The Official Sept/Oct Patch Thread

[Canadair 16]

I have a weird problem with the new patch as well! It seems that the oceans in almost all the terrains are not flat anymore. That being said, it is impossible to get carrier ops to work properly in addon terrains such as Libya, and Cuba. From the air, the water looks very flat, but when you free camera view around, you notice that the geometry below the top textures is not flat, but has ridges. I cannot get off the deck without blowing up when the game loads! CAN SOMEONE HELP!!!!!! I have tried editing the Libya_DATA, and the Cuba_DATA as well, matching the height offsets with the default terrains. I have also tried using the terrain editor, but it crashes on me! OTC is impossible to play as Navy, or Marines because when you spawn on the boat to take off, you blow up within miliseconds of loading the mission! This happened with WOI as well when I ported maps over to it, that is why I tried with WOE. I figured going back would help, but nope, the new patch nuked WOE carrier ops too! Below are some pictures of what I am talking about.

 

 

Please help me figure this out, I am about to tear my hair out of my head, lol!

 

Thanks

 

It has been covered..it is about data.ini of terrains that need a little tweaking.

 

look at this topic, you should find extensive answers there READ THE ENTIRE THREAD. (i don't think the repainting of HM.bms that you will read about is needed)

 

http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showtopic=32413&hl=

[Canadair 16]

I am very frustated thoguh. There are many littler things that will take months to figure out. I just noticed that some carrier launche sof F-4 will rip plane's landing gear away. Ther eis afix somewhere,,had the problem a while ago. Also the f-8D FM is f***ed. Hopefully the new MF's (that I nere downloaded will be better....) but there is tremendous amount of small issues in this upgrading process. almost a month now, and I can dedicate a lot of time, since I have alot of ree time at the moment,, but still far from a good install as it was before (and backed up elsewhere..)

[Wrench 9,862]

Like the man said:

 

look at this topic, you should find extensive answers there READ THE ENTIRE THREAD. (i don't think the repainting of HM.bms that you will read about is needed)

 

Actually, the repainted hm bmps ARE necessary. I'm going through that now with the Isreal2 map (a pure coincidence - working on the 'missing' HAWKS, I noticed the 'sunken' ground objects, and other anomolies). So, along with the data ini edits, new hm bmps, I think I'll put the whole mod back into the factory, and fix a lot of other things...so expect YET ANOTHER upgrade for Isreal2 for WoI -- gotta bring it up to the newest standard. Like to add some tods with buildings, too.

what a PIA!!! as if I ain't go enough to do!!!

 

Fubar: any help would be appriciated. I changed the missile listings last night, and occasionally got an empty laucher or with only 1 missle one it. Me thinks it's a weaponsdata.ini issie with service years/type name

 

I think the issue with the carriers, expecially the older ones, is they were never brought to 'current' standards. Might want to let the DAT guys know that...

 

Wrench

kevin stein

[WombRaider 1]

It has been covered..it is about data.ini of terrains that need a little tweaking.

 

look at this topic, you should find extensive answers there READ THE ENTIRE THREAD. (i don't think the repainting of HM.bms that you will read about is needed)

 

http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showtopic=32413&hl=

 

 

NICE! That worked. I was looking at that value too, but I had other tries before that. Thanks for pointing me to that thread!

[Canadair 16]

Like the man said:

 

 

 

Actually, the repainted hm bmps ARE necessary. I'm going through that now with the Isreal2 map (a pure coincidence - working on the 'missing' HAWKS, I noticed the 'sunken' ground objects, and other anomolies). So, along with the data ini edits, new hm bmps, I think I'll put the whole mod back into the factory, and fix a lot of other things...so expect YET ANOTHER upgrade for Isreal2 for WoI -- gotta bring it up to the newest standard. Like to add some tods with buildings, too.

what a PIA!!! as if I ain't go enough to do!!!

 

Fubar: any help would be appriciated. I changed the missile listings last night, and occasionally got an empty laucher or with only 1 missle one it. Me thinks it's a weaponsdata.ini issie with service years/type name

 

I think the issue with the carriers, expecially the older ones, is they were never brought to 'current' standards. Might want to let the DAT guys know that...

 

Wrench

kevin stein

 

Oh wrench the hawk launchers partially loaded or empty. Had a similar problem in Formosa terrain, BUT BEFORE the setptember patch

 

 

Ah okei Wrench, remember in the quoted thread I asked you more the bloody repainted bmps. I am submerged by little things to tweak here and there, and I'll continue to share those that I deem intersting for the community. I fear it is a lost battle. There is so much that needs to be fixed, and has it happened to you things will pop up occasionally months from now.

Edited October 6, 2008 by Canadair

[Fubar512 1,350]

A quickie note for both the Isreal2 and IsrealME targets/AD mods...there seems to be something 'off' with the TMF's latest weapons pak HAWKs. They don't even show up in game.

 

 

Oooops!

 

[+malibu43 142]

Has anyone else noticed that SAM's in general seem to be a lot less accurate after the sept patch?

 

Fly an Iron Hand mission in WOV, set air defenses to heavy. Hit the autopilot to fly straight and level, and watch as the SA-2's take off all around you, but seem to by aimed/guided poorly. Flying straight and level, I'd say about 1 in 10 will actually hit. Try this with the old patch and you won't last long at all. I've seen similar issues with the SA-9 and SA-13; pre-patch if you flew straight and level over one you'd get toasted. Now they're nothing more than entertaining to watch as the smoke trails flail aimlessly around and behind your aircraft.

 

The data.ini's for the launchers and missiles used are the same pre and post patch, so is it possible this is something that's hardcoded into the sept 08 patch?

 

I haven't decided if I like the new SAM's or not. It makes missions over Hanoi a little more survivable, but Germany's less dense air defenses suffer from this. Maybe it's a little more realistic... I don't know. But I question if there's a point to adding SA-9's and SA-13's if they're just replacing a ZSU that has a better chance of hitting you...

[Fubar512 1,350]

Has anyone else noticed that SAM's in general seem to be a lot less accurate after the sept patch?

 

Fly an Iron Hand mission in WOV, set air defenses to heavy. Hit the autopilot to fly straight and level, and watch as the SA-2's take off all around you, but seem to by aimed/guided poorly.

 

1 for 10? At least in WoV, this is still not realistic, as it is certainly not in keeping with historical averages. The North Vietnamese launched well over 10000 SA-2s (even the Vietnamese aren't sure how many they fired off) during the course of the war, for a total of 196 kills. A Soviet advisor once commented to his superiors that "They shoot them off as if they're spraying the sky with machine gun bullets".

[+malibu43 142]

1 for 10? At least in WoV, this is still not realistic, as it is certainly not in keeping with historical averages. The North Vietnamese launched well over 10000 SA-2s (even the Vietnamese aren't sure how many they fired off) during the course of the war, for a total of 196 kills. A Soviet advisor once commented to his superiors that "They shoot them off as if they're spraying the sky with machine gun bullets".

 

Well, 1 in 10 was an estimate. The point was that they're a lot less accurate than I think they were before. However, to your point, after I posted, I found some stats that indicated during various campaigns in Vietnam, the accuracy was as low as 1.5% and up to 5-8%, I think. So maybe this change does make things much more realistic.

 

I still haven't found any info on the accuracy of SA-9's and or SA-13's. I know for sure that these are far less accurate after the latest patch (at least that's what my testing shows...). I'll keep looking...

[WombRaider 1]

Well, I have a small problem, that is effecting all of my afterburner planes.....

 

It seems that the afterburner is bigger on all of my aircraft. None are safe from this. It is a weird graphic error, it makes textures invisible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That, and this plane flies really goofy too, but I think I can get a handle on that.

 

Another thing is about all of my planes are working good, but the FA-18A keeps crashing the game when I end a mission! It is kinda frustrating, especially when you did good, or want to see just how many SAMs were shot at you. The FA-18A seems to be the only plane with that problem.

 

Any ideas on why the burners are bleeding, and the FA-18A keeps locking up the sim?

[arrow80 0]

Well, 1 in 10 was an estimate. The point was that they're a lot less accurate than I think they were before. However, to your point, after I posted, I found some stats that indicated during various campaigns in Vietnam, the accuracy was as low as 1.5% and up to 5-8%, I think. So maybe this change does make things much more realistic.

 

I still haven't found any info on the accuracy of SA-9's and or SA-13's. I know for sure that these are far less accurate after the latest patch (at least that's what my testing shows...). I'll keep looking...

Well, but that is really very bad comparison. The accuracy of "1.5% and up to 5-8%" reflects mostly targets that evaded the missiles. Against high flying non maneuvering target SA-2 should have much better accuracy. It is easy to evade SA-2, however if you don't do anything you should end up killed. SA-2s were a factor in vietnam, the problem was that the planes had to evade them, thus going defensive and spoiling missions and that was often enough. They wouldn't bother with wild weasel missions if it had accuracy of 1.5% against non maneuvering target.

[bcathey 0]

is anyone having this problem (no weapons in the loadout screen)

[MigBuster 2,884]

Sounds like you have installed a weapons pack - plenty of past threads about that on here already

[+malibu43 142]

Well, but that is really very bad comparison. The accuracy of "1.5% and up to 5-8%" reflects mostly targets that evaded the missiles. Against high flying non maneuvering target SA-2 should have much better accuracy. It is easy to evade SA-2, however if you don't do anything you should end up killed. SA-2s were a factor in vietnam, the problem was that the planes had to evade them, thus going defensive and spoiling missions and that was often enough. They wouldn't bother with wild weasel missions if it had accuracy of 1.5% against non maneuvering target.

 

Has anyone else noticed the same thing with the SAM's, or am I the only one?

[Kirsten 0]

Well, got WOI and WOE a few days ago and they are both running nicely on my obsolete computer. Both are patched up with the latest stuff. WOI is more or less left to its original standard (just a few planes added up to now + MF weapons pack) and WOE has the Brains/CA Stary/Cellinsky mix added and rather more extra planes from my big SFP1 install.

Imported aircraft are behaving well (including my beloved F16Davedoesn'twanttoknowanymoreabout WITH AG radar) and the big Bunyap WP (2200 items) is installed and running well. Lots of litlle things to add though but that is a matter of time.

Just wanted to say thanks to all of you with these 28 pages of usefull tips and good advice !!!!

 

Aju,

 

Derk

[+WhiteBoySamurai 1,094]

I've encountered a problem with the Fuel-Air Explosive bombs from Bunyap's weapon pack (CBU-55, CBU-72, etc.). They just fall straight through the ground without exploding. I used them extensively pre-patch (mostly because they looked cool... ), and they worked just fine, so I'm not sure what's wrong with them.

 

Nukes and cluster bombs do not share this issue. I've tried altering the Fuzing Distance and tested them on several different terrains, but no luck. Any thoughts?

[arrow80 0]

Has anyone else noticed the same thing with the SAM's, or am I the only one?

Well I've checked weapondata.ini file and accuracy of SA-2s is lowered by some 10% and also sustainer booster acceleration is considerably lower - so maybe that's the problem. However I found in campaigns that the number of SA-2 launchers in WOV is much much higher - so it is maybe just to compensate.

[Harry 0]

Bump from the wrong place. sry

 

I have the very fine 62 Cuba mod (OTC ) working well, terrain and all, in a patched fresh WOE install thanks to all the posts above. It would be perfect if I could get the JFK speech in the loading screen to play, but I'll skip that if only those Soviet operated SAM sites would start firing again. I've gotten plenty of flak thrown at me no SA-2 has been launched at me since I've been on the patched version. Weapons packs etc seem normal and the ini's are untouched from the original download.

Any thoughts ? I'm at a loss where else to look. Thanks, Bob

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,557]

Was a few weeks on vacation was a solution found for the watershader glitches problem?! It looks nasty

[+malibu43 142]

OK, I've got another question.

 

Pre-patch, an F-105 fully loaded with 6 m117's and fuel tanks will hit 815 kts indicated at sea level. Post patch, a clean 105 tops out about 605 kts indicated at sea level. Fully loaded is a little lower around 580 or so.

 

So, different on-line resources I looked at said the F-105 topped out at about 830 kts at sea level, which seems pretty close to the pre-patch number. Given that the pre-patch number is with a full strike loadout, the in game performance may be a little better than real life. However, I find it hard to believe that the post-patch number is a little lower than it should be (can't go supersonic at sea level in a clean jet).

 

Anyone more knowledgable on the subject want to confirm or deny this? Is the new f-105 more realistic, or is it porked now?

 

This is the stock F-105, btw. I haven't checked this with any other aircraft.

 

*edit* - FWIW, I dropped the old F-105 into my install with the latest patch and got the same results as I did in the pre-patch install, so it seems to be an issue with some of the new/different values in the 08 patch F-105. I did some level sea level cruising in the A-6A and got values that seem pretty close to what I got with the old patch, so it's not an issue with all aircraft, but the F-105 for sure. Any FM gurus know what numbers need to be tweaked to get faster performance?

Edited October 20, 2008 by malibu43

[+malibu43 142]

OK, I've got another question.

 

Pre-patch, an F-105 fully loaded with 6 m117's and fuel tanks will hit 815 kts indicated at sea level. Post patch, a clean 105 tops out about 605 kts indicated at sea level. Fully loaded is a little lower around 580 or so.

 

So, different on-line resources I looked at said the F-105 topped out at about 830 kts at sea level, which seems pretty close to the pre-patch number. Given that the pre-patch number is with a full strike loadout, the in game performance may be a little better than real life. However, I find it hard to believe that the post-patch number is a little lower than it should be (can't go supersonic at sea level in a clean jet).

 

Anyone more knowledgable on the subject want to confirm or deny this? Is the new f-105 more realistic, or is it porked now?

 

This is the stock F-105, btw. I haven't checked this with any other aircraft.

 

*edit* - FWIW, I dropped the old F-105 into my install with the latest patch and got the same results as I did in the pre-patch install, so it seems to be an issue with some of the new/different values in the 08 patch F-105. I did some level sea level cruising in the A-6A and got values that seem pretty close to what I got with the old patch, so it's not an issue with all aircraft, but the F-105 for sure. Any FM gurus know what numbers need to be tweaked to get faster performance?

 

Just to update on this, I started swapping out different sections of the data.ini to see where the issue is. I got the 08 patch thud to hit speeds comperable to the pre-patch version by pasting in the pre-patch FM parameters for the fueselage. that seems to have fixed it.

[+Brain32 265]

Speaking of FM's, the new F-15's have some probs, I noticed it immidiately but...it seems I am greatest F-15 nut here to actually do notice such a stuff... :D

 

Anyway F-15C MSIP and latest version of F-15E, have a nasty problem at about Mach 2.21, when you hit that speed the plane starts a violent pitch down(just noted -8,73G's) and after a few secs it explodes :helpsmilie:

 

NOTE: on hard mode and it did not happen before the patch...

[+Dave 2,322]

Speaking of FM's, the new F-15's have some probs, I noticed it immidiately but...it seems I am greatest F-15 nut here to actually do notice such a stuff... :D

 

Anyway F-15C MSIP and latest version of F-15E, have a nasty problem at about Mach 2.21, when you hit that speed the plane starts a violent pitch down(just noted -8,73G's) and after a few secs it explodes :helpsmilie:

 

NOTE: on hard mode and it did not happen before the patch...

 

I only tested and fly it in normal mode.

[+Brain32 265]

Yeah well...I'll try to fix that, if I prove to be incompetent for it(very likely lol) I'll try to beg it out of Fubar lol

[+Dave 2,322]

Yeah well...I'll try to fix that, if I prove to be incompetent for it(very likely lol) I'll try to beg it out of Fubar lol

 

Very rare do I fly in hard mode. Unless I am testing something for C5 or Fubar Fm wise. Otherwise its normal mode.