Looking for bases similar to the '10 New_SF1_airbases_v3.0' for WOE_V2?

[NIELS 421]

Are  there  bases  similar  to  the  '10 New_SF1_airbases_v3.0'  for  WOE_V2?

 

Thanks, NIELS

[Wrench 9,846]

and why would these not work??

think about it first...

 

(other than the fact they're nearly impossible to populate correctly due to lod orientation)

[NIELS 421]

If they do I'm not seeing them? I've inserted the entries in the appropriate ini's and have installed the attached files..........I'm thinking lod problem ie. SF1 vs SF2 compatibility, or missing SF1 terrain objects/tiles?  I probably missed a step?

 

"Ca-mon Wrench - please help me out"

 

Thanks, NIELS

[Wrench 9,846]

nope, they work just fine (as I removed them from the Formosa terrain, and returned it to 'stock bases' a couple of years ago for a small targets upgrade)

 

all items entered into the terrain's _types ini

items in _types ini have correct, sequential numbering

all items placed WITHIN the desired terrain folder

an airbase selected for replacement, from both lists, the "new" one's target area copy/pasted into the terrains _targets.ini

test mission created to fly over "new" base

adjust orientation as necessary (iirc, these are 90 deg OFF stock orientations)

[NIELS 421]

Thanks Wrench - Much appreciated.........'THE-MAN-IN-THE-KNOW'

 

Thanks for cutting me some slack and providing the needed details Wrench.

 

VR NIELS

Edited November 16, 2013 by NIELS

[NIELS 421]

Finally got them up and running. Took some fine tuning (checking). They are a bit sparse regarding objects, lights etc. They do look more like the European bases I've seen. Your right Wrench, the runway number signs are off regarding taxiway orientation, but everything else appears to be in proper direction. With a little object populating they should be a good addition to the WOE_V2 terrain.

 

Thanks again for your feedback Wrench......Always appreciated.

 

Vr NIELS

[Wrench 9,846]

because they're built of "pieces parts" and not one continuous lod, like the stock airfields. Ignore the heading numbers -- they mean nothing.
It's a pity we can't get the MAX files, and fuse them into a proper, one piece lod.

As to lack of "support structures", well... lets just say it wasn't in the original creator's mind to make it look like people would actually live and work on a base.

 

The orientation of the main lod (runway) is what sets the orientation direction for the entire airbase -- EVERYTHING that surrounds that 0/0 point is set (both offset and direction) by the N/S orientation of the runway lod. Difficulties WILL arise  placing 'support structures" with these due to the lack of a "pure 0/0 point" and proper orientation. It can be done (as I've done it), but it's a bitch and a half, and the end result just don't look quite right.

 

I'd also ditch those "GFD12s" and use the shelters from the Airfield Dev Kits. No only are they better looking, but you can put things inside them (if one can figure out the parking offsets) -which I have around here SOMEWHERES....

[+Gepard 11,289]

I made the bases as simple as possible to make them useable also for slower computers, like mine. If i would populate them with tons of additional objects, they surely would be nice looking, but i would be unable to test them, because my fps rate would drop into the bottom.

And of course i would like to use the fine bunkers which were made for SF2, but unfortunatly they dont work with first gen sims. With this new objects it would be easier to give each AB a unique face.

 

I dont see any problems if someone wants to add some new additionally objects. With WoX i have no problems with rotating the base in the wished direction. All placed objects will be at the correct place.

BUT there is a little trick neccessary if you want to do this.

 

The last 3 lines of each base are:

 

//----SLB 2
Target[074].Type=SLB2000
Target[074].Offset=88.00,64.00
Target[074].Heading=0

 

or similar.

 

SLB is  the german term for Start-und Landebahn = Runway. SLB2000 means this is a runway with a lenght of 2000 meters. This is defined in types.ini. I used it to cover the base, so that you dont see the taxiways looing into the runway.

This 3 lines must be ALWAYS the last 3 lines. If you add new object, then you must paste them above this 3 lines and then renumber the whole with the correct sequence number.

 

If you dont make this step, the game will orientate the new objects on the second runway, and so they would be placed at the wrong position.

 

I hope my english is good enough, to have explained it understandable.

 

 

 

 

[NIELS 421]

Good idea regarding the GFD12s Wrench, and thank you for the info regarding orientation reference. I'm going to mess around a bit with these but its taking away from flying time. I can see how mod builders can get burned out with working the details of these additions. I hope one day there is a "user friendly" tool like the 'SwampBast' tool mentioned in the forums for object placement.

 

Thanks again for your feedback and fantastic support of these air combat sims

 

NIELS

Thanks Gepard - Super job on the several different base builds. Yes these are fine additions and cool 'workable' bases for both the SF2, and Wox_V2 series. Again, I wish there was a more 'user friendly' tool for object placement............Maybe someday.

 

Thanks again for the feedback - much appreciated,   NIELS

[Wrench 9,846]

excelleant Gepard!!! that's answers some issues I'd had some years back with them. Now we Know!!

That now allows me (or another) to "fill in the blanks" for service/support structures, barracks, and the like

 

 

 

his 3 lines must be ALWAYS the last 3 lines. If you add new object, then you must paste them above this 3 lines

 

that's a NEAT trick, if I do say so myself!! Oddly, that's exactly opposite of how TK did it, with the runway lod first, allowing for rotation in any direction, and dragging all the other objects along with it!

Edited November 17, 2013 by Wrench

[+Gepard 11,289]

TK has only one runway. I put two runways at the same place.

An other methode it would be to define a "dummy" cover runway, which dont get the runway entry in the types.ini.