Baltika

Hi Jinji-chan, These will get you started. Soviet comms mod by Fubar512: http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autoc...um=10&st=50 Russian Speech pack by Gramps: http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autoc...p;showfile=2839

Excellent work Thanks very much for this

Wrench, You bet That is one great skin

Hi dsawan, This is a completely new terrain build which I am working up from scratch. At the moment it is designed for use with stock WoE textures, so any of the WoE repaints should work fine with this. As Operation Zitadel took place in July-August, I don't think there is any need to use a winter tileset. I have been slightly distracted by a modern Northern European scenario of late, but I will still be taking this forward to release. Timescale is tricky to estimate, but I have learned a lot about TE since I first battered out that Iceland 2015 beta. I am working up a Zitadel campaign to go with this, which actually now needs a terrain to take it to the next stage, so hopefully that will spur me on. I'm starting to think I am trying to juggle too many projects at once here

Yup, I think you've summed it up pretty well, lazboy - 3 versions are required. Although each "time-zone" has its appeal (and I tend to lean towards the WW2 side myself) the broad consensus seems to be towards making a bang-up-to-date modern build. Cold war scenario can be catered for with a relatively straightforward alternative .ini set, changing the frontline and alignments of certain countries/airbases. WW2 era is likely to involve rather more work in terms of operational airfields, their sizes, period-specific ground objects etc, etc so I will leave that on the back-burner for now, as I have a number of other WW2 terrain projects on the go. So the way forward first off will be for modern day. That may require some messing with alignments in the NATIONS.ini, as I am sure the cold war alignments are stock, but that can be optional for the individual user. I can run parallel development of a cold-war .ini set pretty easily. A WW2 version can be put together further down the line. Cheers all, Baltika

Very nice, thanks very much

Hi heck, Glad you're enjoying the campaign, thanks for the heads-up re the 109E-3. Somewhere in the distant past B Bandy RFC & I had a discussion about the variants of the 109 which flew in BoB, their armament and their engines, etc. I stuck my head under the hood of the FM and poked around a little, and certainly the points you raise are all valid. Bandy also produced an E-1 FM developed from Russo's E-3 _data.ini, but I don't think that made it into BoB v0.60. The Emil variants included in the BoB campaign pack were built by Russo, and he does mention that he took a "generic" approach to things like armament, rather than go down the path of multiple versions for every little difference. It looks to my untrained eye a lot like the base FM for the Emil has similarities with WOLF257's Gustav (things like unloaded weight seem pretty close to the mark for that model) so it may be the Emil in the BoB pack is overweight, but also overpowered, and certainly overgunned so far as the nose-cannon is concerned. I got as far as modifying an alpha FM from the base Emil with the proper engines, thrust values, dry weights etc etc but as ever, RL and other stuff got in the way so it wasn't taken further. Also, that stuff is complicated I recently was given a present of the Bf-109 recognition manual with blueprints, specs, data and all sorts of useful hard info on all the variants, and hopefully will get around to incorporating some of that into a new set of FMs covering the variants which appeared in BoB. Something else for the changelog for BoB v0.61 - just don't hold your breath

Just thought of another issue, your views would be appreciated:- lazboy mentions flying Polish F-16s, which raises the question of the default alignment for each of the nations featured in the map. In my development build I have the border drawn more or less at its old cold-war limits, with certain Eastern European nations, including Poland, designated as "ENEMY" for game purposes. Where should the border be in the final version? 2008 NATO membership? Cold-war borders and alignments? Or some other combination? As ever, input appreciated :yes:

Hi lazboy, Thanks for putting the schedule together, that is a great piece of work in itself and an invaluable resource Like I said, it frees up time I would otherwise have to spend on research to do important stuff like actually siting the bases on the map. Great work, Cheers

Thanks for the info and suggestions, everyone. RAF bases at Lossiemouth, Kinloss and Leuchars now operational. Leeuwarden also up and running, and I am working on the rest of the bases in Holland suggested by Kirsten and lazboy - thanks for the lat/long co-ordinates, that is a tremendous help. Placing cities/airbases inland away from obvious coastal features is tricky, and that gives me an extremely useful yardstick to find them on Google earth - even if some bases have been "hexed" on that map. Weird, but the RAF don't seem so concerned about "security." I was extremely depressed to find that all of the useful information about airfields on Iceland has disappeared from Google Earth, and as that was my main research tool, it is a bit of a knock. Like a lot of these things, the info is still available if you want it, it just inconveniences the general (law-abiding) public. Ho-hum. Rant over. I am planning on a beta release to give everyone something to fly over and provide feedback on, so for now I am using stock WoE bases. That will hopefully change in the updated versions. Keep those suggestions coming. If you have a favourite base you want to fly out of, post it up here and it will go in the map. Cheers all, Baltika

Thanks for the suggestions and encouragement, everyone. Was thinking about likely places for Soviet airbases and had a long, hard look at various detailed atlas projections of Northern Europe. I also went back to GIMP and started stretching the height field .bmp something terrible. We now have a new build of the basic terrain, but it's going to have to be called North-Norwegian-Baltic Sea terrain Finally realised my handle here may finally have some relevance to my modding, as opposed to my taste in beer Anyway, here's where it's at:- I am still having some tiling issues around the coasts, particularly for cities. I will also have to tweak the height-field .bmp to get the fjords to be, fjords. That will take a bit of time. Also, as we cover a much larger geographical area, Scandinavia in general looks a bit, well, green. But I am not about to start another tiling project or this will never see the light of day. Fear not, England is next on the list for target treatment, but I am nearing the end of my current window of opportunity, probably til after the weekend. So I thought I would post this update to whet everyone's appetite :yes: There are currently two working airbases, for testing purposes. Airfield placement is going to be a big job. The projection of the UK may appear a little more stretched than you are used to. This is as a result of getting Scandinavia to work. Relative distances are still reasonably close, in that the distances from the top to bottom of the British Isles, and from Edinburgh to Saint Petersburg, seem fairly close to the mark in relative terms. I believe the expression is, "Close enough for government work." Looking back at the original map I posted here, the UK looks rather squashed to me. I am starting to understand the problems of map-makers trying to express a 3-d surface on a 2d image. Essentially we are looking at a compromise, but I think this will open up a much greater range of scenario options. Also, I am starting to realise that the shape of landmasses as they appear on a map has a lot to do with the particular projection being used. Cheers for now, Baltika

WIP North Sea terrain, basic build:- Finally managed to sort out my autotiling woes with, well, WoE - of course, it was my own fault, I had missed out a single coastal .tga tile for conversion to .bmp format for TE to read. Duh Currently having some issues getting the fjords to tile properly. I am having to hand-edit the height field .bmp to get something TE will read as a continual waterway. Then, there are no sea to snow transitions, so the mountains end up crossing the fjords anyway when I hit "transition texture." But I will work something out. The area covered by the map is a compromise. Even at these latitudes, the DEM data is compressed in the North-South axis. I have had to compensate by cutting out a piece of Norway and manually "stretching" the .bmp until it looks more like it really should. Even so, it's not perfect. For that reason I had to abandon an effort to make a proper GIUK gap map, as Iceland looked totally squashed. For Iceland 2015 I had to stretch the map to get a proper projection, and TE will give a fair approximation of the UK as it is further south. When you try to stretch only certain sections of the map, it all gets too complicated, for variable results. Also, that map had Iceland top left, and the coast of Africa along the bottom, and everything in between. Way too big to be practical. So this will have to do. Once I get the basic .HFD sorted, I will add a couple more airbases, target areas and carrier stations for each side and post a beta for fun/testing purposes. Time to look out that OOB for Hitler's Invasion of Norway :yes: Cheers all, Baltika

I am more than happy to feed the DEM data into TE and crank out a basic terrain covering the discussed region. For a number of reasons I think my emphasis would have to be on the North Sea scenario, not least because it covers an area I have looked at already in my early TE experiments after the publication of Gepard's guide, it marries up with my own interests (thinking about that WW2 invasion of Norway 1940 campaign :yes: ), and probably most importantly, covering a huge area in the North/South axis would emphasise the terrain distance distortion effect I referred to above. For the latter reason in particular, I think it's best to cover the Spain/Portugal/France scenario on a separate map. I will leave it to someone else to take up that particular challenge. So, work will start on a "North Sea" terrain, covering Britain (mainly Scotland, and East coast) extending across to Norway. lazboy makes a good point, which is to say contributions by way of information about relevant bases and their locations would be most welcome. That would be a good way to make a division of labour which would speed things up enormously. So, if you have knowledge about bases, etc you want to see included, post it here. That would free up time I would otherwise have to spend on research to concentrate on putting things in the terrain. Now, my first specific request is, how far east does this map have to go to give us appropriate bases for all these long-range Russian bombers? Where were they actually based? 2nd question: The EAW converted map (1960s Europe and WW2 Europe versions) by FNG2K, Edward, Charles, MajorLee et al is decidedly rectangular in shape, covering far more ground in the x-axis than the y-axis (or East-West vs North-South). I think this is particularly suitable for what's being proposed here, and would help reduce the distance distortion effect as you progress further North. But, TE produces square maps. So, to make the map bigger, you cover a larger area in both axes, and you re-introduce that distortion effect. Anyone know how to make a rectangular map? Cheers all, Baltika

Wrench makes a good point - perhaps a more extensive map would be better before a lot of time is spent on placing bases, target areas etc What sort of region are we talking about? Suggestions? Part of the problem with covering a very large area heading towards the north pole is that distances in the longitude plane get "stretched" when you place them on a 2D map which is, by definition, not spherical in shape. My early experiments with a Scandinavia terrain ran into this problem, distances were distorted the further north you go. I hit on this as a reasonable compromise between overall area covered and keeping the distances relatively 'even' or constant over the whole map (thinking about EF2000 obviously ) but looking at it again now, it seems a bit "cramped" at the edges. Again, it's not gone further than a couple of airbases, because those fjords are hell to tile properly (sure are fun to fly down though ):-

Rgr that, Will knock it into shape (it needs a movement .ini, planning maps, existing airbases flattened, a proper _targets.ini, etc etc) and post it up here. It's more like an alpha v0.00001, so be warned

Something like this Full-scale terrain based on Gepard's TE tutorials, as posted right here in the KB? Now, I have far too many terrain/campaign/skinning projects on the go to do anything with this in the foreseeable future, and I will nail my colours to the mast and say I cranked this out purely to have fun flying over Scotland, so development of bases/cities/rivers etc south of the border will have to be taken up by those with an interest in that. All it has is a few working airfields - in the general vicinity of RAF Leuchars, and at Edinburgh & Dublin, and a couple at Scatsta and Torshavn for the bad guys (yes the UK is being invaded by those pesky Faroe Islanders ) And the major Scottish towns & cities, hand-tiled as I can't get TE to autotexture the things properly, which is part of the reason I haven't taken it any further. My point is probably this: The TE used to be a bit of shot in the dark, as only a few who had spent a lot of time working it out really knew how to put things together. Now, thanks to Gepard's tutorials, really anybody can set up a terrain to fly over relatively quickly. Target placement is a whole other issue, fair enough, and very time consuming. I must admit I am a bit embarrassed about my Iceland 2015 beta, as it really is in very early stages of development, and perhaps shouldn't have been released at all in the state it is in. I have been surprised by the level of interest in terms of d/ls. But, if there is an interest in a similarly underdeveloped UK beta, I can knock this into shape for release and post it here, with all the .ini files (CityList mainly) needed to take it further for those who are keen to do so. Cheers all, Baltika. PS, I know people get fed up hearing it, but the KB really is your friend

@Wrench, PM sent. Cheers

Oh yes Been looking forward to this one for a while

There is a way to do it in TE. Of course, you need the base terrain set up in TE first for modding. Then, follow Deuce's tutorial for placement of trees using the TE interface and you can add all the trees you want to a particular tile. The new TOD file generated by TE will over-write the old one, et viola, lots of new trees on your old tile. Watch our for the bug which causes a single object to show up at the corner of the tile when you save the tod. You have to save, delete the last object placed, and save again to remove the random object. Can look odd when you are placing buildings on port facilities - "What's that shack doing out in the water????" I have been experimenting with this feature for my WIP custom tileset for Iceland terrain, placing buildings on new city/farm/port tiles, so it does work. If there are any trees at all on the Edward's terrain, you can just populate the tile with more of the same. Or, we can ask CA_Stary to work his green hell magic for the pacific

Had to take a break from Burma Air War. Sometimes you get too involved Anyway, three solid days "break" later:- Currently awaiting clearance in the combatace campaign download hospitality lounge This is more or less completely UN-playtested, so those with an interest consider yourselves drafted. I have been at pains to try to re-create the ground war as it developed, with landings in north Luzon, followed by flanking attacks further south, and a last, heroic stand on Corregidor. Whether the campaign engine can actually handle that is another question, but it all starts out well enough. I have also endeavoured to ensure a historical outcome. In other words, welcome to my take on the Kobayashi Maru scenario. Fly well, shoot down your enemies, complete your missions. . . And watch the enemy ground forces creep ever closer as your squadron strength diminishes, with no hope of replacements. You could always take the Captain Kirk approach, and re-program the simulator to allow you to win - but that would be cheating You know who you are Don't worry, the Brits are in for a thorough thrashing in Burma First person to see the US victory screen - at the end of the campaign - gets to work out where my programming went wrong. All comments, feedback, suggestions, gripes etc most welcome. If I've missed out the unit your grandfather served with - blame wikipedia, but drop me a line and I'll fix it. Cheers all, Baltika

Hi Jinji-chan, You may want to try scrapper's "The Dragon" campaign for Gepard's Formosa terrain, as it features exactly the scenario you describe.

Glad to be of help Cheers, Baltika

Yes, absolutely right

Flyable squadrons in campaign mode are called out by the entries in the [campaign].ini file (as opposed to the [campaign]_data.ini file). You do not need a separate terrain folder. You can specify red and blue side flyable, or only one or the other. Here's an example from my PAW Philippines campaign:- Text of PAW1.ini file: [CampaignData] CampaignName=Battle of the Philippines <--- what appears on campaign selection screen DataFile=PAW1_data.ini <---- calls out the data file which lists all your squadrons, ground units etc CampaignMap=Philippines1941 <----------- Specifies the map the campaign will use Service001=USAF } Service002=Philippines } Service003=Japanese Empire } This section lists all the services which are available as flyable at the campaign selection screen. The name of each service must match a nation as defined in the NATIONS.INI file, found in the /Flight folder. [uSAFUnit001] <---- 1st USAF unit. The format is [NATIONNAMEUnitxxx], to match your list of flyable services. UnitName=3rd Pursuit Squadron ForceID=1 <---- corresponds to Force00x as defined in campaign_data.ini. This entry makes the unit Red or Blue, depending on how you have numbered the Forces in your campaign_data.ini file. UnitID=1 <---- This calls out the first Force001 air unit as listed in your campaign_data.ini file StartDate=1941 DescFile=3PSDesc.txt StartText=PAW1_Start.txt CampaignBaseScreen=PAW1_3PS_Base.bmp CampaignEndWinScreen=PAW1USWin.bmp CampaignEndLoseScreen=PAW1USLose.bmp CampaignEndWinText=PAW1_End.txt CampaignEndLoseText=PAW1_End.txt // And so on for the rest of the blue side units, as follows: [uSAFUnit002] UnitName=20th Pursuit Squadron ForceID=1 UnitID=3 <------------ calls out the third Force001 unit StartDate=1941 DescFile=20PSDesc.txt StartText=PAW1_Start.txt CampaignBaseScreen=PAW1_20PS_Base.bmp CampaignEndWinScreen=PAW1USWin.bmp CampaignEndLoseScreen=PAW1USLose.bmp CampaignEndWinText=PAW1_End.txt CampaignEndLoseText=PAW1_End.txt [uSAFUnit003] UnitName=34th Pursuit Squadron ForceID=1 UnitID=5 <------ This calls out the 5th Force001 unit, and so forth. StartDate=1941 DescFile=34PSDesc.txt StartText=PAW1_Start.txt CampaignBaseScreen=PAW1_34PS_Base.bmp CampaignEndWinScreen=PAW1USWin.bmp CampaignEndLoseScreen=PAW1USLose.bmp CampaignEndWinText=PAW1_End.txt CampaignEndLoseText=PAW1_End.txt [uSAFUnit004] UnitName=28th Bombardment Squadron ForceID=1 UnitID=6 StartDate=1941 DescFile=28BSDesc.txt StartText=PAW1_Start.txt CampaignBaseScreen=PAW1_28BS_Base.bmp CampaignEndWinScreen=PAW1USWin.bmp CampaignEndLoseScreen=PAW1USLose.bmp CampaignEndWinText=PAW1_End.txt CampaignEndLoseText=PAW1_End.txt [PhilippinesUnit001] UnitName=PAAF 6th Pursuit Squadron ForceID=1 UnitID=10 StartDate=1941 DescFile=6PSDesc.txt StartText=PAW1_Start.txt CampaignBaseScreen=PAW1_6PS_Base.bmp CampaignEndWinScreen=PAW1USWin.bmp CampaignEndLoseScreen=PAW1USLose.bmp CampaignEndWinText=PAW1_End.txt CampaignEndLoseText=PAW1_End.txt //----------------------------------------------------------------- [Japanese EmpireUnit001] <---------- First red side flyable unit UnitName=Ryujo Kanjo Sentokitai ForceID=2 <----- Corresponds to Force00x as defined in Campaign_data.ini UnitID=21 <-------- THIS IS THE TRICKY BIT. The numbering system for units starts over again at 1 for Force002 units. So this entry calls out the 21st Force002 air unit listed in your campaign_data.ini file, NOT the 21st air unit as listed in your campaign_data.ini file. StartDate=1941 DescFile=RKSDesc.txt StartText=PAW1_Start.txt CampaignBaseScreen=PAW1_RKS_Base.bmp CampaignEndWinScreen=PAW1JapWin.bmp CampaignEndLoseScreen=PAW1JapLose.bmp CampaignEndWinText=PAW1_End.txt CampaignEndLoseText=PAW1_End.txt [Japanese EmpireUnit002] UnitName=Ryujo Kanjo Kogekikitai ForceID=2 UnitID=22 StartDate=1941 DescFile=RKKDesc.txt StartText=PAW1_Start.txt CampaignBaseScreen=PAW1_RKK_Base.bmp CampaignEndWinScreen=PAW1JapWin.bmp CampaignEndLoseScreen=PAW1JapLose.bmp CampaignEndWinText=PAW1_End.txt CampaignEndLoseText=PAW1_End.txt It will be clear from my Philippines campaign that you can fly both red side and blue side units. Same holds true for all of the campaigns I have released. Take a look at the [campaign].ini file and the campaign_data.ini file to see how the flyable units are called out. Any questions, fire away. Cheers, Baltika

Thanks