baffmeister

After quite a few years I tried an anti ship mission on this terrain mod and got a CTD! It used to work, honest! Anyway, the next update will be awhile but there will be more as I saw some great new building objects uploaded recently so, until then, a hotfix:DESERTTZ_MOVEMENTfix.rar Just unzip and copy into the DesertTZ terrain folder and let it overwrite. The problem was caused by either too many ship waypoints [21] or the waypoints were too close together. [ I had tried to get the ships to do a zig-zag pattern to make anti-ship missions a bit more difficult.]

Greetings, I just installed the new SFP1-3.2 patch on an up to date and quite clean installation and I got a crash to desk top. I keep 2 separate installations of Strike Fighters and usually try official updates on the clean one. Anyway, the CTD happens after selecting a single mission and hitting the fly button. I get no loading screen and it goes straight to desk top. Futher investigation revealed my graphics card was not being recognized in the Graphics Options, the Display Device box was blank and so was the Resolution Box. I also noticed in the Options.ini file that the DisplayWidth, DisplayHeight, and Display Depth were corrupted. Tried a reinstall on the patch and checked the Options.ini file again and it looked OK. Ran the game again and got the same CTD as before. Checked the Options.ini file again and now it was corrupted again. I compared the system files between the two different installs and noticed lots of changes in the file sizes after the 3.2 patch , so a lot of work has been done on this upgrade. In order to get the game up and running I copied the old system folder into the newly patched game and was somewhat surprised when it worked. [This game is quite forgiving in a lot of respects!] So now I have a game patched to about 3.15. I am wondering if anyone else is having problems with the patch. My system is an Intel 2.4GHZ with an ATI 9600SE. Also, I downloaded the patch twice, once from here and once from Third Wire, and had the same problem with both. Looking forward to some assistence for this issue. Regards, Baffmeister.

NICE! [from a 2nd year terrain editor student.]

The flicker may be caused by a lack of Z Buffer offset. [whatever that is] In the types ini, the runway should have a line entry like this: ZBufferOffset=6.000000 Another possibility is the TFD data file wasn't updated when you added the new HFD file after leveling the airfield. Or, it's something else! Cheers.

File Name: Quicker Take Offs for WOE File Submitter: baffmeister File Submitted: 22 Mar 2007 File Updated: 23 Dec 2008 File Category: Ini Edits THIS FILE IS OBSOLETE. NEWER VERSIONS THAT WORK WITH LATEST THIRDWIRE UPDATES ARE AVAILABLE AT THIS SITE. This mod will decrease your take off times by at least 50%. This is done by placing 2 aircraft on the runway and decreasing the separation between the first few aircraft on the taxiway. A couple of issues: 1. Third Wire aircraft seem to work well with this mod but some third party aircraft can tend to miss the waypoints due to "bouncing" and they may end up wandering around the airport. 2. Due to the reduced taxi and take off separation, large player flyable aircraft may overlap with the A.I. aircraft and explode on the runway. There are 2 optional files for the large airports that were tested with the TU-16 Badger but they may not work with the B-52 which hasn't been tested. If you have A.I. only large aircraft you shouldn't have a problem. This mod uses basic runway and taxiway lighting that includes some fixes done by "Sidewinder86", "Eightlein", "Piett" and last but not least, "Comrpnt", who did the tricky fix on the large airport taxiway. Thanks Gents! Click here to download this file

I'm no FM Guru Paulo, I was just trying to get the Sea Hawk to behave when under AI control. Like everyone else, I would like to see a more authentic FM for it. Cheers.

Awesome! [and perfect timing for paulopanz!]

Just downloaded Spinners' "What If" Pulqui and have to agree, the Pulqui pit looks like the best "Stand In" pit for the Venom.

Two things that might be worth a try. If the skins are High Res you can reduce their size using simple photo editors. Last time I checked the ThirdWire skin bitmaps are 512x512. Also, a long time ago I had a massive frame rate hit with one aircraft that had a lot of small decals on it that were being used at multiple lod levels. Here's an example of what to look for: [Decal001] MeshName=Fuselage DecalLevel=0 DecalFacing=RIGHT FilenameFormat=Insignia Position=-1.175,-0.014 Rotation=0.0 Scale=1.5 DecalMaxLOD=3...................For small decals it helps frame rates if you set this to 1. Just a couple of ideas that may help a bit. Regards.

I'm not sure yet where the French colony will end up but really like the idea. I like the idea of keeping Paran big and formidable with the two colony's and Dhimar smaller and all of them with border exposure to Paran. Should be a fun tweak and I'm looking forward to it. Glad to hear that DesertPlus gave you some inspiration to do this excellent mod.

Really impressive piece of work. The idea of having Sharnak as a British protectorate is an interesting way to justify some British types in the game. I think I will be trying to fit a French colony into my personal install of Desert3 to liven things up even more. Cheers.

Did a search yesterday for a thread regarding unicode and picked up a bit of info but still have some questions. From the thread, my understanding is that .ini files in SF2 are in unicode or in the process of being changed to unicode during the usual patch process. At some point in the thread, someone mentioned the aircraft Lods also being in unicode. My question is: For a terrain that is being optimized for SF2 but with old building objects, should the .ini referencing the old building Lods be in Ansi or Unicode and does it matter. The reason I ask is because I have 2 versions of Desert Target Zone released and have some updates planned so will introduce the Unicode thing into the SF2 version. [ Note: Desert Target Zone SF2 has an issue with the SA-6L not showing up on RWR's because I named them as a specific object in the types.ini. Thanks to Wrench and/or Fubar for mentioning that in a thread a long time ago.] Anyway, I hope this question makes sense, thanks in advance.

Thanks for the info Wrench. I think I will probably do the SF2 version in unicode just to see if I notice any changes or issues. Cheers.

You will have to edit the nations.ini to make Dhimar and Paran player flyable in campaigns. As the game uses the nation number to assign decals when using the INSIGNIA approach in the decal.ini, it would be best to keep the stock Dhimar and Paran nation numbers. Here is a way to do that: // Zaire 63-71 [Nation201]..............................................Last country in the stock nations.ini Name=Zaire_OLD63 DisplayName=Democratic Republic of the Congo Air Force [Nation202] [Nation203] [Nation204] [Nation205] [Nation206] [ETC] [ETC] [ETC] [Nation244] [Nation245] [Nation246] [Nation247] [Nation248] [Nation249] [Nation250] [Nation251] [Nation252] [Nation253] [Nation254] [Nation255] [Nation256] Name=Dhimar DisplayName=Dhimari Air Force Alignment=FRIENDLY PilotNameList=NamesArabic.lst RankList=RanksRAF.lst CallsignList=CallsignsUS.lst Formation.Fighter=USFighter Formation.Attack=USFighter Formation.Bomber=USBomber Formation.Transport=USBomber Formation.Tank=USTank Formation.MobileAD=USAD PilotTrainingStandard=POOR GenderRatio=0 DebriefSuccessMusic=DebriefSuccess.wav DebriefFailMusic=DebriefFail.wav DebriefKilledMusic=DebriefKilled.wav SpeechFile=USAFSpeech.cat SpeechTextFile=USAFSpeechText.str [Nation257] Name=Paran DisplayName=Parani Air Force Alignment=ENEMY PilotNameList=NamesArabic.lst RankList=RanksRAF.lst CallsignList=CallsignsUS.lst Formation.Fighter=SovietFighter Formation.Attack=SovietFighter Formation.Bomber=SovietBomber Formation.Transport=SovietBomber Formation.Tank=SovietTank Formation.MobileAD=SovietAD PilotTrainingStandard=POOR GenderRatio=0 DebriefSuccessMusic=DebriefSuccess.wav DebriefFailMusic=DebriefFail.wav DebriefKilledMusic=DebriefKilled.wav SpeechFile=USAFSpeech.cat SpeechTextFile=USAFSpeechText.str As long as the numbers are all there the game will ignore the empty data fields. Using this approach Dhimar and Paran will be player flyable in campaigns and you won't have to extract and re-number the Dhimar and Paran decals.

Without knowing how many parking spaces are at KORAT RTAFB or what the NumSquadrons= is set at for that target area, I don't really know what the screenshots indicate, besides a great looking airbase.

I have tested this subject again and the results are consistent with what I have been saying, oh unbelievers. Using my DesertTest terrain, which has only 2 airfields and 2 target areas I have duplicated previous results. Test Procedure: Using DESERT_AIRFIELD5.ini I have made these edits: ParkingChance=100//60.................................changed to 100. ParkingMaxSpan=18.0 Parking[01].Heading=180 Parking[01].Offset=333,-121 Parking[02].Heading=180 Parking[02].Offset=354,-121 Parking[03].Heading=180 Parking[03].Offset=396,-121 Parking[04].Heading=180 Parking[04].Offset=438,-121 Parking[05].Heading=0 Parking[05].Offset=354,-174 Parking[06].Heading=0 Parking[06].Offset=375,-174 Parking[07].Heading=0 Parking[07].Offset=438,-174 Parking[08].Heading=0 Parking[08].Offset=480,-174 Parking[09].Heading=180 Parking[09].Offset=375,-196 Parking[10].Heading=180 Parking[10].Offset=417,-196 Parking[11].Heading=180 Parking[11].Offset=438,-196 Parking[12].Heading=180 Parking[12].Offset=480,-196 Parking[13].Heading=0 Parking[13].Offset=333,-249 Parking[14].Heading=0 Parking[14].Offset=354,-249 Parking[15].Heading=0 Parking[15].Offset=396,-249 Parking[16].Heading=0 Parking[16].Offset=459,-249 Parking[17].Heading=180 Parking[17].Offset=354,-270 Parking[18].Heading=180 Parking[18].Offset=396,-270 Parking[19].Heading=180 Parking[19].Offset=417,-270 Parking[20].Heading=180 Parking[20].Offset=480,-270 LargeParkingChance=100//15........................................Changed to 100 LargeParkingMaxSpan=48.0 LargeParking[01].Heading=180 LargeParking[01].Offset=436,268 LargeParking[02].Heading=180 LargeParking[02].Offset=384,268 LargeParking[03].Heading=180 LargeParking[03].Offset=332,268 LargeParking[04].Heading=270 Next, in the targets.ini for the DesertTest terrain I changed the max squadrons entry to 1. [TargetArea003] Name=D8 Airfield Position=347000.00,537000.00 Radius=6000 ActiveYear=0 Location=1 Alignment=FRIENDLY AirfieldDataFile=desert_airfield5.ini NumSquadrons=1...............................................changed to 1 Target[001].Type=Runway5 Target[001].Offset=0.00,0.00 I then did three game generated recon missions, exiting after counting the parked aircraft. Parked aircraft count: Large=2 Small=6 / Large=2 Small=6 / Large=2 Small=6 I then changed the NumSquadrons=1 to NumSquadrons=10 The results were: Parked aircraft count: Large=13 Small=15 / Large=12 Small=18 / Large=15 Small=17 Next?

In more detail. I was trying to rearrange the large parking positions in my installation. If I increased the parking chance to 100%, I still would not get all the parking positions filled during game generated single missions. At 100% probability and only 1 squadron listed in the target.ini for that airport, you will get very few parked aircraft. At 100% probability and 10 squadrons listed in the target.ini for that airport, you will get many more parked aircraft. [game generated single missions]

I have a high degree of confidence that increasing the number of squadrons in the target.ini for a specific airport is another factor that will increase the number of parked aircraft in single missions. For campaigns, it would appear the number of parked aircraft is controlled by the campaign data, as well as other factors noted in previous posts. My confidence is based on actually trying this when changing the large aircraft parking in my installation. Example: [TargetArea052] Name=D1 Airfield Position=191000.00,803000.00 Radius=6000 ActiveYear=0 Location=1 Alignment=FRIENDLY AirfieldDataFile=desert_airfield1.ini NumSquadrons=3...................................Try increasing this to boost parked aircraft during single missions. Target[001].Type=Runway1 Target[001].Offset=0.00,0.00 ;Target[001].Heading=60.0 Target[001].Heading=0.0

When I first uploaded the Desert Target Zone I put it in with the Terrain uploads. At some point I believe a moderator moved it to the tileset section. In fact, in retrospect, it probably belongs in the ini-edit section. It has a modified types, target and movement ini, as well as some of the factory place objects.

In the games graphics settings, do you have "Ground Objects" set to "Unlimited"?

Happy to be of assistance.

Regarding the "Bouncy Plane" syndrome. I have found a few tricks to tame these aircraft and the current landing gear edits I am using on my WOI install are attached below. The difference in rolling radius on the main landing gear wheels is on purpose and probably required. Haven't flown this plane for awhile put last time I tried it I think it was OK with this mod. I run my Quicker Takeoff mod in my WOI install and it tends to have worse problems than the stock airfields regarding bouncing planes. Regards. // Landing Gears --------------------------------------------------------- [NoseGear] SystemType=LANDING_GEAR Retractable=TRUE DeployTime=6.0 AnimationID=1 DragArea=0.124 HideGearNode=TRUE ModelNodeName=FrontWheelStrut ShockAnimationID=5 ShockStroke=0.10//0.40 SpringFactor=2.0//3.0 DampingFactor=1.8//0.3 WheelNodeName=FrontWheel RollingRadius=0.3 CastoringWheel=TRUE CastoringNodeName=FrontWheelFork Steerable=TRUE MaxSteeringSpeed=41.15 Locking=FALSE MaxSteeringAngle=45.0 InputName=YAW_CONTROL ControlRate=1.0 HasBrakes=FALSE RollingCoefficient=0.05 MaxDeploySpeed=115.75 MaxLoadFactor=5.0 [LeftMainGear] SystemType=LANDING_GEAR Retractable=TRUE DeployTime=5.0 AnimationID=1 DragArea=0.278 HideGearNode=TRUE ModelNodeName=LeftMainGearStrut ShockAnimationID=6 ShockStroke=0.10//0.30 SpringFactor=4.0//6.0 DampingFactor=3.8//2.0 WheelNodeName=LeftMainWheel RotationAxis=Y-Axis RollingRadius=0.352 CastoringWheel=FALSE HasBrakes=TRUE BrakingCoefficient=0.75 RollingCoefficient=0.05 MaxDeploySpeed=115.75 MaxLoadFactor=6.0 [RightMainGear] SystemType=LANDING_GEAR Retractable=TRUE DeployTime=5.0 AnimationID=1 DragArea=0.278 HideGearNode=TRUE ModelNodeName=RightMainGearStrut ShockAnimationID=6 ShockStroke=0.10//0.30 SpringFactor=4.0//6.0 DampingFactor=3.8//2.0 WheelNodeName=RightMainWheel RotationAxis=Y-Axis RollingRadius=0.35 CastoringWheel=FALSE HasBrakes=TRUE BrakingCoefficient=0.75 RollingCoefficient=0.05 MaxDeploySpeed=115.75 MaxLoadFactor=6.0

I started an upgrade for the Desert Target Zone terrain/ini.edit/tileset whatever it is, and thought I should ask this question. WOI has a lot of very nice building objects compared to SFP1/SF2 and I would like to extract some of these objects for Desert Target Zone. Presently, Desert Target Zone is using many of the stock buildings for more than one purpose and I would like to reduce that as much as possible. I understand that lifting aircraft and weapons from TW games for free download is considered a no-no but what about basic building objects? Personally, I don't think it's a big issue but would like some other opinions. I also plan on adding some nice objects from Wingwiner and CA_Stary to supplement the current Factory Place objects. Any opinions appreciated.

I was wondering about that as well. Don't think I will go that route with DesertTZ but the numerous desert type objects in the IsraelME terrain make it a natural fit for a new desert terrain with a bunch of fictional countries. [ in about a year, based on my current progress with the terrain editor. ]

Answers my question, thanks gents.