ve found (campID) discrepancies between that file and actual objects in saveX/te_new … safe to delete ?
How to re-crete file , seems MC is offering… ?
And what is TRUE use for that file … since objects are in db and features are in db … fine tuning ??
Cheers
-
@Falcas - Thank you so much! Version 686 worked perfectly in converting my 4.35U3 TEs (with the expected few choices as to what replaces what).
As you said: It will come with a suggestion which is mostly correct. However not always!!!
Exactly my experience. And as I progressed, the choices dwindled from few to zero. So, perfect…
I really appreciate your patience in dealing with us impatient users. You got this fix out quickly and now we can resume enjoying all that 4.36 offers, with our old TEs, to boot.
Without your tool set, BMS would be far less wonderful!
-
Happy to see the conversion is much improved. From 4.35 to 4.36: make sure to adapt the map in bms after importing, the rest is relatively plug and play.
My process for 4.33, for which most of our squadrons legacy missions were made in the past :- MC conversion and save (you need a legacy install)
- Fill in the team -map manually in bms
- Recreate squadrons on the appropriate airbase in bms.
- Assign the flights in the mission to the new squadrons in MC, ensuring each flight has a home base and save.
- Fix the timing in MC: subtract 9 hours of start and current time of the mission to convert to Zulu. Apply and save. Go through each flight and subtract 9 hours. Save.
- Open in bms TE editor and save to uncorrupt the mission. Check if all flights have “white” flight plans and correct if necessary.
All in all about 10 minutes work for complex missions.
EDIT: sadly not quite there yet after MP testing: Stuck on Receiving Units on client side.
-
@Easy probably some some erroneous unit , squadron… maybe even in convert process…
You could try different approach (process steps), after convert , open in new bms and save , exit then edit in MC… just a suggestion. try and error.
Good luck- No but is easier , you actually need only dirs /campaign/save and /objects from 4.33 (not even textures/terrain), put those dirs how they supposed to be in folders, respect dir hierarchy , “make” any file “bms.exe” to show it to MC when searching for old bms/theater
-
@Foxy said in Mission Commander beta release:
@Falcas
Jazak Allah khyraHow the heck did Foxy get Banned?
-
Allright, fixed it. This required some serious deduction / mindless button pressing but here’s the procedure.
The problem lies in the teams. I think Falcas is working on this item because MC is telling me not to use it but, living on the edge, the trick is to apply this little function in the teams tab:
To illustrate, I have a TE out of 4.33 with two teams. So we run the magic button, swap DPRK to slot 6 and “team 6” to slot 2. What this does is it transfers the occupation map and the missing bits that cause a receiving units message to team 6 while keeping the units in DPRK (see previous post).
However, we now have 2 DPRK teams. So we remedy by resetting (name, flag, color) team 2 using MC to get our teams back. We check MC and we see that our DPRK batalions are nicely back to team 6, and opening up BMS we see that the occupation map has transfered to team 6 as well. Great. However, in BMS we still see zero units in our team 6 DPRK. To fix this little issue, open up the TE editor in BMS and save.
Done, the TE is converted to have the proper teams but more importantly, it will run in MP as well without the “receiving units” dialogue.
(EDIT: for 3 or more teams, the procedure is more or less the same although the convenient map swap isn’t working here, so one additional step is needed: redraw the occupation map in BMS)
I have to say that BMS is picky after the conversion with respect to the teams. They all have to be there, or the “receiving units” dialogue pops back up. I guess there’s still an artifact from the conversion somewhere, but delighted with the results.
Thanks for the good work Falcas!
EDIT2: looking back with fresh eyes, the procedure can likely be simplified to a more understandable set of steps that work for any number of teams. Will work on it tonight.
-
@Easy Aaah , the team problem… well good news is, it is real easy to fix , as you succeeded … there are even more ways then one , eg. through advanced unit options / manually
Anyway, you see now, that error message was kinda misleading , and without look into , one would hard guess what the problem really is.
Anyways,
Good luck -
Hello,
I’ve used mission commander for some time and noticed now that if I try to create a fresh new campaign in 4.36 that it resulted in me no longer being able to open to the loadout screen- resulting in a CTD. I had to reinstall BMS to clear this issue and have had to avoid using mission commander. Has anyone else run across this? -
Curious if anyone figured out how to set IFF teams, currently I get a false IFF return of anything in the air, which is a bit of a give-away against bandits.
Is that manipulatable at all Falcas?
The TEAM Spot / Ident section in the picture above perhaps?