DoubleTap

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.

What do you use for bullets? .22??

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

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

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.

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?

No freakin' kidding. What are your settings to get it to look like that?

Here are just a few scenes from the Dogfight Scenario "Task Force 77" we flew on Thursday...

Welcome M8, Let me know what your email address is and I'll add it to our master list. Doubletap

Things aren't much better here in many ways, M8. I have become more of a Libertarian in the last few years as I see more and more government intrusiveness in a myriad of ways. Here, there was a effort by some in Congress to include web sites and emails with political content as under jurisdiction of the already stupid Campaign Finance Laws. The effect would have been to assign a certain value to things you wrote or posted, because they might hurt or help a particular candidate, and thus be equivalent to cash donations. Thus, if the value of your "donations" exceeded a certain amount, you were in violation of CFL. The fines would start in the thousands, which of course would cripple any independent person just wanting to speak his mind about X. Basically, it was a way to limit free speech, although the supporters would never call it that. All of this is geared to generating a larger bureaucracy that will of course need to fund itself by finding more things to fine, and well the more violations to keep tabs on, the more money you need, and the more money you need... And, of course, with the need to monitor what's appropriate and what's not "for business", your government gets to monitor what you surf, period. Its insidious...

Dave, thanks. I think I will do this since I have a LAN and more than one PC and GET ABSOLUTELY NUTS WHEN A SYSTEM STOPS WORKING! Thanks. BTW, can anyone recommend a good surge surpresser/emergency power unit. Looking for something to protect me both from surges and dropouts.

Good point, sir. Not thinking. Thought I was posting under Joint Ops...

Because I was not able to host last night until the advertised 8pm, and because my wife is not going to be around tonight, I am thinking of flying/hosting tonight. If anyone is interested, I will open up a dogfight server at 7pm EST. As long as I can get two or more players, we are good to go. If anyone else would like to host, I am cool with that as well. Since Quazi might be down for repairs, we could use someone to host TS as well, so if you are willing and able, give us a shout.

I will show you mine when I am completely setup. I like the idea of the two monitor set-up, so I am going to give that a whirl.

\What I thought interesting (and I only read this from one account so far) I am surprised Japanese airpower was not more in evidence. I mean, we know their tanks had to be some of the worst, but with their airpower properly used, they should have been able to tip the balance. Then again, while I skimmed the account, it seems like the Japanese military action was not actually sanctioned by the High Command, so I guess lack of support makes sense. In any event, whether historical or hypothetical, it should make an interesting matchup. I'll get to work on it.

Hey, I was thinking of doing a fictional set of missions pitting Japanese and Russian planes because that is a matchup one does not see often. In what I was creating, I wrote a fictional account of a Japanese attack of Russia in early '42 at the behest of Germany in order to cut off Vladivostok. However, while doing a little research, I came across some info about a battle of Khalkin-Gol, which was a real battle between the two sides prior to WWII: On August 20, the Soviets beat the Japanese to the punch, when 150 bombers and 100 fighters swoop over the Japanese front lines at 5:45 a.m., bombing and strafing Japanese positions. The Japanese continue preparing their attack. A three-hour artillery barrage, followed by a massive combined-arms assault of infantry, cavalry, and tanks, surprises the Japanese. It takes them hours to organize resistance. It is the first real armored offensive of the 20th century. The Japanese 23rd Infantry Division is torn apart. Two of the regimental commanders burn their flags. Then one commits seppuku with his samurai sword while the other charges headlong into Soviet machine-guns. Zhukov's Northern Group bursts through the Japanese instead of the Southern Group, so Zhukov changes the axis of attack. Tanks are told to drive into the Japanese as far as possible, avoid strongpoints, and leave them for the follow-up forces…straight out of Blitzkrieg warfare. Japanese T97 tanks clank into action and are chopped up by Soviet bombers, being used as flying artillery. http://www.usswashington.com/dl30au39.htm I recall reading that there was some skirmishing between the Russians and Japanese sometime around World War II, but this sounds a bit more than mere skirmishing. Anyone else ever read of this? It kinda explains why the Japanese were so reluctant to take them on again.

Pretty intense looking setup, especially with the center mounted joystick. I will have to give the two monitor setup a go since I have them now. What exactly is displaying in the monitor on the right?

Wow, getting a picture of a sober BG is kinda like getting a picture of bigfoot; extremely infrequent and always questionable in its authenticity...

Sweet, I'm in...

Hey, I work in Propanganda. Its second nature...

Dave, That was me, and I could have killed you if I wanted to, but I just wanted to make a point: Next time, pay attention!

Jeezuz! How did I miss that the first time?!? Great stuff. Thanks...

Thanks Roger...

I for a while have been experimenting with some of the standard missions we fly and changing some things out just to make them different and somewhat new. I tend to make multiple versions of missions I make, even with just slight differences, just to keep players guessing a little bit. Last night I took the Raid On Mandalai mission we so love (Seafires, B-25, Beaufighters) and replaced them with an all different planeset; A-20, Mustang and P-38, just to see what would it would be like. I flew the Mustang and I was amazed at the difference. Considering I am not a tremendous pilot to begin with, and the Mustang is something I do not fly often or well, I did amazingly well, and enjoyed myself immensely to boot. Now part of the reason was no doubt that I resisted the temptation to fly like an idiot this time, but I think it was helped the fact that I was trying something different and did not fall into a familiar pattern. I think it went along the lines of a constant refrain in my head, "Mustang does NOT equal Seafire; Proceed Accordingly". Anyway, my point in bringing it up is what are people's feelings on this? While I certainly like mixing things up a bit, I wonder if some people might not like mucking around with "classics" as it were. Whether its because people grow to love certain aspects of missions as they are, or they do not like making non-historical changes (like P-51's in the Pacific), some people might not be as keen on it. Also, certain mission authors might not like others messing with some aspects of a mission they worked hard on (I don't really care, as long as I am given credit for the original concept). Any thoughts?

Gents, Some general thoughts on this. Since this week, my PC does a couple of odd things. I cannot attempt to save or open anything from Word's menu without the program locking up. Also, when I try to extract zipped items, the programs also locks up. Does this sound like a corrupted registry? I checked for viruses and Spybots, and I tried repairing Word, to no avail. Whiel these functions not working are annoying, my larger concern is my system heading for a complete failure. Any thoughts on what to check? Thanks.