FB Daemon Progress

[DoubleTap]

M8’s,

Some good news to report. With the assistance of Roger’s M8 Bbloke, I installed and tested both the Il2 dedicated server and FB Daemon software this weekend, and both appeared to work. I was able to join a server game via the internet, and FB Daemon software did indeed track the pilots killed and ended the mission when the limit was reached.

I need to do more testing and work out some issues. While I can load a certain mission and run it no problem, I need to be sure I can both run a map cycle and have certain maps load based on victory results. I also want to verify that everyone can log in to the server to fly. There may be certain quirky issues that cause problems. For instance, if your pilot call sign name contains any spaces, before or after, the server will reject you. I also need to find out how to set a password.

In any event, I have no reason to believe it will not work going forward. I would like to do a test this week before Thursday’s session, so what I may do is setup the server to run for a couple of hours this week, say Wednesday evening. If I can get this ready, I will send out a message via email and the boards and let everyone know.

Just so everyone is aware, what FB Daemon will allow us to do is to fly coop missions via a dogfight map, which means if you get killed within the first 2 minutes of the mission or combat, you do not need to wait until a new mission starts to fly again. You can climb into a new plane and rejoin the fight.

But, it is just not a dogfight server. There are all sorts of targets to attack and defend for both sides, and destroying your objectives before your opponent’s wins you the battle. Also, attrition for both planes and pilots are a factor. Lose too many pilots and/or planes during a mission, and the battle is lost, even if you protected your objectives.

The only things missing from this sort of coop mission will be AI aircraft, and moving ground units. While there are ships and artillery which will react and fire during a mission, no units move during the scenario, although hey, it makes ‘em a hell of a lot easier to hit, right?

[delta7]

thanks for your hard work mate- sounds really good.

the only thing we will need to be careful is map size. If you have a large map and limited numbers then it is hard for people to find each other - ether to team up with or to fight - not a big problem but just a wee point worth considering I think.

[DoubleTap]

thanks for your hard work mate- sounds really good.

the only thing we will need to be careful is map size. If you have a large map and limited numbers then it is hard for people to find each other - ether to team up with or to fight - not a big problem but just a wee point worth considering I think.

Dave,

Yes, thank you. I already thought of that, and it is not a wee point at all. It is exactly the kind of input I can use as we go forward with this. The lack of AI aircraft and the lack of waypoints make it important to keep the area of action pretty well defined.

For now, I will tend to stick to smaller maps because it makes having a sort of open ended mission area feasible. For instance, on the smaller island maps, a number of ships can be placed randomly around the map, and the bomber and strike pilots are then to free search for them. Of course, then the opposing side’s fighters are free to search for the bombers. :twisted:

Eventually I think we can use larger maps, but only by making the objectives (ships, tanks, convoys, etc.) within a comparatively small area of the map. The beauty of it is with the ability to win each map through ways other than straight out dogfighting, it forces the dogfighters to stick near the objectives to both find prey and to keep from losing.

This will be a work in progress and people’s suggestions and observations are welcome.

[B16Enk]

Is there any interest in collating stats too?

I can do the php/mySQL side and create a dynamic web page that we can use to get an idea of our k/d ratio and accuracy etc.

[DoubleTap]

Is there any interest in collating stats too?

No, not until I get better at shooting Psycho down. Then, collate away....

[DAZZA]

Sounds really cool

only got a couple of suggestions. and i bow to your superior FMB skills but:

1). can it not be PF based maps/ planesets

2). early war scenarios might be better, since theres a greater degree of survivability for the bombers, or twins, and it requires team work to bring some of the heavies down.

thing is, just as i wrote this i remembered the DF map we played last thursday. it was PF based and it was really cool.

so il just shut up :roll:

i hate Zeros!

also maybe its about time we all got patched up, some tactical bombing df maps with the PE2 and the BF110 would be nice

[DoubleTap]

Sounds really cool

only got a couple of suggestions. and i bow to your superior FMB skills but:

1). can it not be PF based maps/ planesets

2). early war scenarios might be better, since theres a greater degree of survivability for the bombers, or twins, and it requires team work to bring some of the heavies down.

thing is, just as i wrote this i remembered the DF map we played last thursday. it was PF based and it was really cool.

so il just shut up :roll:

i hate Zeros!

also maybe its about time we all got patched up, some tactical bombing df maps with the PE2 and the BF110 would be nice

Okay. New rule. No posting while you are drunk...

[DAZZA]

Hey Im in work!

are you suggesting im drunk in work?

Il just shut up...... :roll:

[Arsenal]

I've been thinking about this a lot, and I came across an idea for a map that I would like to make, if you're open for submissions Glenn.

The idea is this (I got this awesome idea from Enforcer actually):

Team A (Germans) has a large armour column moving in to capture/destroy Team B's (American/British) airfield. Team B must defend their base.

Team B has a large number of ground units, static artillery and perhaps a ship on the coast to assist in the defense of the base. Team A's goal is to destroy these defenses so that their armour units can move in with minimal resistance.

It would be a winter map so that you can spot ground units a bit easier, and there will be many smaller skirmishes going on to add to the feel for battle.

Time frame would be 1944ish, and I'd like to have American and British plane sets vs. Ze Germans. Sure that's not totally historical, but I think it would be more evenly matched.

I'd also like to do a scenario similar to this in the 1941/1942 time frame in North Africa.

[guitarman68]

Stats..................... :oops: :arrow:

[DoubleTap]

I've been thinking about this a lot, and I came across an idea for a map that I would like to make, if you're open for submissions Glenn.

The idea is this (I got this awesome idea from Enforcer actually):

Team A (Germans) has a large armour column moving in to capture/destroy Team B's (American/British) airfield. Team B must defend their base.

Team B has a large number of ground units, static artillery and perhaps a ship on the coast to assist in the defense of the base. Team A's goal is to destroy these defenses so that their armour units can move in with minimal resistance.

It would be a winter map so that you can spot ground units a bit easier, and there will be many smaller skirmishes going on to add to the feel for battle.

Time frame would be 1944ish, and I'd like to have American and British plane sets vs. Ze Germans. Sure that's not totally historical, but I think it would be more evenly matched.

I'd also like to do a scenario similar to this in the 1941/1942 time frame in North Africa.

Suggestions are always welcome. I just want to make sure the basic server system works before making our own missions to cut down on the hair pulling issues. (I just want to make it clear that I am NOT an expert with either servers of the Daemon software; I am tinkering around, figuring out how things work.)

With that scenario, you can do a number of things. You can set the objective for A to be just destroying the armor to win, or to include all of it, depending on the difficulty you want to create. And, I think the idea of setting in winter to make ground targets easier to see is an excellent one, Arsenal.

For those interested, let me give an overview of how FB Daemon works.

All Daemon maps are dogfight maps. The whole intent is the ability to respawn during a mission.

With an FB Daemon map, each side is given a certain number of unit types/resources they need to protect, or a certain number they cannot afford to lose or be defeated. They are:

Planes

pilots

wagons*

aaa

tanks

artilery

cars*

ships

*One of these refers to general vehicles, and the other to RR cars. I just have not figured out which is which.

In a particular scenario, you can make only 1 catagory critical, or all of them, and just because you have a certain type of unit on the map does NOT mean it has to be a objective.

For instance, in Arsenal's scenario above we have Team A (Axis) and Team B (Allied). Both sides have armor, but let's say the armor is critical for the advancing Axis, and for the Allies their defensive artillery and defending ship (DD) are critical. (There are all types of units on the map, but we are going to make just a few of them critical.) Let's also say that both sides have limited pilots and planes available, but that since the Allies are defending an airfield, they have an edge there. FB Daemon can be set as follows:

Axis Resources To Protect: Planes 30, Pilots 25, Armor 10

Allied Resources To Protect : Planes 35, Pilots 30, Artillery 8 + Ship 1

Based on the above, the Axis must destroy 8 Allied artillery and the DD to win. The Allies will win if they manage to destroy 10 Axis armor. In addition, if the Axis lose 30 planes or 25 pilots, or if the Allies lose 35 planes or 30 pilots, they lose. Obviously, the length of the scenario and the size of the battlefield will determine how crucial the aircraft and pilot casualties are.

BTW, making an FB Daemon map is not hard, in a sense. It is merely a dogfight map with a sufficient number of ground targets in it to meet your objective goals. In other words, make sure you place enough tanks to actually be killed when you set FB goals. The FB Daemon part is altering the Properties file of the DF mission in order to get Daemon to recognize it. The tricking part there is making sure you don't make a typing mistake.

I think a harder issue for making a FB Daemon mission comes down to playability. Can it be finished in a reasonable amount of time, are the sides balanced, is the area too large, etc.

[B16Enk]

I think a harder issue for making a FB Daemon mission comes down to playability. Can it be finished in a reasonable amount of time, are the sides balanced, is the area too large, etc.

And judging how many players will be around for it too, the lesser the number of players the longer it will take to complete the objectives. This is an issue when map rotation is based on a time interval.

I have yet to play with FBDaemon again, keep running out of time!