Midway

[Wrench 9,479]

Baltika:

Got the hangar and loading screens done for the "Vinda-way"; just need to write the readme. How should I release it? I am seriouly embarassed by this aircraft (with no insults to Bunyap that originally built the wirraway). I think it's the worst POS I've ever done -- and I've done a lot of 'stand in' birds. (btw, there's an FM-2 standin coming out soon, too) Although, it DOES fly pretty nice!

 

Send it to you, or just put it at my site? I don't want to lower the real estate value here at CA by uploading this hack job!

 

Wrench

kevin stein

 

EDIT: since we don't have Devastators, I"d suggest just upgrading to the TBF-1 mod I did. I can whip out historically accurate fues number decals for VT-3, 6 and 8 with little effort.

W

[+Baltika 84]

Hi Wrench,

 

I'm happy to go along with however you want to release your "Vinda-way" - either at your place, or if you want to send it to me, I can include it in the campaign d/l pack if you agree. Either way, it will fill a gap in the USMC squadrons meantime.

 

OK, is this where I get told off for wondering if we have a B-26 or B-26B around somewhere

 

I can find the -K model, but that seems rather a late version for Midway :yes:

 

 

Good call with your TBF-1 mod - I have already got the TBD squadrons set up to use that. If you want to take the trouble to make numbers etc, that would be great - every squadron (on both sides) is selectable as flyable from the campaign screen, so some differentiation in the skins would be nice. (I got bored on the train commute home from work today, and editing the campaign.ini file to make all the callouts helped the journey go by).

 

There are a number of stand-ins. I have put yours & capun's Rufe mod to good use for the Chitose and Kamikawa Maru air units - well, floatplanes they are, and I can't seem to find an F1M2, E8N2 or E13A1 anywhere The Rufe looks good flying around, though, and it works great on Gepard's sea runways

 

 

 

The above picture of a near collision has flagged up an issue - I would have loved to have USN squadrons taking off from the flight deck of their carrier in the midst of Gepard's crowded carrier groups, and that can be done, but with the random results pictured above. The carriers can be made to stay put (as Kesselbrut did with his Falklands package) but the campaign engine gives them a random heading each time. So, they are pointing the wrong way for their escorts, at least much of the time.

 

The alternative (which I have been working with til I tried the new method out) was to give each carrier unit a separate base, away from the main group. Doesn't look so good, but avoids odd headings, and allows proper carrier landings, i.e. on a moving carrier.

 

Any strong preference either way?

Edited November 21, 2008 by Baltika

[Wrench 9,479]

Well, I'd suggest doing it like how I've done TF 58.1, 58.2 & 58.3 for the Mariana map ... each group has its own "seepiste", shamlessly borrwed from the Midway map (as does Ozawas' Combined Fleet Carrier Strike Force). Theoretically, you could place one next to each of the parked carriers; although you may have to split ENTERPRISE & HORNET's TF into 2, so each CV has their own, and the campaign ini (I assume!) would point each carrier air group to it's approiate 'landing strip'. Yorktown being the easiest, as it's already got it's own

That way you could leave the carriers as non-manuvering units

 

As to a Maruader, don't forget the "B-26K" is actually the Douglas A-26, which didn't see SoWesPac usage until 44 or so, and as everyone knows, is a completely different aircraft.

 

OTH, to be toally non-historical, one could clamp a trop to the B-25B that already exists or the A-20C (I know the Russians had torp equipped Bostons)

 

As to the Avengers, one of the best things about the US Navy in WW2 is, everything was painted the same! At that time frame none of the individual air group markings had been implimented; I don't think the geometric "G" types showed up before late 43/early 44.

 

There are seaplane bases in the as yet uncompleted Solomons rebuild -just waiting for Deuces to finsih off adding trees- and then I can test it. It's very COOL using a seaplane in the actual ocean. The only drawback is on standard game generated single missions, it places land-planes there.

The other float planes would be a super addition, expecially in the Solomons where Petes were a problem...

 

I'll start the VT decals tommorrow, and should have something by the beginning of the week.

 

Wrench

kevin stein

[Wrench 9,479]

small update, sorry no screeine -- I"ll post one later today.

 

I was able to remove the wing guns and rocket stubs off my TBF-1 mod usng data ini edits.; so it looks a LOT better. I've left the Yagi antenas on, as to not mess up it's use for later (ie: Solomons) usage. Just don't turn on the radar, or comment out the avionics lines.

Looks like a small update will be forthcoming for THAT too!

 

Looks like 3 sets of skins/decals, named as so; (ie: that original VT-3 skin I did is for Guadalcanal, so the naming reflects Midway timeframe ONLY)

 

VT-3M

VT-6M

VT-8M

 

the modex number sequences you'll see ARE 100% historically accurate as used on the Devestators; bunums will be the same as on the Avenger (reusing the same 24 over and over and over....)

 

Since VT-8 Midway detachment only had 6 aircraft, I'm not doing them. Unless really needed. That'll probably create problems via the numbers list, as its well below minimums.

 

Wrench

kevin stein

 

on a personal side note, I'm very glad to be putting all the damn historical knowledge I've been amassing my entire life to good use!!

[+Baltika 84]

Hi Wrench,

 

Sounds good, looking forward to your TBF-1 update

 

The VT-8 Midway detachment IS available as a flyable squadron in the campaign, although far be it from me to create additional headaches for anyone I leave the question of specific skins/numbers for them entirely to your discretion, Sir

 

OT: Is your upcoming Solomons map based on Edward's original terrain, or is it a completely new build?

 

It's just, I have an "Operation Watchtower" campaign data.ini file (NOT based on any previously released Solomons campaign files) sitting on my HDD, waiting for all the squadrons to be assigned bases (Well, I know where they were all based in reality. It's the precise terrain_targets.ini name for each base I'm interested in). If the updated terrain has essentially the same names for airfields etc as Edward's terrain, I can go ahead, but, if not, I'm better to wait until your new terrain is released before editing the data file.

 

In case you're wondering why, well, I do a lot of commuting by train in my job, and for some reason I find it relaxing to type up OOBs as SFP1 campaign files. . .

 

 

As for personal interest, well, none of this stuff was taught in history class at school for me. So, I am discovering a lot of basic European, American and world history through my own reading much later in life. The UK in general, and Scotland in particular, was (is?) a minefield of political interest groups all of whom had a direct interest in the syllabus - and not in a good way. As a Scottish child of the Thatcher years in Britain, it's only now I'm discovering that the reason proper Scots history wasn't taught AT ALL in school, was that Thatcher was afraid of the Scot Nats gaining a lead in the polls. . .

 

And if that isn't political censorship of a population, I d/k what is.

 

As for WW2, well, the mentality in Britain, and probably much of Europe, is still John Cleese's send up of the phrase, "Don't mention the war!!!!"

 

OK - rant over. Back to trying to get my win/lose conditions for Midway campaign to work properly. . . darn

[Wrench 9,479]

Ok, skins and decals for the carrier based units are done....

 

 

VT-3 & 6 use the same style of numbering ...

 

 

VT-8 uses/used the semi-old pre-war style of still having the squadron designator (T for Torpedo) in their modex

You'll note the now removed wing guns and rocket rail stubs. Gotta LOVE that little tweek!!!!

 

Many years ago, at one of the primier airshows here is SoCal, namely the Chino Air Show, I had the privilige and great honor to meet George Gay and Admiral Dick Best. I just wish I'd had the presence of mind to get their autographs...

 

I'll see what I can find out about the numbering style for the 6 MI based VT-8 detachment. I've got picture of Ens Earnest's after his return, and seem to recall it carried the full designator 8-T-*num*. I"ll dig out my TBF Avenger units in combat book again (like it so hard to turn on the extrenal HD, browse for the pdf, and open it! )

 

Probably wind up calling the skin folder "VT8Det" for "detached".....should take more than a few hours.

 

Gonna be gone again! this weekend, so I'll try to get most stuff done today or early next week.

 

The solomons IS totally Edwards, just revamped with more target areas, additions 'objects', and hopefuly lots and lots of jungle trees!! Plus the Shortland Islands & Rekata Bay seaplane bases...they look VERY cool, with docks and overhang shelters on the beach for the Rufes and non-existant Petes and Jakes, and etc.

It's a major revamp of my revamp of a year or so ago.

 

Wrench

kevin stein

[+Baltika 84]

Nice

 

I will press on with Operation Watchtower in anticipation. . .

[Tannethal 2]

As for the heading bug:

 

That one turned up when carrier avitation was introduced with WoV and first attemps were made with Carrier battlegroups.

The attemp was driven by Killerbee.

 

IIRC It was connected to the minbasesize of the carrier. Anything other than small pointed it at random in mission start, with small he stuck to a heading of 267.

 

 

 

Found the original threads from the old Column5.us forum...

 

I will attach them for review.

 

S!

carrierformations.zip

[Wrench 9,479]

Oh, and another thought occured to me last night.....

 

We don't have the correct marking for the ANY of the IJN aircraft (well, the Kates for Shokoku & Akagi and Vals from Soryu & Akagi). But they're all Pearl Harbor Attack markings

 

There are as yet, no A6M2 Zeke skins for Nagumo's Forces.

 

The question is: would they be carring the same type of tail marking as seen during the Pearl Attack?? If so, that would be a farily simple decal to create (what with me having a home-made Zero template and all...) And if not, again, it's just needed research to find the correct tail markings.

 

Guess I know what I'll be doing, come Monday..... I surely do not want to make new templates for the Kates & Vals...

 

Wrench

kevin stein

[+Baltika 84]

@Tannethal,

 

Thanks for the info re carrier headings, I hadn't come across that

 

Looks like I can re-jig the targets.ini and have carrier take offs from within the battlegroups after all. Nice one

[Wrench 9,479]

Here's another one... a very quick and dirty repaint (I still have to refine my homemade template) of the Ar196 into a 'standin' for the E13A Jake:

 

 

This would represnt the crusier's airel scouting force, ie: TONE #4 plane. There are some issues with it wanting to take off (especially that troublesome #4 plane!), so I"ll try and fiddle the data ini a bit like the Rex and Rufe to make it so it 'unsticks'

 

due to distortions, it looks like all the markings will have to be decals. I"ll work on it more during the week.

I'll try to have some shots of the Zekes later; won't have all the decals, but the skins and basic markings for the 4 airgroups

 

Wrench

kevin stein

[+Baltika 84]

Nice one, Wrench

 

I have tried the settings for carriers flagged up by Tannethal, but I am still getting the wayward carrier headings. It may be something in one of the patches issued since that work was first done has changed things. Anyway, I will leave that issue to one side for now and press on with tidying up the main campaign files for release.

 

Right now I am tweaking win/lose triggers for a "dynamic" outcome. I can't get the game engine to recognise when a base carrier has been destroyed, so it will run on the node system instead. I can easily enough include an alternative campaign file with no surface engagements for purists.

 

Cheers for now.

[+Baltika 84]

Sorry chaps, release date for Midway campaign has slipped a bit, but this is still top of the pile.

 

Had one of "those" moments in playtesting, wanted to share:

 

Tasked with intercepting an IJN strike on TF-16, my flight found a group of six Vals on an attack vector to the fleet. We were 5k feet above them, slightly behind, so ordered my flight to attack. My wingie went in first, brave fella, took the worst of the tailgunner fire, the rest of us chasing him down.

 

Bagged a Val on my first pass, zoomed up to turn and go in again, saw one of ours hit the water, called my wingie but no reply, must have been him. No chute - damn!

 

Lined up for my second pass, taking hits from the tailgunners, thought I was OK, then realised my elevators were shot and my control was restricted. Waggling around, saw the remaining Vals continuing with their attack run, then the fleet AA fire opened up. One, then two and three Vals burst into flame and spiralled down.

 

Last Val getting dangerously close, flak bursting all around, come on you navy gunners, yes, it takes a hit, flaming.

 

Trailing fire, the last Val enters a shallow dive towards the sea - and smacks straight into the deck of Yorktown, which promptly catches fire and begins to list to starboard. Damn again!

 

 

To add insult to injury, I had to hit the silk, then swim home

[Wrench 9,479]

Skins for the 4 squadrons of Vals are nearly done (including all new decals and all new skin bmps in weathered green)

 

Skins for the 4 squadrons of Zekes about 75% done; just have to make more serial decals (also doing more for Pearl Harbor, as well as the Vals)

 

Haven't touched the Kates...don't know what to do about them (other than make a new template from scratch..., and redecal from scratch)

 

None of the IJN aircraft have the 'colors' for the Squadron Commander and Flight Leaders (the stripes above and below the serials on the vert fin). Possibly do them as level2 decals; probably just leave them off. Call the skins 95% Historical.

 

You already have the TBFs for the appropriate squadrons (standing in for TBDs)

 

US planes being the easiest....

 

The DATs F2A already has the VMF skin for midway; might need to do up some decals for the Wildcats.

 

In between all the other stuff....

 

Wrench

kevin stein

[+Geezer 3,569]

Tasked with intercepting an IJN strike on TF-16, my flight found a group of six Vals on an attack vector to the fleet. We were 5k feet above them, slightly behind, so ordered my flight to attack. My wingie went in first, brave fella, took the worst of the tailgunner fire, the rest of us chasing him down.

 

Lined up for my second pass, taking hits from the tailgunners, thought I was OK, then realised my elevators were shot and my control was restricted. Waggling around, saw the remaining Vals continuing with their attack run, then the fleet AA fire opened up. One, then two and three Vals burst into flame and spiralled down.

 

Interesting. I don't presume to tell anyone how to make a mod, but it sounds like the Val's gunners may be overly-effective? The Val's rear defense consisted of a single WW1 Lewis gun - woefully inadequate for fending off attacking fighters armed with 4-8 guns. While there is always the chance of a golden BB, historically Vals were sitting ducks.

[+Baltika 84]

Cheers Wrench, for the update

 

You have plenty going on right now, I have been following Pearl Harbor thread with keen interest, great stuff

 

And the delay in release is at my end, as I am having trouble resolving win/lose parameters for a "dynamic" campaign with variable outcomes, balancing it properly to allow for both IJN and USN flyable (USMC & USAAF are in there too, don't worry ), and I still have to finish off the campaign end text, and a few squadron basescreens - in particular, I can't find a decent picture of the Kamikawa Maru

 

So, there are a few things I need to sort out, and, given the time of year, I suspect it won't be finished anytime soon. I just wanted to let those with an interest know I am still taking this forward - albeit at my usual glacial development pace

 

I'm looking forward to your new skins, and, meantime, happy holidays :yes:

 

 

 

@Geezer:-

 

Hmmm, fair comment. Plane FMs and gunner AI behaviour are beyond my level of expertise, but I hear what you say about the historical vulnerability of the Val. I just write the campaign files, what the air units do is up to them. . .

 

I am also finding that fleet AA fire is extremely effective, on both sides. In the example I gave above, the Vals were wiped out before dropping a bomb (just not by my flight). And, when tasked to escort USN strikes on the IJN fleet, I nearly always get a mission fail as the bombers almost never make it through fleet AA defences. Given the historical loss rates, that is probably fair enough - but it makes it hard to sustain the mission success rate necessary to win a campaign, given that the game engine won't recognise when a base carrier has been sunk.

 

Some latering thinking required, I suspect. . .

Edited December 13, 2008 by Baltika

[Wrench 9,479]

Known secret: ALL the gunners shoot like Alvin York and Annie Oakley!!! They're definatley deadshot marksmen (markspersons???).

 

Attacking a large bomber formation (say, a Nick against 6-9 B-24s, or any fighter vs bomber) is a REAL interesting proposition!!!!

 

Wrench

kevin stein

[+Baltika 84]

OK, this rings bells with some issues discussed waaay back on the old BoB campaign thread about taking on streams of Heinkels over old blighty. . .

 

Looking back, it seems that a lot of the WW2 birds, and PTO birds in particular, do not contain the [AIDATA] entries in the individual aircraft data.inin file. Within that section, for planes which do have it, are the following lines:

 

GunnerFireChance=80

GunnerFireTime=2.5

GunnerAimOffset=0.0050

 

All of which can be played with to reduce the rate of fare, length of burst, and accuracy. Where an a/c does not have individual [AIDATA] entries (like the Val), there are default values set, which must be pretty darn mean. I d/k where the defaults can be found.

 

But, we just get back to the fact that all the WW2 birds need a thorough FM overhaul to bring them up to the latest standard.

 

Roll on the Suez expansion to give us a baseline, at least

[+Geezer 3,569]

But, we just get back to the fact that all the WW2 birds need a thorough FM overhaul to bring them up to the latest standard.

 

Roll on the Suez expansion to give us a baseline, at least

 

Agreed. I realize that there are many hard-working modders who have a significant emotional stake in the current stuff for SF1/WOV/WOE, and I have nothing but admiration for their outstanding achievements.

 

However, time marches on whether we like it or not, and the newer TW sims (FE, WOI) are the new standard. I may be mistaken, but it is my understanding that TW will no longer support the older sims with any more updates? As you said, the Suez expansion will provide a baseline for the overhaul of all the old FM, ini, etc files.

[+Geezer 3,569]

All of which can be played with to reduce the rate of fare, length of burst, and accuracy. Where an a/c does not have individual [AIDATA] entries (like the Val), there are default values set, which must be pretty darn mean. I d/k where the defaults can be found.

 

I looked up the Lewis gun's rate of fire and, depending on the version, it was roughly comparable to the US .30 Browning. However, the Browning was belt-fed while the Lewis used 47- and 97-round drums which meant that the Lewis required frequent reloading. Factoring in the time spent to remove the old drum, install the new drum, and then re-cock the gun and re-acquire the target, the EFFECTIVE rate of fire was rather low. This would severely penalize Alvin York let alone the average gunner.

[+Geezer 3,569]

I am also finding that fleet AA fire is extremely effective, on both sides. In the example I gave above, the Vals were wiped out before dropping a bomb (just not by my flight). And, when tasked to escort USN strikes on the IJN fleet, I nearly always get a mission fail as the bombers almost never make it through fleet AA defences. Given the historical loss rates, that is probably fair enough - but it makes it hard to sustain the mission success rate necessary to win a campaign, given that the game engine won't recognise when a base carrier has been sunk.

 

I just remembered that when FE was first released, the AA fire was unrealistically effective. This was changed in a patch that also addressed other issues. I wish I could remember more, but a search of the First Eagles forum at TW might shed some light on what was done to reduce overly effective AA fire.

[+Gepard 10,279]

All groundobjects (AAA, Ships etc) have gunner positions were you can adjust the "know how" of the gunners.

[Bandy 3]

I just remembered that when FE was first released, the AA fire was unrealistically effective. This was changed in a patch that also addressed other issues. I wish I could remember more, but a search of the First Eagles forum at TW might shed some light on what was done to reduce overly effective AA fire.

 

Change the pitch and yaw angle rates of the AI gunners in the data.ini's to around 20 to 30 (usually they are 40 or 45 stock), this will make a big difference to you if you attack obliquely, or barrel-roll into position to squeeze a burst off and get your ar_se outta there, though your wing-mates will still get chewed-up since they approach pretty slow and straight at 6. I don't think the SF game code will allow for reload on the rear Lewis gunners like in FE...

 

Also make sure the aircraft data.inis have pilot hitboxes AND gunner hitboxes; I've been experimenting for some time with gunner HB's in BoB bombers, and they seem to work very well at modding the effects of great sprays of lead in crew compartments :yes: . I simply lifted the absolute rear gunner hitbox dimensions from TK's code in FE, and applied the corrected/adjusted X, Y, Z co-ordinates roughly according to the muzzle position of the gunner's weapon. Add in crew armour where historically accurate, and Bob's yer uncle; your wingies at least have a chance of knocking out that rear sting first. Maybe it isn't perfect, but it is sim-light afterall...

Edited December 14, 2008 by B Bandy RFC

[+Baltika 84]

Geezer, Gepard, B Bandy RFC,

 

Thanks for your comments, info duly noted

 

Bandy, I would be interested in seeing your gunner hitbox/armour data for WW2 bombers, if you can find a moment to compile it - perhaps it could be included as an "extra" in a campaign file d/l for those who wish to impelement it, if you are agreeable?

 

Cheers all,

 

Baltika

[Wrench 9,479]

Baltika: any tho0ught been given to the Missing Marauder???

 

I'm pretty sure I can hang a torpedo on a Mitchell, if we want some kind of stand in. The B model is readly avaialbe...it'll just need reskinning

 

Wrench

kevin stein