Mostrar Mensajes

Esta sección te permite ver todos los mensajes hechos por este usuario, recuerda que solo puedes ver los mensajes en áreas en donde tu tienes acceso.


Mensajes - 3./JG51_Stecher

Páginas: 1 [2]
16
HRCodWar, english speaking community / Re:Many Questions
« : septiembre 07, 2014, 06:06:11 am »
Okay, I've sent emailed our server folder over.  FYI, I have made minor modifications to the hrcodwar.cs file making the airfield resource buildings into groups of 12 instead of 4.  And Gunther has redone some of the English version messages in the en.json (and he's doing more).  The issue with getting simultaneous capture/escape messages when bailing sometimes happened before we had made any changes, so I'm sure they're not related.  The conf.ini of course has a few changes to meet our test template files.

We've seen it when bailing out 20-30km behind lines, and maybe on only 1 of 5 tries, rough average.  So you may need a large sample of bail out events to see it.  Procedurally, we bail at low altitude, let the pilot drift down to the ground, then hit escape and click flag/OK.

17
HRCodWar, english speaking community / Re:Many Questions
« : septiembre 04, 2014, 03:24:23 am »
The simultaneous capture and escape messages appear in the in-game chat, and on the post-mission flight report.

Normally, it just gives one or the other.  But occasionally, on bailing out, it gives both at the same time.

Server console, showing it giving me both.  Appears in chat as well.


Flight Report, showing it with Escape only, Capture only, and both.

18
HRCodWar, english speaking community / Re:Many Questions
« : septiembre 03, 2014, 08:08:55 am »
Okay, that clears up a lot, thank you.  Great information on the actual chances for escape based on distance to front, and the scoring breakdown.  After a couple more nights with our testing group, I still have a few questions though.  And a definite bug to report.

I now understand the process of either escaping or getting captured, but I'm still not sure we are understanding each other on the issue of getting both messages, at the same time.  You said that every pilot who is captured is considered to escape eventually, and can fly after their capture ban is over.  In this situation, we would still only have the capture message, correct?  Even if they are captured, and eventually are considered to escape, we should only be actually seeing the capture message for that pilot, yes or no?  Because what we are seeing is both the capture and escape messages, given simultaneously.  Same event, same pilot, same exact moment, both capture and escape messages together, not one or the other.  So far it only happens on some of the bail outs, over enemy territory of course.  We have never seen it for a ditch in enemy territory.  Ditching always results in either one of them, capture or escape, but never both, as sometimes is happening with bailing out.

If a captured pilot, who is considered captured, but eventually gets to escape, usually gets only the capture message by itself, I don't see why there is an instance of getting both capture and escape messages together from the server.  That's why I worry it is a mistake, where it is running the process twice, and comes up with different results for the same pilot at the same moment.  If I am wrong, and you are aware that it is supposed to be doing this, can you explain why sometimes it gives only the capture message, and sometimes on bailing, it gives both the capture and escape message together?  How are they different, if it is on purpose?




Regarding the scoring, there is a bug with the Beaverette.  It is being used as an individual chief unit, and also as part of the Allied supply columns.  The single chief unit is Beaverette_III, and the piece of the supply column is Tank.Beaverette_III.  The problem seems to be when you kill the individual chief unit, it goes looking for Beaverette_III for scoring, and it finds both of them, since the term "Beaverette_III" is contained within "Tank.Beaverette_III".  You can see in the Report tab in the mission results, that it lists the player as having killed both of them at the same time.  Also, in the Pilots tab of the results, it gives the pilot credit for double of what he actually did.  For example it will list "Destroy: Beaverette_III (2)", and "Confirmed: TANK_37_ALLIED_Chief (2)".  Which is impossible, because there cannot be more than 1 of any single chief unit.  They are all individually numbered.  Adding up the points for the squad and team, also confirms that it counts the single Beaverette twice.  So for every one you kill, you are actually getting double the points that you should be getting.

This does not happen in the reverse situation.  If you are destroying Tank.Beaverette_III from a supply column, it does not give you credit for the other one, as "Tank.Beaverette_III" has the extra Tank prefix, and therefore when looking to score it, the system does not accidentally catch the individual "Beaverette_III".

I guess you could either change one of them for something entirely different, or maybe there is a way of having the scoring system search for an exact term, no more, no less.  Whatever is easier.

And one last question (for now ;)).  Is it intentional or a mistake that planes counted as "Lost" do not score points for the opposing team.  Only when they are counted as "Destroyed" do they give points to the other team.  Even though they are lost permanently either way, I kind of like it this way.  If you ditch (far from an airfield), the plane is gone, but the enemy doesn't get points for it.  If you bail, it crashes and is destroyed, and the enemy gets points.  It gives players an incentive to ditch their plane when they can, instead of just bailing out.  Which I think is a good thing.  Just wondering if that was on purpose.

19
HRCodWar, english speaking community / Re:Many Questions
« : agosto 27, 2014, 11:15:54 am »
We may have more issues here, and/or some confusion.

Occasionally, people who bail out over enemy territory are getting both captured and escaping messages.  I'm assuming this is not intentional.  It enforces the capture penalty, even though it credited an escape as well.  We had at least 15 bail outs, and 4 of them received both messages.  The rest got one or the other, and it was roughly an even split.  Then we had everyone do a couple of ditches in enemy territory, and there wasn't a single instance of getting both escaping and capturing messages.  Everyone got either one, and again, it was a roughly even split.  For all of these, we were about 20km behind enemy lines, and about 25km from the closest friendly ground units.  Maybe it was just not a large enough sample, but with similar tests, we had 4 double messages while bailing and none while ditching.  Could it perhaps be running the escape/capture process for both the pilot and the plane individually?  When you ditch, you and the plane are together, one entity.  When you bail out, you become two entities, and I'm thinking that might be what's happening.  One of them escapes and the other one gets captured, causing the problem with getting both messages.  That's all I could think of, what do you think?

The other issue is with the scoring.  Hopefully just a lack of understanding.  Can you please confirm that there are no points awarded for destroying enemy planes, tanks, guns, etc.  You get points for destroying enemy structural assests, or for capturing them.  However, there is a huge difference between the sum of the squad scores and the team score.  It is said in the manual that when a pilot dies, the other team gets points.  I assume this is responsible for all the extra points that the team winds up with, which are not being credited to any squad.  Is this right?  Can you please specify how many points a dead pilot is worth to the opposing team?  Are there also similar points awarded for a pilot being captured?  If not, could there be?  Are these configurable?   Many questions, and probably more to come. ;D  Thanks for your time.

20
HRCodWar, english speaking community / Re:Many Questions
« : agosto 25, 2014, 12:15:51 am »
I think that fixed it.  When I try to spawn a second aircraft without the flag/OK step, it doesn't leave anything behind.  Nice job, thank you.

21
HRCodWar, english speaking community / Re:Many Questions
« : agosto 23, 2014, 06:16:47 am »
Just tried it with the new files.  Unfortunately the same problem.  The AI takes over, taxis, takes off, flies around, etc.

22
HRCodWar, english speaking community / Re:Many Questions
« : agosto 22, 2014, 10:32:57 am »
I'll be trying many more rescues in our next test session and will let you know if any of them don't work as expected.

One thing that's been giving us problems is how an abandoned plane is acting.  We saw it when we did the rescue tests on the airfield, and the plane being left was in perfect working condition.  This should normally not come up during a mission.  However, we also see it when someone, who has landed, or not taken off yet, simply hits Esc and then creates a new plane.  I know the appropriate way to get a new plane is to hit Esc, then click on your flag, click OK, and then create a new plane.  And your script handles this very well, getting rid of the old plane in just a few seconds.  But when you don't do the flag/OK step, and just create another plane, an AI pilot takes over the plane, taxis around, takes off, flies circles, and often just crashes the plane.  As much as we will tell people to dispose of their plane properly, we know there will be people that won't get the message, or will forget.  Is there a way of making the other plane simply disappear quickly instead of becoming an AI and flying around, when someone creates two aircraft?

On the ATAG server, they seem to have something that works for this situation, and prevents the plane from being flown by an AI.  But I don't know if it would work with the rest of your script, or if it would need a different code entry.  If it helps at all, here's the console with the debugs enabled for this sequence of events.


23
HRCodWar, english speaking community / Re:Moving Unit Support
« : agosto 21, 2014, 05:29:59 am »
Yeah, we actually did that a few times at first, with the rescuer typing in the message.  But after it responded with "no empty seat" on the 109, we figured out we were backwards.  So we had the 109 do the message with the Stuka pilot name.  It also returned the "no empty seat" denial.  We were confused and were actually doing something else while both on the airfield and I accidentally recalled that message in my chat and I wound up in the other guy's plane.  We were both Stukas.  We tried 110/110, 111/111, and they worked, so we figured it was a plane type match requirement.  But last night I tried again as a 109 with a Stuka rescuer.  And I swear we did the exact same thing as before, but this time it worked.  In both instances, we were about 10-15m apart.  Nowhere close to the 100m limit.  I asked the Stuka pilot if he had chocks set, and he said yes.  I am trying to find out if the guy from the first Stuka attempt (different person) had chocks in or not.  I know there is a speed required to be recognized as stopped. I believe it's at 1.  He was, at the very least, stopped with brakes, but not sure about chocks.  Is there an actual chocks requirement, or maybe he was just getting pushed the slightest bit by the wind while on brakes.  I don't know, from my 109 viewpoint, the situations looked identical.  The first one didn't work, the second one did.  We'll do more testing to see if we get it every time.  It's a great feature, and I'm glad to see it working for single seaters in trouble. :)

24
HRCodWar, english speaking community / Re:Moving Unit Support
« : agosto 19, 2014, 05:02:22 am »
I guess my thinking is if you can't have them all moving, it may be worth doing the ones you can, rather than none.  But I understand being consistent streamlines the code.

Thanks for the capture confirmation.  I just wanted to make sure that a tank wasn't worth 2X a gun or something like that.

We ran our first full length mission test last night, and I'm still learning plenty from the manual, which is a huge help by the way.  Thank you for including it. ;)  We were trying to do open field rescues of ditched pilots.  Can you confirm, is it correct that you can only rescue a player that is from the same type of aircraft?  Stuka to Stuka worked, 110 to 110 worked, 111 to 111 worked, even if it was a different variant of the same type.  But if a 109 pilot tries to be rescued by a Stuka, it's telling us that there aren't any open seats, even though it does have 2 seats of course.  I don't suppose there is a way of making that situation work.  Are single seater pilots just not able to be rescued?

25
HRCodWar, english speaking community / Re:Moving Unit Support
« : agosto 17, 2014, 06:12:54 am »
Thanks.  I hadn't tried with the bridges before, only on roads.  I see what you mean now.  They get stuck, and even kill themselves in the river sometimes.  That's too bad, but I understand the need to only use static tanks, trucks, etc.  What do you think about ships though?  Since they don't have to deal with those problems, maybe they would work better, just going directly between 2 waypoints in the open water.

Also, I was hoping you could clarify what counts towards a team unit when calculating the captures of assets.  Does everything a team can have count equally toward the 2:1 ratio?  Tanks, cars, AA guns, AT guns, artillery, etc.  How about supply columns, do they count the same when figuring the capturing/defending groups?

26
HRCodWar, english speaking community / Many Questions
« : agosto 15, 2014, 12:30:02 am »
Hi, I am part of the Ghost Skies team that is looking to put together a campaign for CLOD.  We have been very impressed with your campaign system, and have been learning and testing things with it for a little while now.  We're coming from a dynamic campaign for the old IL-2 that allowed the use of moving columns during the mission.  From what we can see so far, HRCodWar supports only static tanks, trucks, etc, not moving ones.  They can be repositioned between missions, but nothing is actually driving around during gameplay.  I just want to confirm that this is correct.  And if so, would you guys consider adding support for live moving units during a mission?  In our old campaign we found that this feature greatly added to the dynamic aspect of each mission and made the interaction between air and ground forces a lot more fun, seeing the world alive.  Do you think it would be worth doing?

Páginas: 1 [2]