KingAlbert

The last week I haven't played any flight simulation. My addiction is getting the better of me. But now I discovered a group of friends suffering from the same disease and who are willing to stick together.

Please help us

http://kingalbertstories.blogspot.com/2008/10/addiction.html

Thank you for your support

for the last couple of days I have been testing the campaign with VF-32. You can read a full report on my blog, but I already discovered some items i need to fix:

1/ no weapons for certain aircraft

2/ target area out of bound

3/ end screens not working properly

Below are some ingame action shots (did you notice who's the pilot?).

I made another weekly update on my blog. This time it's not directly about the sim but about the tools I use:

1. Notepad

2. Pen and Paper

3. ToDoList

(I did hide the terrain reference, since I still want to keep it secret )

Happy Flying

Awesome!

 

Hey king Albert, could you post all files to use this camera with F-14?

I remeber while ago you did for A-7

 

 

Very nice!

This is the link to the original tutorial I wrote (with the A-7 as example): http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showtopic=21129

PM or post if something is not clear,

I just like to share this video: Carrier Trials - Mirage Factory F-14's aboard Digital-Overloads CVN-75

Another update on this campaign.

Using the CVN-75 from Digital-Overload the US Navy is ready for some action and I have a short movie to proof it. Just click on one of the icons below for the version you want.

-> goto my blog and watch the embedded movie (at the bottom of the post)

-> download from filefront

Happy Flying

He, I'm interested in that! How is it done?

follow this link: http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showtopic=21129

It's the original tutorial I wrote. If you have questions or need help, PM me.

Nice movie tflash! What's the name of that song?

May I also make some suggestions (most of it are comments I got myself when making movies)

1/ avoid mouse panning

2/ outside views: the stock views available in the thirdwire sims are limited, but with a little bit of work[/ you can add additional views which allow you to "place camera's" underneath wings, above cockpits etc.

The thirdwire sims are not easy for moviemaking (certainly compared to il-2 and lomac) but your movie is proof it can be done.

Did you know that Wings Over Europe contains a carrier and you don't need a copy of WOV to use it! You can install the carrier but it will require some work.

First you will need a cat file extractor.

Step 1

If you use the extractor to view the object cat file (\objects\objectdata.cat) you will find a series of files that start with CV-63 or CV63. Extract all these files and drop them into a newly created directory CVA-63 (which you should create in \Objects\GroundObject\).

Step 2

Create a file in that directory which you call CVA-63.ini, this file is required to tell the game where it can find the different lod's and bmp's for the carrier.

Step 3

In that CVA-63.ini you need to paste following data:

[GroundObjectData]
ObjectName=CVA-63
ObjectFullName=CVA-63
ObjectDataFile=CVA-63_DATA.INI

[LOD001]
Filename=CV-63.LOD
Distance=600

[LOD002]
Filename=CV-63_LOD002.LOD
Distance=800

[LOD003]
Filename=CV-63_LOD003.LOD
Distance=1000

[LOD004]
Filename=CV-63_LOD004.LOD
Distance=2000

[LOD005]
Filename=CV-63_LOD005.LOD
Distance=15000

[LOD006]
Filename=CV-63_LOD006.LOD
Distance=30000

[Shadow]
CastShadow=FALSE
ShadowLOD=CV-63_SHADOW.SHD
ShadowType=1
ShadowCastDist=10000
MaxVisibleDistance=150

Step 4

To install the carriers in a campaign or or single mission follow these instructions and now you can fly from carriers in WOE without needing a copy of WOV.

PS1 A tutorial for the cat extractor can be found here.

PS2 I did not test this for Strike Fighters or WOI, have a look in their cat files and you might be lucky.

PS3 Here is proof that this method worked, after installation I made a short flight off the decks of the Kitty Hawk.

Hey King Albert,

 

I just read your design document, and I have a couple comments:

 

1. No ground war?!?! For some people, myself included, CAS missions are the most fun to fly, and the ground war gives the campaign more of a sense of purpose. For me personally, I feel like without a ground war I may as well just play a bunch of randomly generated single missions with the aircraft and missions type I want, verses playing through an entire campaign.

 

2. As you said yourself, the time frame and aircraft you're using are from the "Desert Storm" era. A big group of guys is (hopefully soon) releasing a stand alone install for this conflict that is very much anticipated.

 

I don't think this means in any way that someone else who is interested should not attempt their own mod concerning similar aircraft/time frame/theaters, but you did mention specifically that you wanted to create a buzz about your next project. In my opinion (and that's all it is), having a well hyped competing mod comming out around the same time combined with the lack of a ground war might result in not getting the buzz you're looking for.

 

I hope these comments aren't perceived as being too negative and I really don't want to discourage anyone from modding. I've spent lots of time re-doing something someone else has already done just because I wanted something specific done a little differently, and I see nothing wrong with that and don't think you shouldn't do it if that's what you want to do. Just wanted to put my 2 cents in, though...

 

Looking forward to seeing what you come up with!

thx malibu43 for your comment, don't worry I don't perceive them as negative

I know that there is a team working on a desert storm mod and it's not my intention to go into direct competition with them. First of all they are in a group and I am all alone and surely their combined experience will outweigh my experience. The main reason for not including a ground campaign is that I am working on my own: I don't have others to fall back on for guidance or testing, so those parts of the campaign where I am not proficient enough or lack time to test, are cut.

But that does not mean that CAS missions will disappear. I know that F-111's went on tank-plinking missions during the Gulf War, destroying fixed Iraqi tank positions. Those kind of missions are on my agenda, but i think they will fall under strike missions.

Another form of CAS are missions to support Special Forces, stuck behind enemy lines. Again I will have to check how I can encorporate these kind of missions.

As for my schedule, this is the route i want to take:

1/ install allied aircraft (I am busy doing that)

2/ install enemy aircraft

3/ install/edit ground units (SAM, AAA etc) on the terrain

4/ add additional scenery on the terrain

5/ figure out how to install those special missions (tank plinking, SF support)

6/ test the allied side

7/ test the red side (because some people showed interest in a red flyable campaign)

8/ write the manual (yep I intend to write an Allied Manual,an enemy order of battle and a weapons manual)

9/ release the damn thing

Oh yeah and I want to post from time to time on my blog too.

PILOTSKINS

For my campaign I use AmokFloo's Western Style Pilot Models.

You can read more on why and how I use his work to customize squadrons and aircraft on my blog. If you want an overview of all campaign articles I wrote or will write, visit the WIP¨- Unamed Campaign Page.

Here are some images of the different pilotskins I created using AmakFloo's models.

I started working on my second campaign for the thirdwire series. Instead of creating a topic, each time I have to announce something, I would use this single topic to make the announcements while the full articles would be published on my blog.

unlike my previous campaign I started of with writing a design document.

The campaign will take place between 1985 and 1995, as player you will have the ability to fly at least 10 aircraft on the blue side on a 3rd party terrain.

For the time being I won't reveal neither exact timeframe or location of the campaign, but I can already divulge that the Tomcat will be included.

Postmortems are part of most sowtware development processes. I did the same for my WOE:BC campaign. The full postmortem is available on my blog but I wanted to post my conclusion to hear from the other campaign developpers.

Based on what went right and wrong, my next campaign should follow these rules:

1/ 3rd party terrain: the terrain should be available at combat ace, so that all iterations of SF and WOx can play the campaign

2/ aircraft: same as the terrain, all aircraft should be part of the stocklist of all SF/WOx iterations or should be available at combat ace

3/ limited choice of aircraft: the player should only be able to choose out of a limited number of aircraft, with as few squadrons as possible, yet the number of aircraft types should be as wide as possible.

4/ small size enemy: the enemy too must have a limited number of aircraft (both in quantity and versions)

5/ short duration: the campaign should be short, both from a testing pov as to invite the player to replay the campaign with all the aircraft.

6/ Unique Aircraft: Aircraft have to be challenging. Each different iterations of the game comes with the run of the mill aircraft (F-15, F-4, F-16) for which most players have the "been there - done that" feeling. Aircraft should be special ie carrier operations with F-14, bomb runs with F-15E etc.

7/ Red Side possibility: The player should be able to fly also on the red side. The campaign might be developped for the blue side, but we should not deny the player the chance of being the bad guy.

just curious

Fraps for video capturing

Sony Vegas for editing

Since everybody will start using the latest patches (either just while flying or to verify current mod compatibility), it might be usefull to gather all the entry changes that appear in the different ini's and, if possible, document their impact on the game.

Nations.ini

(below GenderRatio)

DebriefSuccessMusic=DebriefSuccess.wav

DebriefFailMusic=DebriefFail.wav

DebriefKilledMusic=DebriefKilled.wav

SpeechFile=USAFSpeech.cat

SpeechTextFile=USAFSpeechText.str

ActiveDate=1998

AlternateDecal=Pakistan_OLD47

StartDate=1947

campaign_data.ini

(below StartAirDefenseLevel)

AllowRandomAceCreation=TRUE

While en route from work I made a small mental overview of the advantage and disadvantage of upgrading WOE in the middle of campaign building.

Keep in mind that currently the only flight time i get is while testing the different addon's for the campaign.

Option 1: install new patch and order extra memory

Pro

# Improvied AI

# more decals

# Parked aircraft

cons

# reduced graphics (at least untill I get the extra memory)

# possibility that certain mods won't work properly

Option 2: keep the old patch untill the campaign is developped

Pro

# the majority of the mods available at CA work well with the current patch

# knowledge base @ CA covers mostly the current or previous patches

# if mods are incompatible, i can wait untill the authors release a compatible version

# others can explore the new features of the patch

Con

# when the campaign is finished, I will have to do some new patch testing

# new features will have to be tested (like random parked aircraft)

So I made up my mind. I'll hold back on the new patch untill the campaign is written. Part of any debugging constist anyhow of installing the files in a fresh install. At that time, i'll be able to cover the impact of the new patch. And with a bit of luck, any incompatible mod will by then have been rereleased with patch support.

@ SonyTuckson: I work for an IT-distributor, memory price is not an issue since i can buy it at reduced price. So I'll probably order the memory anyhow and create a test install for the patch (just to be have a sneak peek at the new campaign features)

@kct / crusader: my graphics card (club3d ati radeon 9600 512 Mb) can handle the current patch and I don't expect no problem on that field (although I resize skins and the heavier mods like tree mod and effects 3.0 are off limits)

KA out

With the latest WOE patch the minimum memory specs increased to 1 Gb (which my pc just meets). Does anyone has experience on playing the sim with only 1 GB of memory (perhaps the low on memory WOI - owners can answer this?). Will it stutter, will there be an drop in fps?

The reason I ask this, is that I am in the middle of developping a new campaign and have two options:

1/ continue developping in the previous version and performing the upgrade when I finish the campaign (leaving all compatibility issues to resolve untill then)

2/ upgrade now, redo the work that I already have done and wait untill my order for extra memory arrives.

Regards

KingAlbert

My first campaign WOE:BC has been available for three weeks now. Since I am planning to do another campaign i'd like to have some feedback.

If you downloaded the campaign, flew some missions in it: please give me your feedback. If you did not download the campaign, tell me what would be needed to make you download a campaign, what features should it have to get your interest.

Any feedback is more then welcome. I want to learn from my mistakes and know what i did right.

Many thx in advance

KingAlbert

Ahem..

Would someone please be kind enough to point me in the right direction with regards to flyable planes in WOI. They are not really catagorized so it is hard for me to know which ones are which, and as I said earlier the F/A 37 Talon would be great. Whiteknight06604, since you are a modder, and I know literally nothing about computers and modding anything at all, would be kind enough to perhaps make these minor modifications on the F/A 37 Talon, or perhaps show me somebody who could or would be willing to? So far I only like 2 planes in WOI, the F15 and the F16. I would love the migs but sadly you cannot fly those. Any help would greatly appreciated. Apologies for my first post I did not want to seem like an ill mannered text speak "noob".

 

Also just so I know, the F/A 37 Talon comes with its own installed, but you need to specify which folder you install it in. Which folder? (sorry ive never done this just got the game an hour ago)

I can't help you directly since I don't have WOI but I suggest you start reading the knowledge base.

I find that amusing for some reason. Perhaps i'm misunderstanding what you mean.

 

So i pay to upload files that i've worked on so everyone else can get them for free?....hmm ok i quit.

You don't pay so that people get them for free. You pay for the space your files take up on the CA server and the bandwith that is consumed when your files are downloaded. If you don't want to pay, you can always post them at filefront, but how many people surf filefront for TW mods?

But like Dave pointed out: they are not here for making money, just covering expenses. So that means that this thread needs to keep popping up in the Latest Posts section on the frontpage. The more people reading this thread, the more hopefully will think "Geez I guess I should pay for all this wonderfull stuff" (well I did after reading Dave's first post)

mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa,

as of now I am a choice member. I decided to pay because of 3 reasons:

1. this thread (the kick in the butt so to speak)

2. i uploaded files myself

3. It would not be honest to post the comment below without having paid for a subscription.

I am quite sure that most (paying) posters in this thread will write that non-paying users are thiefs, lame or whatever derogative word they can imagine to describe them.

But I like to be the voice of "reason", the devils advocate or the businessman (pick whatever you like). in doing so I realise a couple of things:

1. the owner and people who maintain this site won't probably like what i write and it will be blunt towards them. (hence i paid a subscription to put my money where my mouth is)

2. whatever I write, does not excuse me for waiting so long with paying for a subscription

3. whatever I write, it will generate a lot of flak going in my direction (but that's the price to be paid for speaking out)

I agree that maintaining this site is a costly affaire. From what I read on the subscription post, the main costs are:

1. Bandwith

2. Storage space

IMHO If you need to recoup those costs you can choose out of 2 models (which I'll discuss both):

1. a business model

2. a charity model

Whatever model you choose, the basic line remains that you need to offer people something in return for their money.

1/ business model

This model assumes that you offer a service or product for which consumers are willing to pay.

Basicly their are two products offered on this site:

a) a forum

b) download section (with mods, files etc)

There are 3 kinds of consumers on the site:

a) forum-posters

Consumers who read the forum and post messages. What do they get with the current subscription fees? More storage capacity and unlimited access to downloads which they don't need. They also get more profile features and posting benefits. By now its clear that most forum-posters don't need those things, so why should they pay for something they don't need?

b) downloaders

Consumers who download files and mods. What do they get with the subscription fee? unlimited access? They already have a free, albeit limited, access. So as long as they don't need to download more then the free amount they get, it is in no interest to them to pay for a subscription.

c) uploaders

Consumers who spent time, creating something and now post it on CA to share it with the community. What do they get for the subscription fee: larger storage. But as long as their current storage requirements do not exceed the allocated free amount, there is no need for them to pay.

2/ the charity model

This model assumes that, in exchange for their money, the consumers get that fuzzy feeling that they did something good.

However, charity needs to be sold too (trust me I speak from experience). Just putting a banner asking for people to pay, won't work. It's too easy to ignore (it's like the beggar in the subway station, putting a paper cup in front of him while he sleeps. None of them ever made it to millionaire).

If you want to sell charity, you need to be in peoples face. People need to see the effect of support or non support (in case of CA that might include threathening to close the site).

So with those two models, whom should be asked for money?

In the charity model, this means everybody. Whatever you do on this site, it should put you face to face with a request for subscription. This would also mean that the users should be regulary informed about the current financial need of the site. Sites that work with this system, often put banners stating their required subscription target and how for off they are from reaching that target.

In the business model, there are 3 parties you can charge.

1/ the forum-posters

You could grant them access to the forum if they pay for it. In that case, imho, this site could close immediately. There are plenty of other forums that are for free so everybody would move to those forums.

2/ downloaders

One could charge them for downloading material or put special material up for paying members only. Luckily enough the owner already stated that that option is not on the table. That's because this concept yields to major pitfalls:

a) the owner of this site does not own all of the content that is provided

b) paying downloads are in direct violation with agreements like the Freeware Licensing which specifically states

"The work may not be used in payware projects or in projects that will not be freely distributed under these same terms."

Asking money for downloads, would certainly lead to uploaders removing their material (i would), which in turn would drive downloaders away because of lack of content (further reducing the income)

3/ uploaders

Another possibility is charging uploaders, for the amount of data they upload. Of all the involved parties, uploaders are the ones who actually exchange economic value with the site. The relationship CA - uploaders is also more in line with the economic model that exists throughout the web.

What to do next?

First of all, subscriptions need more visibility (this thread is already a start). Then the owner needs to decide:

a) go for charity- which will require a more in the face approach

b) go for the business style, where imho the only viable option is making uploaders pay. In that case the owner will need to formulate a proposition or upload model.

My final thoughts

I have subcribed by now, because I uploaded some files. As a user, I think the free aspect of the downloads, is what makes this site unique and popular. As an uploader, I can accept that I would be charged for the file storage, provided it's fair deal for me.

In the end, the final decision remains with the owner of the site. He decides how to recoup all or part of his money and whether or not it's time to cut his losses and give up the site.

Regards

KingAlbert

.

While working on a new campaign I downloaded the Mirage Factory F-14A Tomcat.

While taking the aircraft for a spin, I took this screenshot of the loadout.

The loadout consists of 6 Sparrow, 2 Sidewinders and 2 Phoenix missiles. The belly attachments were the ones that caught my attention.

A close-up reveals that the sparrow, in between the phoenix missiles, could never be fired (unless the pilot dropped the phoenix first!). Further reading in "Tomcat - Shipborne superfighter", revealed that the correct belly loadout would be 2 phoenix in front and 1 sparrow in the rear.

To obtain this loadout possibility, you need to open the F-14A_DATA.ini and replace the SparrowStation4 with this entry.

[SparrowStation4]
SystemType=WEAPON_STATION
StationID=4
StationGroupID=6	  <----- change this value from 2 to 6
StationType=SEMI_RECESSED
AttachmentPosition=0.0,-4.15,-0.525
AttachmentAngles=0.0,1.0,0.0
EjectVelocity=0.0,-2.0,0.0
MissileRollAngle=45.0
LoadLimit=230.00
AllowedWeaponClass=SAHM
AttachmentType=NATO,USN
MinExtentPosition=
MaxExtentPosition=

By setting the StationGroupID to 6 instead of 2 you split the front and rear sparrow stations allowing for this more realistic loadout.

I haven't checked the other F-14's available in the download section, but chances are that, if they are based on the MF aircraft, the same trick will also work for them.

Happy Flying

... I had to manually goof with some stuff but its workin now ...

Why did you exactly do to solve the problem? I have some troubles myself with adding carriers. I followed all the instructions on the forum and after several trials and errors I still don't manage to get a working carrier. I guess I am missing something small here.