New entrys on SF2 NA

[+gerwin 451]

Escorts showed up for me.

Yes I see them now, but only if I do NOT enter the mission editor. Not entirely sure yet... The editor may also be causing the 4 identical ships in the exact same place bug.

 

the waterworld is just my WW2 Marianas ... hmm...need to test that in my PTO install...next question is ... are the carriers working??? IF they start workin, it's an easy fix to edit the targets ini . Mymy... Mariana Turkey Shoot time!!

If you ever feel like working on waterwold and releasing an update, maybe you can include the heightmap and tilemap I have been adjusting. Just notify me and I will send them.

[+Dave 2,322]

Yes I see them now, but only if I do NOT enter the mission editor. Not entirely sure yet... The editor may also be causing the 4 identical ships in the exact same place bug.

Same here, if don't use the editor I get them.

[+SkateZilla 49]

Same here, if don't use the editor I get them.

 

TK already confirmed that the Mission Editor wasnt updated to use the new Ship Formations, which causes groups of ships to spawn inside of each other.

[Wrench 9,826]

anyone else, who player "eariler era stuff" notice that no carriers are available before 1956?? Even those we have already (WW2/Korea wise)???

 

that's a bit of a bummer....expecailly for KAW

[+Stary 2,427]

nust be ini entry somewhere as all TW titles timeframe starts in 1956 by default (expansion packs that is), if so easy to fix Kevin

[Wrench 9,826]

well, I've gone though all that I can find, most expecially the Optionsini (this is in particular reference for KAW). The terrain itself has no start/end dates, so is available for all eras....

 

even with updated carriers (the BATAAN CVL, capun's CV-9, and Coral Sea -- which all fall in the 1942-1955 timeframe) they ain't working.

 

Is this the final Death Knell for us propheads? No carrier action in the Pacific (or MTO!), and 1950s Korea??

 

gotta be something newly hard-coded, methinks. I've looked at literly every ini in all the mission/flight cats

Edited March 30, 2012 by Wrench

[+Stary 2,427]

Kevin first and foremost I'd wait for a patch... secondly, do not panic, we'll find a workaround or fix, tell you it must be something simple... nations start dates for example? Remember using old ww-2/Korea specific files in new installments is not the good thing sometimes, as some of the files we used to have are years old -WW2 ini stuff!

[+ST0RM 145]

I got the "Coral Sea/CV-43" to work last night. Not prior to 1956 mind you, but the start date for the ship was 1947 to 1990. Mission date was 1980.

[Wrench 9,826]

I possed The Question, over at 3rdWire, and got a good response from Charles ... basically, rebuild all the ships to the new standard (that's a given!), make sure there's the new style water bmps (or water bmps with 'naval regions, also a given!) and build all mods folder that you want carriers in/on from the SF2:NA exe (the rename, run, thingy).

 

which works (testing all day so far with KAW*) .. but is kinda odd, as I have the Icelamb map working it SF2, albeit post-56,, the Persian Gulf map and a couple of others, asll in SF2.

 

SO, it definatley looks more of a boat issue. Still a pisser though

 

 

*but didn't exactly explain WHY the SCB-125s, with backdated data and names inis didn't show)

[+JonathanRL 974]

I have managed to trigger a Crusie Missile correctly, but is there anybody who knows how to make a ship actually fire on them? The Stationary Object Ships I use just does not want to.

 

EDIT:

Tested with Krivaks, who shoot down the missile at once.

 

EDIT2:

It is a radar issue. The ships must be able to see the object to hit it.

Edited April 1, 2012 by JonathanRL

[+Brain32 265]

Anybody got Ulyanovsk to work?

I tried some amaterish tweaks and my game crashed lol

[KJakker 900]

Did anyone else catch this error in bold below? USS Texas (CGN-39) was a Virginia-class cruiser not a California-class. I think we could use a Virginia-class cruiser to rectify this situation.

 

From "CAMPAIGNNA1_DATA.INI".

 

 

[NavalUnit001]

UnitName=Nimitz Carrier Group

ForceID=1

Nation=USN

RandomChance=100

MaxObjects=7

Experience=100

Morale=100

Supply=100

Intelligence=0

StartPosition=225000.0,212000.0

ObjectivePosition=560000.0,380000.0

HomePortPosition=0.0,200000.0

Ship[01].Type=CVN-68

Ship[01].Name=USS Nimitz

Ship[01].Number=78

Ship[01].Texture=USNGrey1

Ship[02].Type=CGN-36

Ship[02].Name=USS California

Ship[02].Number=36

Ship[02].Texture=USNGrey1

Ship[03].Type=CGN-36

Ship[03].Name=USS Texas

Ship[03].Number=39

Ship[03].Texture=USNGrey1

Ship[04].Type=Spruance

Ship[04].Name=USS Caron

Ship[04].Number=970

Ship[04].Texture=USNGrey1

Ship[05].Type=Spruance

Ship[05].Name=USS Comte de Grasse

Ship[05].Number=974

Ship[05].Texture=USNGrey1

Ship[06].Type=Spruance

Ship[06].Name=USS John Rodgers

Ship[06].Number=983

Ship[06].Texture=USNGrey1

Ship[07].Type=Spruance

Ship[07].Name=USS Peterson

Ship[07].Number=969

Ship[07].Texture=USNGrey1

[+WhiteBoySamurai 1,094]

Does anyone know what the loadout name is for "ESCORT_JAMMER" missions? I added it to third party EA-6B and EA-18G, but they're showing up completely unarmed when on that mission type. There's got to be a way to add a specific loadout for them.

[+SupGen 79]

I extracted the ini. files for the stock EA-6B, in the Data file, PrimaryRoles=ESCORT_JAMMER, in the Loadout file the only Loadout is SEAD, two AGM-45A's. Hope that's helpful.

[+SkateZilla 49]

they escort and they jam? <shrug>

[+WhiteBoySamurai 1,094]

Yeah, I extracted them too, but I've never seen the stock Prowler carry those Shrikes (or anything else for that matter) under the wings.The Growler doesn't carry its SEAD loadout on escort missions either. I'd like to see them carry some ALQ-99s or at least drop tanks.

 

On a related note, do you suppose escort jammers are actually useful in game? Does ECM have an effective radius around the aircraft now, as opposed to just protecting itself? Or maybe they're supposed to just draw fire? :shrug:

[+SkateZilla 49]

you'd have to get into TKs head to see what he's thinking in that regard.