WWI men and machines

[+Brainless 1]

Hi you WWI guys. I recently got back into this sim after FS9 and the 3W jet series. Oh and the WWII stuff and bombing etc.

 

Having patched up to the latest version found the 'Army Co-operative' CTD problem but that aside this is in my view currently one of the best of the series with the amazing Edwards, ShrikeHawk and Sopwith Snipe etc. terrain renderings. The lanscape looks really superb at the low speeds and the towns and villages are just a joy to behold BUT (well there's always got to be one hasn't there) what the game seems to be missing is the ground troop involvements you know what I mean the 'over the top lads' offensives with hundreds of men advancing on the opposing sides' trenches and the large artillery pieces blasting away.

 

Now I know we have the excellent British, French and German squads but these are largely static groups and I wondered if it would be possible to extract the upright 'advancing soldier' forms and make them into an in-line advancing troop arrangement to look like troops moving towards the enemy trenches. I can't seem to find the info just now on which one of you guys made those squads but I know you will know. Is it possible to do this?

 

Also it seems there are no large artillery pices on either side so far as I can find just the British 12pounder and the German 75mm which whilst excellent in their own right look a bit well, puny compared to the real stuff.

 

Unfortunately I have no modding skills whatsoever and it all seems like magic to me the way you fellas can produce these awesome creations so I would not have the first clue on how one would go about making the troop movements or artillery otherwise I would gladly attempt such things myself.

 

All just thought really. What do you think?

[+Tailspin 3]

I agree. No mans land and the front could use some attention. Heck did a battlefield mod over a year ago. Its in the Terrains section of the downloads here. I never tried it so I can't comment on how it works. You can get the infantry squads to move by making them "tanks". I'm not sure how well the sim models artillery fire ie. getting the guns to fire without actually "seeing" a target. I do know that such things work to some extent as I have seen "gun battles" between ships and shore guns and have been tasked with attacking moving infantry during CAS missions in Edward's WWII Solomans add-on for SFP1.

[+Brainless 1]

I agree. No mans land and the front could use some attention. Heck did a battlefield mod over a year ago. Its in the Terrains section of the downloads here. I never tried it so I can't comment on how it works. You can get the infantry squads to move by making them "tanks". I'm not sure how well the sim models artillery fire ie. getting the guns to fire without actually "seeing" a target. I do know that such things work to some extent as I have seen "gun battles" between ships and shore guns and have been tasked with attacking moving infantry during CAS missions in Edward's WWII Solomans add-on for SFP1.

 

Thanks Tailspin for the interest. Yes I had the Heck Battlefield mod before the patch but don't know if it works post-patch. I will give it a try though. Not the definitive answer but that goes some way towards a more realistic Battlefield. Yes I know the sqads can move and I did this in a single mission yesterday but somehow they didn't look right so I went back to the static type. The British 12pounder and German 75mm guns will fire at one another as I did a mission with opposing guns and squads set up yesterday. Looks better but again we are not quite there yet.

 

As I say we could do with some line abreast infantry and big guns then we could really do some 'offensive' type mission building!

[Gr.Viper 131]

Must tanks and other ground units have a single hit zone and consist of one destroyable object? If not, infantry squads could be arranged as a "tank" unit made of several human "turrets" each armed with rifle. Front and sides could fire at ground targets, rear at aircraft. Yet to make it possible the ability to destroy components of a groud unit is necessary. Squad dying all-at-once looks awkward

[+Brainless 1]

Must tanks and other ground units have a single hit zone and consist of one destroyable object? If not, infantry squads could be arranged as a "tank" unit made of several human "turrets" each armed with rifle. Front and sides could fire at ground targets, rear at aircraft. Yet to make it possible the ability to destroy components of a groud unit is necessary. Squad dying all-at-once looks awkward

 

Yes this is another aspect. I guess we mustn't disparage these guys' work too much or they won't do anything at all and we should be grateful for what they have done so far. We must just nicely encourage them to do more because those of us who are 'mod-vacant' can't really complain can we and where would we be without the talented ones?

[+Tailspin 3]

There is a difference between complaining or disparaging and discussing game limitations and how they affect gameplay. Most any modder is fully aware of those limitations. Its how you say things. Over-the-top "OMFG!!! I CAN'T BELIEVE MOD XYZ DOESN'T DO THIS OR THAT!!!" statements or "Your mod sucks because it doesn't do this or that." are simply silly or rude. I think we're OK here.

[+Brainless 1]

There is a difference between complaining or disparaging and discussing game limitations and how they affect gameplay. Most any modder is fully aware of those limitations. Its how you say things. Over-the-top "OMFG!!! I CAN'T BELIEVE MOD XYZ DOESN'T DO THIS OR THAT!!!" statements or "Your mod sucks because it doesn't do this or that." are simply silly or rude. I think we're OK here.

 

 

Yes sorry guys perhaps 'disparaging' was the wrong word/term. You all know I would never disrespect anyone here and I'm sure the modders won't think this of us discussing these matters but it never hurts to tell them we really appreciate their work

[Heck 496]

From what I discovered in trying to do the active battlefield mod, I don't think there's much you can do because of the limitations of the game engine. What I did with that mod was make some of the infantry into static versions, which would engage each other, because they could see each other. And I placed some artillery batteries along the front to give that small barrage effect, or artillery duels. When it comes to bigger artillery, they would have to be very carefully placed so that they could see each other, or the targets they were supposed to engage. This might be difficult because of the undulations of the ground that make this sim's terrain so realistic. That was one of my biggest, most tedious problems in the battlefield mod. I would place units, and then generate single missions to fly near them, only to discover they couldn't see each other. I would often have to crash my plane and then "walk" the camera around to see what the terrain actually looked like from the ground pounder perspective. The other problem I had was battlefield persistance. For this I had to arrange two solutions. I had to give them less accurate weapons in the gundata.ini, and I had to armor them. Otherwise, by the time you flew over, graves registration was already there.

 

You can't, from what little I know, simulate things like trench raids in this sim. And other than the big "pushes," I think the Western Front was relatively quiet during the daytime, from what I've read in books like "Knee Deep in Hell," by John Ellis. Most activities, even trench raids, were carried out under cover of darkness. By 1917 these men knew that in a big push, and there was usually more than one a year, hundreds of thousands were going to be killed, wounded, captured, of just go missing, so there seemed to develope a general live and let be miserable attitude when there was no offensive going on.

 

So, apart from some desultory barrages by Whiz Bangs, or French 75's, and the odd machine gunner trying to keep heads down on the other side, the only activity would be barrages by the big guns, and they would be difficult to simulate here, because the weapons are direct line of sight, and the ground usually prevents that.

 

Oh, does anyone know which ini file controls the size of the debrief log? One of the ini files has a line pertaining to it. I was working at one time to solve the missing stats problem with the battlefield mod, and thought I had a solution, but real life problems interfered, and I lost the damned file. If anyone knows, I'd appreciate the info, so I can post a possible fix. Sorry this post is so long.

 

Heck

Edited March 4, 2008 by Heck

[Guest capun]

That is certainly a game limitation all the way back. All guns are a LOS (Line of Sight) firing only. It's a big limitation with the ships since they won't engage over a certain distance. No point on having a 16" gun when it can't fire it over a mile or so.

 

One thing to maximize the LOS is to "raise" the viewport a bit high, thus raising the LOS a bit more

[FastCargo 412]

That is certainly a game limitation all the way back. All guns are a LOS (Line of Sight) firing only. It's a big limitation with the ships since they won't engage over a certain distance. No point on having a 16" gun when it can't fire it over a mile or so.

 

One thing to maximize the LOS is to "raise" the viewport a bit high, thus raising the LOS a bit more

 

So, if I put a LONG range gun on a satellite...it should work?

 

Just tinkering....

 

FastCargo

[Heck 496]

That is certainly a game limitation all the way back. All guns are a LOS (Line of Sight) firing only. It's a big limitation with the ships since they won't engage over a certain distance. No point on having a 16" gun when it can't fire it over a mile or so.

 

One thing to maximize the LOS is to "raise" the viewport a bit high, thus raising the LOS a bit more

 

Interesting idea, Capun. How high is high? Is it directly tied to the 3d model? ie: Does the viewport have to be within the min and max extant positions listed in the data ini, or can it be higher? Thinking of some areas of terrain where you might put a medium artillery battery just behind the front, where it could see an enemy battery just on the other side of their lines. Or maybe a nice ammo dump. Just curious.

 

Heck

[Guest capun]

So, if I put a LONG range gun on a satellite...it should work?

 

Just tinkering....

 

FastCargo

 

Not really, you just put the gun observer in the satellite.

[+Tailspin 3]

.....or a balloon.

[Guest capun]

Interesting idea, Capun. How high is high? Is it directly tied to the 3d model? ie: Does the viewport have to be within the min and max extant positions listed in the data ini, or can it be higher? Thinking of some areas of terrain where you might put a medium artillery battery just behind the front, where it could see an enemy battery just on the other side of their lines. Or maybe a nice ammo dump. Just curious.

 

Heck

 

It's been a long time ago while I was playing with this stuff, but if I remember correct I used the curvature of the earth in some calculations to come up with the Viewport Z-axis value (height).

 

No, it does not have to be within the Min/MaxExtentPosition, those are used as "damage boxes" only

 

Several people were experimenting with this, check with Hinch and Fubar also. I don't remember if eventually there was a max range for the guns that we just could not overcome due to shell weight, muzzle velocity, LOS and other things.

 

The problem is that there is only direct fire and not indirect fire support in the game, we were looking at firing behind a hill with howitzers but could not accomplish it, same problem that blocked using a Landing craft full of rockets.

 

I'll see if I kept some notes about this problem

[Heck 496]

Thanks for the help, Capun. This opens some interesting possibilities for some batteries just behind the lines, using Geo's superb French 75 and German 77. Something to play around with. I'll do some experimenting. That, and placing some of his Vickers and Maxim machine guns along the front to give us some lines of tracers going back and forth, which might give us a more active battlefield without overstraining people with low end machines (me).

 

Oh, and I found my file where I changed the stats log to a higher number, which cured most problems with the active battlefield mod for me. It was in the MissionControl.ini, but TK already set it to the number I used, when he brought out the Expansion Pack. I haven't experimented to see if it can be set higher. The number is the MaxEventLog=, which right now TK has set at 8192, which is what I used.

 

Heck

[+Brainless 1]

Thanks for the help, Capun. This opens some interesting possibilities for some batteries just behind the lines, using Geo's superb French 75 and German 77. Something to play around with. I'll do some experimenting. That, and placing some of his Vickers and Maxim machine guns along the front to give us some lines of tracers going back and forth, which might give us a more active battlefield without overstraining people with low end machines (me).

 

Oh, and I found my file where I changed the stats log to a higher number, which cured most problems with the active battlefield mod for me. It was in the MissionControl.ini, but TK already set it to the number I used, when he brought out the Expansion Pack. I haven't experimented to see if it can be set higher. The number is the MaxEventLog=, which right now TK has set at 8192, which is what I used.

 

Heck

 

Well all this is an eye opener to the Brainless one. Golly gosh how complicated all this is. I have had some success placing squads and guns fairely close to one another by the wire on the front line. Getting the placements right is not easy as you say but not impossible by any means. I've got squads firing at one another and guns engaging infantry and tanks etc. Some of the firing is unsucessful as you say because it hits the ground but this is not altogether unwanted as it gives an impression of continuing engagement from the air and it's not all over by the time you get to engage targets. I'm sure something like this could be made to work with big guns if they were placed near enough to one another on the right land points. Likewise if two lines of infantry were to move towards one another they would eventually meet and fire at each other. Admittedly this probably could only be achieved by creating individual single missions but it would be a start and I don't see a problem with that.

[Gr.Viper 131]

About long range ballistic artillery... Call me crazy... Viewport isn't the only movable point.

Gun and target have a hill between them. The vieport of the gun is high above the hill and some distance ahead of the visible model. The muzzle i.e. the point where the shell comes from is in the same position as viewpoint. Light of the shot still appears at the muzzle of the cannon model (remember, positions of fire and muzzle are set separately).

IF the contraption works it will fire at targets to which it seemingly has no line of sight. There will be flashes from a battery and shells will be seen flying over the front and hitting targets at distance. Yeah, you won't see a shell balsting from cannon muzzle but let's suppose it's just to fast to see?

 

And if it really works you might get hit by shell from your own battery.

 

 

[+Tailspin 3]

Don't know if this is a new idea or not but its something P10ppy discovered while testing the 37mm cannon mod (Yes, I'm still working on it....having problems with the Hotchkiss revolving gun.... ) You can reduce the diameter of the projectile in the gun editor and and increase range at a given velocity. Seem to reduce drag or something. I was having trouble getting the low velocity 37mm tracers to reach a decent altitude when firing at high angles. Set the caliber to 13mm and they would fly higher. Don't change the other values and the shell still has the same impact/effectiveness as a 37mm. Might work for artillery.

[Guest capun]

I believe we had asked TK about this gun range issue a while back, If I remember correct he mentioned to reduce the diameter and weight of the shell, and increase the muzzle velocity as variable to play around with. If I have the time (busy with RL) I'll see if I can find the posts.

 

He does some calculations involving those variables to come up with the end point of the shell.

 

And for the behind the hill, It wont' work because the shells won't fire upwards (like a howitzer) to clear the hill (indirect fire). You need a clear field of vision to shoot. Raising the viewport sort of cheats on the LOS but it cannot be obstructed.

 

I am not sure but I think he uses the curvature of the earth to check if the gun has a LOS (thus raising the viewport) but once the gun fires, the curvature of the earth is not calculated but the effects of gravity on the shell, its weight, muzzle velocity, etc.

 

BTW, for radar controlled guns you do the same, you raise the RadarPosition Z-Axis.

[Gr.Viper 131]

I see the problem now. Moved Beutepanzer's muzzles and viewports 200m upwards, allowed them very low pitch. But is still fires as if guns were at default level i.e. horizontally.

Maybe a new cannon model should be made from scratch... hovering invisible cannon with gunner and a small visible gun with hitbox placed somewhere behind on the ground. Maybe a dozen of them as turrets with one balloon being a hitbox and providing viewport.

But I still don't understand what point is used by ground units to calculate shot direction - they don't notice muzzle shift, use viewports only for visibility check...

[Guest capun]

You don't move the muzzle flash up, you leave it with the cannon barrel

[Guest capun]

Shot direction is calculated from the CoG of the model, that is why a large ship has problems shooting down an airplanes vs. a smaller ship.

 

Some experiments were carried out a while back, a very small boat with a Phalanx gun sitting on top of the CoG was deadlier than a OH-Perry where the Phalanx was sitting about 100 meters away from the CoG

 

This is another reason why the model meshes have to have the proper measurements, both internally and in the 3DS Max Viewport.

[+Tailspin 3]

Can you get the artillery to fire at a balloon? Set up a battery, put a balloon behind it. Opposing arty "sees" the balloon as a target and fires "up" at it. Tweak the range to "fall short" so it simulates indirect fire. Make them very inaccurate to help spread out the impacts...just a little brainfart I had.

[+gterl 1,214]

...just my 2cents to Tailspins 'Balloon-Idea'

 

What about making the ballon fully transparent (tga), so you wouldn't even SEE the fake :-D

 

sorry just my 2cents

 

keep up the discussion