A bunch of questions on aircraft [Archive]

propbeanie

11-16-20, 05:11 PM

From an SH4 perspective, but I am reasonably certain the SH5 uses the same type configuration, though it might add script-based configurations, so be sure and check for that, gap. In order of your list: 1. Have not attempted to observe that. Interesting question, though they do seem to be capable
A strange set of circumstances, this one is (yoda-speak)... If you create a group with waypoints, they "follow" the leader of the group, just like ships, yet they do act somewhat independently after the initial phase of attack. As for the "spawned" planes, I have seen what appears to be a group of two planes act independently, with one (the closer plane) of the two attacking a ship, while the second does not (distance or "visual"). So again, They act like a "group", but they will seemingly act independently of each other, though if the one plane doesn't attack, the one that does will generally only do one "run", and then rejoin its companion and continue on its course. If both planes attack, then both will continue to attack until they run out of "ammunition", or get shot down. Short answer: I do not know... lol
Using independent "AirBases" with different AirGroups might be one way, but in SH4, the AirStrike config is the only file controlling what the percentage chance of a night attack is... I don't know if maybe a script in SH5 is available for that??
Yes. You want to set the spawning "AirBase", whether carrier or land-based to "Expert" (4) in order to have "Expert" planes. Anything less than an "Expert" plane usually results in crashes with dive bombers, or with turns. Even at "Expert" level, planes do not fly very well... but they can drop a bomb down an open hatch at 500 foot altitude while flying at 312 knots while flying upside-down... Luke Skywalker style...
The easy way to "predict" which loadout will be used is the "Default" designation in the config and equipment files. Again though, I don't know if SH5 scripts can change that?
The game expects one group to end before the other starts, and that they are sequentially set in all manner.
In SH4 this works, and I'm sure it does in SH5 also, in that anything with a "carrier" designation can "launch" or spawn an airplane, which generally takes roughly 20 minutes to occur (20km). So Type=8 and Type=9, as well as Type=18 and Type=19 can spawn airplanes. You do have to have properly configured AirGroups for them, with valid air platforms.
I am 99.9% certain there are more / better replies that will be forthcoming, and from SH5 people... :salute:

gap

11-16-20, 07:13 PM

propbeanie

11-18-20, 11:44 AM

Wow, I wasn't expecting so many answers that soon!
Thank you very much propbeanie, your wisdom places you on the ligh side of the Force, Yoda appreciates that :yeah:

That said he (Yoda) still has some doubts regarding your replies that I would like to ask in his behalf, if you don't mind...

Well, my question was more elementary than your answer seems to imply; I will give you an example. Let's say that I have an enemy airbase in range of an U-boat bunker, for it to spawn airstrikes at random intervals. If the airbase has bombers and fighters in the same airgroup, will they attack all together? If the answer is no, I am afraid that the only way to simulated raids with escorted bombers would be by scripting them, but that would be a more "expensive" solution (both in therms of pc resources usage and of work require by the modder in order to set up the attacks) and not as random as the airbase-spawned strikes thing.
The game "intelligence" will send airplanes out randomly, and bases the amount sent as response, apparently on the type of target, such that a submarine usually "qualifies" for what seems to eventually be 7 airplanes. An "enemy" corvette might get a 1 or 2 plane response, a DD gets 2 or 3, etc. What Fifi, s7rikeback and I discovered in Fifi's SH4 Dark Waters was that Brest "qualified" for a near-continuous air attack, which would commence shortly (roughly 20 minutes) after the player spawned into the game and was leaving port. I do not remember what he did to minimize that... About the only way to "fix" that is to alter the AirStrike.cfg, make the nearby enemy airbases with smaller, shorter-ranged planes, and to script with either Groups / Units and / or RGG / Random Units, with what you do want to show and when. The shorter-ranged planes at "specialist" AirBases is something we've used in FotRSU also, in an attempt to minimize the "Normal" AirBases sending an air response from beyond a mountain range that only results in innumerable airplanes crashing into the "terrain" near the player's sub, resulting in a similar amount of "Survivors". I do not know if SH5 does similar or not. But in SH4, every plane crash has a chance to generate a "Survivor" pilot...

I doubt that, but let's see if someone pops up with some idea. I know there is a global paparameter controlling the chance of aircraft spawning at night, but I don't see anything that might tell the game which aircraft should fly at night and which ones not. I am actually surprised that devs didn't think to add such a basic feature; a simple flag in aircraft cfg or sim file would have been enough :hmmm:
Yes, it would have been nice, and I do not know of anyway to control that either. As you mention, perhaps someone else has an idea about this. The "tag" for that could be "is this plane equipped with flight radar?"...

Roger that lol :haha:
:arrgh!:

Indeed f you script aircraft in campaign you can specify whatever loadout you want, but from your answer I get that airbase/carrier-spawned aircraft will only use the default loadout. Is that correct?
That is correct. The game will use the "default" loadout, found listed first in the eqp file in SH4, usually with a "; Basic Loadout" comment. The cfg file will not list that loadout, but only the additional ones built for the plane. One way to counter that behavior is to do small clones, with the cloned plane having a different basic load-out (and name, of course), and then place both planes in the base's AirGroup. However, it is still a "chance" thing in that the game chooses which plane(s) to send based upon chance also... You might get a PBY plane one time, a Mustang the next, and then a B-24, all dependent upon what is in the AirGroup at that time, and a roll of the dice, in conjunction with plane range. This is SH4 behavior...I wonder how SH5 handles GR2 planes, as well as their load-outs?

What about other sea unit types? I am mostly interested in types 6, 7, 10, 11 (capital ships other than carriers), 101, 102 and 108 (freighters and tankers)....
Unfortunately in SH4, if it is NOT a CV-type, it will not generate an airplane, whether you have an AirGroup attached or not. So our cat ship and one of the aux cruisers with an airplane to launch are set to either Type=8 or Type=18 in FotRSU, and you will "see" a plane spawn after the player's sub is detected. The plane will not spawn within the "spawn range" though, but like all things 3D in the game, will do so beyond the "horizon".
:salute:

gap

11-18-20, 04:34 PM

The game "intelligence" will send airplanes out randomly, and bases the amount sent as response, apparently on the type of target, such that a submarine usually "qualifies" for what seems to eventually be 7 airplanes. An "enemy" corvette might get a 1 or 2 plane response, a DD gets 2 or 3, etc.
:salute:

Interesting, that's the first time I hear about such a feature. Makes me wonder whether the type of response is hardcoded in the game or rather if it can be modified via AI scripts

What Fifi, s7rikeback and I discovered in Fifi's SH4 Dark Waters was that Brest "qualified" for a near-continuous air attack, which would commence shortly (roughly 20 minutes) after the player spawned into the game and was leaving port.

I see. That is obviously a major problem. Constant air strikes at each patrol start would be utterly unrelaistic and they might render the game unplayable. Your reply doens't entirely answer my original question though: what happens if a base/airgroup has more than one type of aircraft and all of them have a a range long enough for attacking a player base? Will they perform combined attacks, or they will come separately, maybe due to their different max speeds?

I do not remember what he did to minimize that... About the only way to "fix" that is to alter the AirStrike.cfg, make the nearby enemy airbases with smaller, shorter-ranged planes, and to script with either Groups / Units and / or RGG / Random Units, with what you do want to show and when.

AirStrike.cfg parameters being global, I would let their editing for fine-tuning, once all the airbases/airgroups are set up. Playing with aircraft MaxRadius as the first task, seems to me the best approach. In SH5, as in SHIV, we can create as many "shallow clones" of the same unit as we want, so a valid startegy might be creating many copies of the same aircraft, each copy having a different radius and ammo loadout depending on the different roles that the said plane played in reality.

If "long-range" bombers and fighters are assigned to airbases with moderation and if, at the same time, we place in Allied territory many airbases with "short-ranged" aircraft, one might play with the global Air Strike Probability factor so that the chances of a bombing raid on player bases will be acceptably low (due to the small number of squadrons equipped with long-range aircraft) while the chances of an air attack against the player, when he nears enemy territory, will still be relatively high (due do the comparatively large number of airgroups which have short-range aircraft assigned).

I hope I made myself clear, but I am probably rephrasing the workaround that you, Fifi, s7rikeback, etc. have laready applied to SHIV and that you have summarized in your reply to me. I am wondering if Vecko has devided something similar for TWoS.

Yes, it would have been nice, and I do not know of anyway to control that either. As you mention, perhaps someone else has an idea about this. The "tag" for that could be "is this plane equipped with flight radar?"...

Indeed that would have been the cleanest implementation of such a feature...

That is correct. The game will use the "default" loadout, found listed first in the eqp file in SH4, usually with a "; Basic Loadout" comment. The cfg file will not list that loadout, but only the additional ones built for the plane.

Thank you for confirming that. In other words, additional loadouts are not applied except for the planes that are scripted in campaign layers. A bit odd, but as you said there are workarounds to that...

One way to counter that behavior is to do small clones, with the cloned plane having a different basic load-out (and name, of course), and then place both planes in the base's AirGroup.

That is something I already had in mind, but my (long-therm) plan is more ambitious.

With all the information on RAF squadrons we have available from books and websites, we have the possibility to replicate in game a (simplified) version of RAF's 1939-45 order of battle. My idea is to replace generic UK airbases currently featured in game with unique ones, each of them being placed on the SH5 map appropriately for representing one specific RAF station, with the squadrons and aircraft that in real WWII warfare are know to have been based there.

Of course not all the RAF bases and squadrons would be represented, but only the ones which were involved in anti-submarine and anti-shipping warfare, maritime patrol, coastal defense, etc. Each airgroup would represent a squadron or a combination of squadrons with the aicraft they actually operated with ranges, armament loadouts and sensors set to reflect as closely as possible the known duties of those squadrons.

That's a whole lot of work and I am not even sure that the game could handle so many airbases and air groups, but let me daydream of it :D

However, it is still a "chance" thing in that the game chooses which plane(s) to send based upon chance also... You might get a PBY plane one time, a Mustang the next, and then a B-24, all dependent upon what is in the AirGroup at that time, and a roll of the dice, in conjunction with plane range. This is SH4 behavior...I wonder how SH5 handles GR2 planes, as well as their load-outs?

I am pretty confident that nothing major has changed on this respect from SHIV to SH5.

Unfortunately in SH4, if it is NOT a CV-type, it will not generate an airplane, whether you have an AirGroup attached or not. So our cat ship and one of the aux cruisers with an airplane to launch are set to either Type=8 or Type=18 in FotRSU, and you will "see" a plane spawn after the player's sub is detected. The plane will not spawn within the "spawn range" though, but like all things 3D in the game, will do so beyond the "horizon".

That's a shame. The game has too few unit types, and each type as too many limitations relative to what it can do and what not, but we must live with it.

CAM and MAC ships can be set as escort carriers. They would fly the naval ensign whereas in reality, being commanded by a civil captain they would have sailed under the merchant ensign. There are workarounds to this, so that's only a minor issue, but the lack of airgroup support for battleships and cruisers annoys me big time lol :O:

gap

11-18-20, 04:39 PM

propbeanie

11-18-20, 06:48 PM

So long as they are an Allied plane (SH4), and there are different small clones for the various nationalities (with non-conflicting node IDs), you should be fine. In the SoWesPac area in FotRSU, there are several GB AirBases with various US, GB, AU & NZ planes, even some with the same plane model in a small clone, and they seem to spawn just fine - sometimes too much... :roll:

But we need more opinion / fact here, gap. Surely someone with more knowledge than the two of us combined can chime in and help us out! :arrgh!: The more discussion, the more knowledge! :salute: Enquiring minds want to know (more)!

gap

11-19-20, 09:26 AM

So long as they are an Allied plane (SH4), and there are different small clones for the various nationalities (with non-conflicting node IDs), you should be fine. In the SoWesPac area in FotRSU, there are several GB AirBases with various US, GB, AU & NZ planes, even some with the same plane model in a small clone, and they seem to spawn just fine - sometimes too much... :roll:

Good to know thanks :up:

But we need more opinion / fact here, gap. Surely someone with more knowledge than the two of us combined can chime in and help us out! :arrgh!: The more discussion, the more knowledge! :salute: Enquiring minds want to know (more)!

Yes, sure! Hoepefully some fellow subsimmers will share their thougths with us. While we wait for them to chime in, let me thank you once more for your illuminating answers propbeanie! I owe you a favour or two :salute:

kapuhy

11-19-20, 09:57 AM

I have one more question that I forgot to asking at post #1

8. Do aircraft assigned to a base need to be in the same national roster as the base itself? In other words: can I assign to an UK base an aicraft which is only found in the US roster, or I need to have two bases (one British and the other American) in the same place?

Lajes Aurbase (UK) has currently B-17 (only existing in US roster) asigned to its air wing in TWoS. If this actualy works in campaign ( someone with a savegame near Lajes after 10.1943 could confirm it) then yes, you can.

gap

11-19-20, 11:44 AM

Lajes Aurbase (UK) has currently B-17 (only existing in US roster) asigned to its air wing in TWoS. If this actualy works in campaign ( someone with a savegame near Lajes after 10.1943 could confirm it) then yes, you can.

Thank you for confirming that kapuhy :up:

kapuhy

11-19-20, 02:25 PM

Thank you for confirming that kapuhy :up:

Just to clarify, I didn't test whether it really works - I'm too careless to ever survive in campaign to 1943 :)

gap

11-19-20, 05:55 PM

Just to clarify, I didn't test whether it really works - I'm too careless to ever survive in campaign to 1943 :)

Hahah, don't tell me... I think I never made it to January 1940 in campaign, but since I started modding SH5 I stopped actually playing it... :O:

By the way: Open Horizons II has only generic airfields, so the Lajes airbase in TWoS must have been an addition by Vecko himself. Maybe we should ask him whether he actually tested in game the spawning of (US) aicraft from that (British) base.

gap

11-19-20, 06:49 PM

Work I am currently doing

https://i.imgur.com/Dq7ngNL.pngL (https://i.imgur.com/Dq7ngNL.png)

I am at squadron No. 31... Initially I thought that only Coastal Command and Fleet Air Arm squadrons were of some interest for our game, but I came to realize that even other RAF commands had an involvement in WWII naval warfare. Still a whole lot of work is in front of me lol :doh:
Anyone wanting to help? :D

kapuhy

11-20-20, 02:58 AM

Work I am currently doing

I am at squadron No. 31... Initially I thought that only Coastal Command and Fleet Air Arm squadrons were of some interest for our game, but I came to realize that even other RAF commands had an involvement in WWII naval warfare. Still a whole lot of work is in front of me lol :doh:
Anyone wanting to help? :D

Wow :o Hats off to you, it's a lot of work but when complete, it will be a goldmine of info for any modder or developer working on WW2 naval warfare themed games.

I considered doing something just like this (though on a smaller scale) after I finish importing missing planes, so I'd be happy to help - but atm I have my hands full with trying to get those planes into game. I did however some research already and if you'd like, I can send it to you or post a summary here - maybe it will be of use.

gap

11-20-20, 06:02 AM

Wow :o Hats off to you, it's a lot of work but when complete, it will be a goldmine of info for any modder or developer working on WW2 naval warfare themed games.

Yes, mostly a compendium of data gathered from different sources and displayed on a chronogram. Hopefully my work will ease the usage of that data in SH5 or in any other WWII-themed simulation. I had planned it long ago, but your work on new aircraft gave me the incentive I needed to continue this project :up:

I considered doing something just like this (though on a smaller scale) after I finish importing missing planes, so I'd be happy to help - but atm I have my hands full with trying to get those planes into game.

I agree on your choice of focusing on the 3D modelling / texturing work. Unfortunately it is easier for me proceeding with my own data-collection work squadron by squadron, so until I finish with it I won't be able telling all the locations (and timeframes) that your freshly created aircraft should be used on.

What I can do right away, is listing some of the planes relevant to SH5 but still missing from it that where most commonly used in the maritime patrol / reconnaissance / anti-shipping / convoy protection roles. Whenever you will be ready for working on a new set of aircraft, just get in touch if you feel that you need ideas on which models you should start from.

One last note: as you might have noticed, the sources I have available are detailed to the level of aircraft variants. In most cases, those variants differed externally from each other just for a few details (gun outfit, turrets, control surfaces' shape, cowling/nose shape, air intakes, exausts, etc). If it is not too much work for you, my advise is to keep your models as simple/generic as possible by keeping the "variable" parts - especially guns - separated from the main models. That would enable us to easily customize the new aicraft (even at a later stage) by adding/switching parts via eqp. files.

I did however some research already and if you'd like, I can send it to you or post a summary here - maybe it will be of use.

Yes sure, share it here please!

kapuhy

11-20-20, 05:52 PM

Yes sure, share it here please!

So, a while ago I noted down from uboat.net two lists: one counting which aircraft were credited with U-Boat kills (including those sharing a credit) and second with aircraft killed by U-Boats while attempting to attack. Here's the result:

Kills and Losses (https://gofile.io/d/a2ae6S)

I used this to choose a list of planes to try to import. Of course, this doesn't give full picture, because it leaves out ASW/patrol missions that did not result in either aircraft or U-Boat being destroyed (for example, Avro Anson never sunk a U-Boat despite being commonly used for exactly that).

Many planes present in roster (and I mean TWoS roster because stock game is beyond repair) were not even used in theatre (Buffallo, Buccanneer) or would be unlikely to attack a U-Boat - this mostly concerns single-engined air superiority fighters (Mustang, Hurricane, Mig, Yak, La-5, P-47).

Only example I found of such planes attack on U-Boat is very telling:

"On 4 May 1945, U-155 was en route with U-680 and U-1233 from Germany to Norway through the Little Belt when they were strafed by Mustang fighters of 126 Squadron which were escorting Beaufighters of the North Coates Strike Wing. The flight broke off the attack after the leading Mustang was shot down, killing the CO of the squadron."

So it was unplanned attack on target of opportunity, which also failed - probably because attacking planes were not really trained or armed for ASW work. I think in game, such non-ASW planes, if present, should be relatively harmless and rarely attack.

Another thing - I don't know if TWoS already models this, but some some planes (USAAF-painted B-17, Avro Lancaster) would be more fitting doing air raids on ports than hunting subs at sea. Ideally, they should also behave differently: use "level bomber" AI setting and be set to fly very high. One could compensate for low aircraft numbers by making these "air raid only" planes carry more bombs (like, multiple "Bomb_Cluster" weapons) to really bring devastation to a port when player is unlucky enough to witness it.

gap

11-22-20, 03:38 PM

So, a while ago I noted down from uboat.net two lists: one counting which aircraft were credited with U-Boat kills (including those sharing a credit) and second with aircraft killed by U-Boats while attempting to attack. Here's the result:

Kills and Losses (https://gofile.io/d/a2ae6S)

Amazing!

I had a similar list in mind. Besides the uboat.net database, I had found an useful Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:U-boats_sunk_by_aircraft) listing all the WWII U-boats sunk by an aircraft, but found not time for summarizing their data. Thank you for sharing the results of your own research :yeah:

I used this to choose a list of planes to try to import. Of course, this doesn't give full picture, because it leaves out ASW/patrol missions that did not result in either aircraft or U-Boat being destroyed (for example, Avro Anson never sunk a U-Boat despite being commonly used for exactly that).

Once my work on British air squadrons will be finished, we will get a wider picture.

So far (only about 30 RAF squadrons alalyzed, 2 of them operating under Coastal Command), I have found roughly four types of "maritime" duties related with each other in various ways. Here are my observations about them, the aircraft used for carrying them out, and my suggestions on how they could be implemented in game.

Coastal reconnaissance: in early war, when the risk of an invasion from the sea was feared by the British, army cooperation squadrons equipped with Westland Lysanders were rushed into the coastal patrol role. Their instructions were to use their their Lysander's armament (composed of two forward-firing guns and light bombs) for bombing/strafing the invading troops on the beach. I doubt they would have attacked ships and submarines too if they had spotted them, but indeed they would have reported them calling for better suited aircraft.
In game, Lysanders covering this role should have a relatively small radius (just enough for patrolling a few miles off the coasts of Britain), and they should be equipped with a mix of bombs without controllers (so they won't be dropped), one or two cosmetic flares with bomb controller (so they will be dropped in place of the "dummy" bombs) and maybe a visual sensor with extra detection, though I am not sure how realistic the latter feature would be.

Anti-shipping/mine-laying: a number of bomber squadrons were assigned this task in different WWII theatres and timeframes. The aircraft they flew included Vickers Wellington, Fairey Battle, Martin Marauder, Bristol Blenheim, Bristol Beaufort and Bristol Beaufighter, but keep in mind that this is an incomplete list. It is my understanding that squadrons charged with this role had surface vessels as their main target, but I think they would have attacked submarines too, on spotting them. Besides bombs or mines, where/when applicable their armament included torpedoes and rockets as well.
On a side note, air-dropped mines are not featured neither in stock game nor in OHII/TWoS. They could be added to aircraft by equipping them with a particle generator that will spawn one mine every x seconds when the dropping aircraft is flying under a certain altitude. I think the spawned mines can be made to float too and to explode on contact with any unit, just like TWoS mines. The only obvious downsides inherent to this added feature would be that, unless we script mine-laying planes in campaign, we wouldn't have any control on where they would drop their mines, they would perform their task only when within rendering range, and the mines would disappear as soon as the player clears the area.

Convoy/shipping protection: for this role, a variety of aircraft was used, probably reflecting the most likely type of menace that they were going to face; according to the data I have processed so far, squadrons assigned with convoy escort duties could be equipped with fighters (Hawker Hurricane, Supermarine Spitfire, North American Mustang), light bombers (Bristol Blenheim) or torpedo bombers (Bristol Beaufort).
Starting from 1943, RP-3 rockets came in Costal Command and Fleet Air Arm as an air-to-surface weapon, and the Hurricane was one of those aircraft which could be armed with them. Nonetheless, it seems more logical to me for convoy-escorting fighters to have provided mainly air cover against enemy planes, strafing with their guns other types of targets only on occasions. Conversely, heavier escort aircraft might have carried bombs or torpedoes and so I would equip them in game, leaving aerial depth charges for specialized ASW squadrons.
For the sake of realism (and for more effective protection), convoy-escorting sqadrons should be scripted in campaign together with the convoys they are supposed to protect. That's only theoretical though. In practice, if air units are setup in game as convoy escorts, they will try to match their speed with the speed of the convoy leader, and they will collapse miserably in the water. Making them to spawn from airbases, like the majority of the SH5 planes, is the one option left, unless some complicated workaround is devised.

Anti submarine: I think this role does not require long explanations. As far as I can see from the data I have already analyzed, aircraft assigned with it included a mix of light, medium and torpedo bombers. Lockheed Hudson, Vickers Wellington, Martin Marauder and, until December 1940, Vickers Vildebeest. In game, their armament should consist mainly of depth bombs or - when/where appropriate - torpedoes and rockets.

Many planes present in roster (and I mean TWoS roster because stock game is beyond repair) were not even used in theatre (Buffallo, Buccanneer) or would be unlikely to attack a U-Boat - this mostly concerns single-engined air superiority fighters (Mustang, Hurricane, Mig, Yak, La-5, P-47).

Only example I found of such planes attack on U-Boat is very telling:

"On 4 May 1945, U-155 was en route with U-680 and U-1233 from Germany to Norway through the Little Belt when they were strafed by Mustang fighters of 126 Squadron which were escorting Beaufighters of the North Coates Strike Wing. The flight broke off the attack after the leading Mustang was shot down, killing the CO of the squadron."

So it was unplanned attack on target of opportunity, which also failed - probably because attacking planes were not really trained or armed for ASW work. I think in game, such non-ASW planes, if present, should be relatively harmless and rarely attack.

Yes, for a long time I have had your same doubts and, as you can imagine from my notes above, I came to your same conclusions, reinforced now now by your findings.

Except maybe for carrierborne ones, the large majority of fighters in game should be armed just with "fake" bombs (i.e. harmless/invisible bombs), so that they will attack surface/ground targets only with their guns, or with no bombs at all, so to make them to only attack other aircraft if TDW's dogfight patch is enabled (otherwise they won't perform any attack).

Another important factor is aircraft max radius. Setting it up only according to real stats is a mistake. In game, that number should reflect the type of duties the plane is supposed to perform. If we subdivide fighter squadrons in "offensive" (performing bomber escorts, tactical strikers, etc.) and "defensive", the latter suqadrons should have rather short max radii so to that their fighters will show up only around ports and coastal installations.

Another thing - I don't know if TWoS already models this, but some some planes (USAAF-painted B-17, Avro Lancaster) would be more fitting doing air raids on ports than hunting subs at sea. Ideally, they should also behave differently: use "level bomber" AI setting and be set to fly very high. One could compensate for low aircraft numbers by making these "air raid only" planes carry more bombs (like, multiple "Bomb_Cluster" weapons) to really bring devastation to a port when player is unlucky enough to witness it.

I agree. Unfortunately I think there is no way to tell "air raid only" aircraft how to behave in game according to their supposed mission. Two possible workarounds come to my mind:

a) having a (very) small number of air groups whose fighters and bombers have long enough ranges to attack player bases, having a (very) high number of air groups with maritime patrol and home defense aircraft, and lowering the 'Air Strike Probability' parameter in AirStrike.cfg. That should compensate the high number of "short range" air groups and make the few "long range" airgroups to spawn rarely. Of course they would still attack the player if they spot him, but their small number should make that eveninece pretty rare.

b) removing "air raid only" from bases, and scripoting them in campaign. This way we would have full control on route and altitude of the attackers, on player bases to attacked and on the frequancy raids will happen. I am not an expert of campaign stuff, but I am confident that some randomness can be addeed to scripted events, so that they won't happen always on the same dates and with the same freqiuency...

kapuhy

11-23-20, 03:34 PM

Some thoughts:

- Lysanders: I doubt these would fly far out into the sea, especially if they were army pilots rushed to coastal defense. These could be scripted like current air patrols over Bay of Biscay, except they'd fly up and down the coast, able to spot an U-Boat and raise alarm if you sail within sight from shore.

- Hurricanes, Spitfires etc. in convoy protection: unless we're talking carrier-based, I strongly suspect that the convoys they were protecting were English Channel and South-East England coastal convoys, and "protection" in this case meant deterring Luftwaffe.

- Making convoy protection squadrons spawned from airbases in not that unrealistic. That's just my recollection from Clay Blair's book, but what seemed to happen is, because they didn't have aircraft to protect all convoys at all times (at least until late war), SOP was to saturate skies with aircraft over convoys that were under attack or expected imminent attack. More or less how spawning system works : when they learn you're in area, then they start sending planes.

- Re "air raid" planes: I'd choose the option of scripting them in campaign. Leave base air groups for what they do best (reacting to detected threats/targets in airbase's range), and add an air group for every U-Boat base flying regular high altitude air raids (might be good to check how often these bases were really bombed).

It's a bit more predictable (experienced player might learn never to dock at Brest on Mondays and never leave Lorient on Thursdays - unless you can randomize frequency that is), but allows to retain more control over how these "special events" unfold. Relying on air wings might end up requiring much more work time playtesting and finetuning to work well than scripting those groups in.

gap

11-23-20, 07:29 PM

- Lysanders: I doubt these would fly far out into the sea, especially if they were army pilots rushed to coastal defense. These could be scripted like current air patrols over Bay of Biscay, except they'd fly up and down the coast, able to spot an U-Boat and raise alarm if you sail within sight from shore.

No. 4 Squadron is known to have complemented its coastal patrol role with Air-Sea Recue duties.

No. 16 Squadron is said by one of my sources to have "operated as a reconnaissance squadron, first around the British coast, guarding against a German landing, then further out to sea" (http://www.historyofwar.org/air/units/RAF/16_wwII.html).

Talking about another Lysander squadron, No. 26, the same website states: "After the fall of France the squadron flew coastal patrols, especially over the potential German invasion ports" (http://www.historyofwar.org/air/units/RAF/26_wwII.html).

Scripting those squadrons might be a good idea: the circular range of activity of base-spawned aircraft is probably not the best way to imitate in game some patrol courses that, in reality, had to be nearly parallel to the coastline. Nonetheless, going by the impression I got from the aforementioned facts, I would move Lysander's courses more to the sea side than to the land side (but indeed not too much) and I would privilege the areas near the major British ports. How mutch the patrol area of each Lysander squadron stretched over the coastline, and which harbour areas were more guarded by them, is an information we will discover once we find all of those squadrons and we plot their stations on map but, indeed, I expect the southern British shore to be the most hravily guarded.

- Hurricanes, Spitfires etc. in convoy protection: unless we're talking carrier-based, I strongly suspect that the convoys they were protecting were English Channel and South-East England coastal convoys, and "protection" in this case meant deterring Luftwaffe.

In May-June 1940, No. 19 Squadron covered the Dunkirk Evacuation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation) with its Spitfires.

No. 6 Squadron was based in Edku (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edku) when, between December '42 and February '43 it was appointed to the protection of Allied shipping (probably in-/out-bound to/from the near port of Alexandria) with its Hurricanes.

Between July '43 and April '44, when it was carrying out convoy escort patrols, No. 26 Squadron was based in Yorkshire (First at RAF Church Fenton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Church_Fenton) and then at RAF Hutton Cranswick (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Hutton_Cranswick), both close to Port of Hull), with a detachment flying from RAF Ballyhalbert (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Ballyhalbert), Northern Ireland.

I am not 100% sure that those fighter squadrons would have ignored any other attacker than Axis aircraft, but I am reasonably confident that their primary mission was contrasting raids from the air.

- Making convoy protection squadrons spawned from airbases in not that unrealistic. That's just my recollection from Clay Blair's book, but what seemed to happen is, because they didn't have aircraft to protect all convoys at all times (at least until late war), SOP was to saturate skies with aircraft over convoys that were under attack or expected imminent attack. More or less how spawning system works : when they learn you're in area, then they start sending planes.

Okay, good to know, I rather thought that they were following up and down the route of convoys they were supposed to protect, but that's probably more correct for US blimps.

Going by your account, the best way to simulate in game the activity of RAF convoy escorts, is giving them the maximum realistic number of aircraft (24 for fighter and 12 for bomber squadrons) and making their max radius relatively wide.

- Re "air raid" planes: I'd choose the option of scripting them in campaign. Leave base air groups for what they do best (reacting to detected threats/targets in airbase's range), and add an air group for every U-Boat base flying regular high altitude air raids (might be good to check how often these bases were really bombed).

I totally agree with you that scripting is the best available method for simulating air raids against player bases. That would give us full control on air raids' aircraft composition, on their frequency, their altitude and the route they will follow. The scripted aircraft might still (irrealistically) divert from their mission and attack enemy vessels at sea if they meet with them, but that would be a much rarer eventuality than if the "U-boat bunker raiders" were left to spawn from air bases and to freely roam in the skies.

It's a bit more predictable (experienced player might learn never to dock at Brest on Mondays and never leave Lorient on Thursdays - unless you can randomize frequency that is), but allows to retain more control over how these "special events" unfold. Relying on air wings might end up requiring much more work time playtesting and finetuning to work well than scripting those groups in.

I wish we could randomize the frequency of recurring scripted (air) traffic, but I am a total ignorant on this respect. Is there any way to do that?

gap

11-25-20, 11:48 AM

In my previous reports I overlooked an example of a fighter used in the anti-shipping role.

After having played a mostly defensive role in the first part of the conflict, from June '43 to June '44 No. 3 Squadron switched to the offensive, carrying out intruder missions over France and the Netherlands and anti-shipping attacks in the Channel area.
Sources:

http://www.historyofwar.org/air/units/RAF/3_wwII.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._3_Squadron_RAF

At the time of its new appointment, the squadron was flying Hawker Typhoons and, from February '44, Hawker Tempest fighter-bombers. Both aircraft were fitted with four 20 mm cannons and they could carry two 500 lb or two 1,000 lb bombs. Moreover, according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Typhoon#Switch_to_ground_attack), starting from September '43 Typhoons could be armed with eight RP-3 rockets, attaining a devastating firepower against any ground or surface target.

LesBaker

11-25-20, 01:04 PM

Gerald

11-25-20, 04:30 PM

Good work gap :salute:

Aircraft an important factor in the game. Especially low flying that sweeps in over the Bay of Biscay which means that the M42 has to work a little harder ... and if the outcome is good, free beer will be served for dinner.

gap

11-25-20, 04:35 PM

You might find this article interesting as it covers the development and use of guns used for both offence and defence by RAF aircraft leading up to and during WWII, also for the various bombs and air to ground rockets used and the type of aircraft that used them.

https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/Research/RAF-Historical-Society-Journals/Journal_45_Seminar_conventional_weapons.pdf

Thank you very much Les

indeed your article looks interesting. I already saved it on my HD and I will read it carefully :up:

@ kapuhy

A little addition to our discussion on British fighters in the anti-shipping/shipping protection role:

No. 6 Squadron was based in Edku (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edku) when, between December '42 and February '43 it was appointed to the protection of Allied shipping (probably in-/out-bound to/from the near port of Alexandria) with its Hurricanes.

The Hurricane mark used by the squadron while in Edku was Mk IIC, a fighter-bomber variant armed with four 20 mm cannons and capable of carrying a 250 lb or 500 lb bomb.
According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hurricane_variants#Hurricane_IIC): «By then [June 1941, when the Mark IIC entered service] performance was inferior to the latest German fighters, and the Hurricane changed to the ground-attack role, sometimes referred to as the Hurribomber. The mark also served as a night fighter and "intruder"».

Also interesting is the fact that, before and after its deployment in Idku, No 6 Squadron was flying another ground attack version of the Hurricane, the Mk IID:
«Mk IIs were used in ground support, where it was quickly learned that destroying German tanks was difficult; the cannons did not have the performance needed, while bombing the tanks was almost impossible. The solution was to equip the aircraft with a 40 mm cannon in a pod under each wing, reducing the other armament to a single Browning in each wing loaded with tracers for aiming purposes. The Hurricanes No. 6 Squadron, the first squadron equipped with this armament, were so effective that the squadron was nicknamed the "Flying Can Openers". A winged can-opener became an unofficial squadron emblem, and is painted on present-day aircraft of 6 Squadron».

So my doubt is, why diverting a squadron specialized in the ground-attack role from its regular duties and appointing it to the defense of convoys, if the main menace was air raids? Wouldn't they appoint a fighter squadron and equip it with interceptors, more adequate for this new role? My impression is that, in that case, No. 6 Squadron's Hurricanes were meant to contrast Italian torpedo boats that at the time were pestering Allied shipping in the Mediterranean. :hmmm:

Good work gap :salute:

Aircraft an important factor in the game. Especially low flying that sweeps in over the Bay of Biscay which means that the M42 has to work a little harder ... and if the outcome is good, free beer will be served for dinner.

:Kaleun_Cheers:

kapuhy

11-26-20, 05:32 PM

@ kapuhy

A little addition to our discussion on British fighters in the anti-shipping/shipping protection role:

So my doubt is, why diverting a squadron specialized in the ground-attack role from its regular duties and appointing it to the defense of convoys, if the main menace was air raids? Wouldn't they appoint a fighter squadron and equip it with interceptors, more adequate for this new role? My impression is that, in that case, No. 6 Squadron's Hurricanes were meant to contrast Italian torpedo boats that at the time were pestering Allied shipping in the Mediterranean. :hmmm:

I think you are right. This period of time is right after Allies have retaken Tobruk and Benghazi in the wake of 2nd El Alamein battle, and the shipping No.6 Squadron was meant to protect was probably moving supplies along the coast from Port Said/Alexandria to retaken ports. I doubt they were under much threat from Axis air forces (which were probably in rather poor shape after major defeat, and with frontline moving west it lost closest airbases), so Italian light naval units must have been main problem.

But fighters patrolling close to the coast, strafing or even bombing anything that tries to engage coastal sea traffic (including surfaced U-Boats if they happen to spot one), is not what I have problem with. It's the notion of planes like Hurricane, Spitfire or Mustang flying out several hundred kilometers (or miles? I'm not entirely sure what units are used for MaxRadius= in cfg files) hunting for enemy ships over open sea. This I doubt ever happened - but that's kinda how these planes are currently configured and I think an effort to accurately model air traffic in SH5 should include correcting this.

Edit: also, if this map (https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/should-the-p39-have-been-able-to-handle-the-zero-was-it-training-or-performance.36984/page-43#lg=attachment487807&slide=0) (showing combat radius of various fighters) is accurate, than fighter ranges in SH5 seem to be overestimated (Spitfire for example has MaxRadius=680, even if these are indeed kilometers it's still 422 miles)

gap

11-27-20, 12:13 PM

I think you are right. This period of time is right after Allies have retaken Tobruk and Benghazi in the wake of 2nd El Alamein battle, and the shipping No.6 Squadron was meant to protect was probably moving supplies along the coast from Port Said/Alexandria to retaken ports. I doubt they were under much threat from Axis air forces (which were probably in rather poor shape after major defeat, and with frontline moving west it lost closest airbases), so Italian light naval units must have been main problem.

Exactly my point :up:

But fighters patrolling close to the coast, strafing or even bombing anything that tries to engage coastal sea traffic (including surfaced U-Boats if they happen to spot one), is not what I have problem with. It's the notion of planes like Hurricane, Spitfire or Mustang flying out several hundred kilometers (or miles? I'm not entirely sure what units are used for MaxRadius= in cfg files) hunting for enemy ships over open sea. This I doubt ever happened - but that's kinda how these planes are currently configured and I think an effort to accurately model air traffic in SH5 should include correcting this.

I definitely agree with you. Imo the ahistorical usage of fighters in game comes from two factors: misinterpretation of the max radius setting and lack of aircraft in game. See my thoughts below for more.

Edit: also, if this map (https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/should-the-p39-have-been-able-to-handle-the-zero-was-it-training-or-performance.36984/page-43#lg=attachment487807&slide=0) (showing combat radius of various fighters) is accurate, than fighter ranges in SH5 seem to be overestimated (Spitfire for example has MaxRadius=680, even if these are indeed kilometers it's still 422 miles)

Nice graph!

In order to simulate in game fairly realistic aircraft ranges, we must take into account three important factors:

Aircraft MaxRadius setting. To the best of my understanding, this is likely to translate in game the combat radius in kilometers, i.e. «the maximum distance a warplane can travel from its base of operations, accomplish some objective, and return to its original airfield with minimal reserves»*. This is a somehow aleatory variable though, because it might depend on the duration of the mission that must be accomplished, on the speed and altitude maintained during the mission itself, and on the weight of the armament carried (heavier ordnance implying lesser extra fuel reserves and increased fuels consumption). Interestingly, the aircraft range most commonly reported in warplanes' specs is either the combat range, i.e. «the maximum range the aircraft can fly when carrying ordnance» (that should be roughly two times the combat radius) or the maximal total range i.e. the «maximum distance an aircraft can fly between takeoff and landing, as limited by fuel capacity in powered aircraft»*. The combat range of WWII fighters is not always declared. Inferring it - and thus the combat radius - from maximum range is a matter of speculation, but I believe that a 0.4 to 0.5 ratio would be a decent approximation.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_(aeronautics)

Aircraft variant. Some long-lived WWII fighters, like the Hurricane, had many incarantions whose performances improved almost constantly. Having just one variant modelled in game which will spawn throughout the whole campaign, might lead to gross under/over estimations of aircraft range, speed and firepower.

SH map projection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equirectangular_projection). From my remarks above, we might get that MaxRadius = 1/2 Combat Range ≈ 1/4 to 1/5 Maximal Range. Unfortunately things are not that easy. In real world, one degree of latitude measures about 111 km. This is also the approximate length of one degree of longitude at the Equator but, due to the fact that meridians are converging, this distance decreases as we move from the Equator to the Poles where it is equal to 0. Coversely, in the SH world one degree of latitude/longitude will always measure exactly 120 km, no matter where we are on the map. This fact implies that, near the Equator, distances on the SH5 map are 108% bigger than real world ones, and the discrepancy gets much worser at higher latitudes where most of the campaign takes place.

All in all, I think that the best method for addressing the above shortcomings, would be having several proxy clones for each aircraft variant modelled in game, and setting their MaxRadius property according to the duties that, in real WWII warfare, those planes accomplished in each theater. In theory, we should have one aircraft clone with customized range (and armament) for each air group using it, but in practice several squadrons/air groups with similar deployment and missions would share the same aircraft "clone".

Talking more specifically about fighters, the plan I have in mind is as follows:

Home defense interceptors / night fighters: only the fighter squadrons which are known to have been based near a port should be added to the game, and the radius of their aircraft should be just long enough to cover the air space above that port. No need to simulate inland squadrons, or squadrons whose base was located in areas of little interest for the game.

Fighters and fighter-bombers defending coastal shipping: these are a bit trickier to be simulated; the circular range of action of airbase-spawned aircraft would involve that, rather than sticking to coastal areas, they would sweep in all the directions, also moving toward the open sea. Moreover, if the player is spotted within their range, there is a chance that they are called in for an ASW attack, decreasing the chance that better suited and more historically correct planes spawn instead. Maybe, if there are not too many of these "coastal patrol fighter squadrons", scripting them rather than adding them to airbases would be a better idea.

Offensive long range fighters, either intruders or, later in the war, bomber escorts: my idea is definitely to script them where/when appropriate. In this category should also fall fighter squadrons that are known to have played a role in one-time historical events (like Dunkirk evacuation, D-day landings, etc.).

I hope I didn't forget anything. Probably yes, but we will discover it as I proceed with my analysis of RAF squadrons. :salute:

gap

12-04-20, 07:15 PM

Friends I need your help again. This time it is not a question about game settings, but rather a question relative to military history.

Based on information on RAF squadrons I have gathered so far, I am setting up some new airbases with their own air groups. My goal is to reproduce as closely as possible WWII RAF order of battle where it had an influence on naval warfare.

Real airbase locations and real aircraft types for each base, with realistic combat ranges and plausible armaments are in my mind, all of the above factors evolving over time according to historical records.
Attaining that level of accuracy requires an hard work, and some simplifications are going to be needed for accommodating it within the limited resources of our game and of our computers, but even so, I think that the result might be worth the effort.

Now I am looking for information on the typical composition of a RAF squadron (for different Commands and at various stages of the war) in terms of Flights and aircrews/aircraft. Do you have any numbers that you can offer me or can you point me to some source where I can get the said information?

LesBaker

12-05-20, 04:45 AM

Hi Gap, Here's a link to a Map of all RAF bases used during WWII and which Squadrons used them.

https://www.rotary-ribi.org/clubs/page.php?PgID=632446&ClubID=460

and Here's an index of all RAF squadrons and aircraft used during WWII.

http://www.historyofwar.org/subject_RAF_units.html

Fighter Squdrons normaly comprised of 12 Aircraft, Bomber Squadrons varied in size a lot in the early years there were 6-8 aircraft per Flight with normaly 2 Flights per squadron giving 12-16 aircraft, from 1943 on there were normaly 12 aircraft per Flight and 3 Flights per squadron, as for Costal Command (the Cinderella Command) there were no fixed amount of aircraft per squadron just what was availble

Les

gap

12-05-20, 06:58 AM

Hi Gap, Here's a link to a Map of all RAF bases used during WWII and which Squadrons used them.

https://www.rotary-ribi.org/clubs/page.php?PgID=632446&ClubID=460

Les

Wow, that's a nice map, thank you Les!

I am slowly building a similar map on Google Earth; hopefully I will manage making a good selection for our game, else we will have more airbases than ports lol :D

vdr1981

12-05-20, 12:17 PM

Here's what I learned about airbases and planes in SH5...

Are aircraft (or any other AI units) able to use their non-visual sensors for spotting other AI units, or they are only effective against player's boat?I'll test this and let you know...

For airbase-spawned aircraft, do they need to be in the same base and/or airgroup to act coordinately (i.e. a group of bombers with their fighter escort)?I never saw such behavior in SH5. Spawned group of airplanes is always made of one plane type...If that's what you meant?

For airbase/carrier-spawned aircraft, is there any way to make some classes not to spawn at night or - conversely - to only spawn in night time?
I don't think so, only nighttime modifier from airstrike.cfg which effects SH5 globally.

For airbase/carrier-spawned aircraft, do they inherit their veterancy level from the unit they spawn from, or how else is their veterancy level determined?I was wondering the same. My guess is yes, but it's only a guess...

Has anyone tried adding one or more airgroup(s) to any non-carrier sea unit? That would be useful for simulating CAM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAM_ship)/MAC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_aircraft_carrier) ships and scout planes aboard cruisers and battleships.
Hm, that's an interesting one...:hmmm: In theory this should work just like normal AC.

However, It's important to note that when TDW patches for AC are activated, AC will indeed spawn aircrafts when you are detected but the planes will simply roll of the deck and fall in the water...
Regardless, AC will still regularly spawn planes even without TDW patches enabled but only while outside of players 3D rendering range (40 km by default), just like "moving" airbase. :yep:

There is also one more very important and ugly bug about airbases in SH5.
Inactive bases will spawn planes even before airbase activation date if there's axis threat zone up to XXX miles away (in addition to sea traffic avoidance,opposite threat zones are used as a patrol zones for planes as well )! For example, Airbase in Azores, which should become active in 1943 IIRC, will spawn planes even in Happy times campaign as well, well before airbase activation date. If such planes enter players 3D rendering range the game will most likelly CTD and if saved before that, the save will become corrupted.

There were a lot of these conflicts in the original OHII files but I managed to solved them somehow in Wolves...

gap

12-05-20, 01:52 PM

Here's what I learned about airbases and planes in SH5...

Thank you Vecko, I was waiting for you to give your contribution to this thread, and now I know that my wait was worth all the knowledge you had to share on the topic :salute:

I'll test this and let you know...

Yes please! I would test that myself but at present I have not the game installed on my computer...

I never saw such behavior in SH5. Spawned group of airplanes is always made of one plane type...If that's what you meant?

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. In other words, the only way to simulate bomber raids with fighter escorts, is by scripting them, isn't it?

I don't think so, only nighttime modifier from airstrike.cfg which effects SH5 globally.

That's a real pity, but I am afraid we will have to live with it...

I was wondering the same. My guess is yes, but it's only a guess...

According to propbeanie, whose bigger experience is relative to SHIV, yes they take the veterancy level of their parent unit (no matter whether it is an airbase or a carrier), and airplanes lesser than 'elite' or whatever is the highest veterancy level, have the bad tendency to stall and fall down. Can you confirm that the former statement also applies to SH5?

Hm, that's an interesting one...:hmmm: In theory this should work just like normal AC.

That would be really cool, but again, according to propbeanie it won't work in SHIV. There is only a little chance that it will in SH5, but worth a test anyway :)

However, It's important to note that when TDW patches for AC are activated, AC will indeed spawn aircrafts when you are detected but the planes will simply roll of the deck and fall in the water...
Regardless, AC will still regularly spawn planes even without TDW patches enabled but only while outside of players 3D rendering range (40 km by default), just like "moving" airbase. :yep:

mmm... that's weird. I am pretty sure the same TDW had tested that patch before releasing it. I remember that from the discussion we had back then. Maybe some other mod/patch is messing with that feature, or it will only work under certain circumstances. I wonder whether carrier (=aircraft?) vetrancy level or IRAI version might have anything to do with that... :hmmm:

There is also one more very important and ugly bug about airbases in SH5.
Inactive bases will spawn planes even before airbase activation date if there's axis threat zone up to XXX miles away (in addition to sea traffic avoidance,opposite threat zones are used as a patrol zones for planes as well )! For example, Airbase in Azores, which should become active in 1943 IIRC, will spawn planes even in Happy times campaign as well, well before airbase activation date. If such planes enter players 3D rendering range the game will most likelly CTD and if saved before that, the save will become corrupted.

There were a lot of these conflicts in the original OHII files but I managed to solved them somehow in Wolves...

That's probably the most important piece of information of your last reply, I am really admired by your patience in tracking down all these bugs! :up:

In other words - correct me if I am wrong - that means that air groups must cover without gaps the whole campaign duration, otherwise some buggy planes will spawn and the game will crash as soon as they enter rendering radius, right?

If so, a possible workaround might be filling the empty gaps before, after and in between "offensive" air groups with "filler" air groups equipped with one or more unharmed planes, like a transport, a trainer, a liaison aircraft, a scout or something along these lines. Even better, we could assign to those airgroups just one customized aircraft with a very short max radius, so that it will hardly cross our routes :hmm2:

vdr1981

12-05-20, 02:29 PM

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. In other words, the only way to simulate bomber raids with fighter escorts, is by scripting them, isn't it?
I think so, yes...

According to propbeanie, whose bigger experience is relative to SHIV, yes they take the veterancy level of their parent unit (no matter whether it is an airbase or a carrier), and airplanes lesser than 'elite' or whatever is the highest veterancy level, have the bad tendency to stall and fall down. Can you confirm that the former statement also applies to SH5?

Not really...SH5 airplanes are equally incompetent on all veterancy levels...:)

That would be really cool, but again, according to propbeanie it won't work in SHIV. There is only a little chance that it will in SH5, but worth a test anyway :)I'm pretty much sure that it can be done, why not? Even fishing boat can be made as AC, 3D model is quite irrelevant IMO. It's only a matter of CFG file and unit type...

mmm... that's weird. I am pretty sure the same TDW had tested that patch before releasing it. I remember that from the discussion we had back then. Maybe some other mod/patch is messing with that feature, or it will only work under certain circumstances. I wonder whether carrier (=aircraft?) vetrancy level or IRAI version might have anything to do with that... :hmmm:I may do one more test since I already have one mission wit AC in it but I'm not very optimistic...

In other words - correct me if I am wrong - that means that air groups must cover without gaps the whole campaign duration, otherwise some buggy planes will spawn and the game will crash as soon as they enter rendering radius, right?
I'll take Azores AB again as an example. This airbase since it's active from 1943 (TP campaign) shouldn't be present in campaign files from TG, HT, WA and other campaign chapters prior the TP...And in TP campaign it should be active right from the campaign start...

Even better, we could assign to those airgroups just one customized aircraft with a very short max radius, so that it will hardly cross our routes :hmm2: That wouldn't be a safe solution IMO. It will cause problems sooner or later...

I don't remember all the trick I did to bypass these problems, it was several months ago, but I do remember that I had to carefully inspect all airbase layers from all the campaigns and set them accordingly. I also remember that I had to create new (clone) airbases in Final years campaign because of this but I dont remember exactly why...:hmmm::D

You can download the archive and inspect the files for your self if you like, it can be opened with winrar or 7zip...:yep:

vdr1981

12-05-20, 03:58 PM

vdr1981

12-05-20, 05:05 PM

gap

12-05-20, 05:44 PM

Not really...SH5 airplanes are equally incompetent on all veterancy levels...:)

So I thought lol :rotfl2:

I'm pretty much sure that it can be done, why not? Even fishing boat can be made as AC, 3D model is quite irrelevant IMO. It's only a matter of CFG file and unit type...

Sure, but my idea was to keep the original unit types for correct ship usage within generic traffic. I don't think that air groups will be on any use in the .cfg file of a battleship, cruiser or merchant -type ship, but probably non one has tested that in SH5...

I may do one more test since I already have one mission wit AC in it but I'm not very optimistic...

Wait, now that you to rethink about it, I seem to remember that for that patch to work correctly carriers needed an extra bone to be used as spawning point for their aircraft, but don't quote me on that. It has been a long time since I had that conversation with TDW, but the discussion should be somewhere in TDW's patcher's thread :hmmm:

I'll take Azores AB again as an example. This airbase since it's active from 1943 (TP campaign) shouldn't be present in campaign files from TG, HT, WA and other campaign chapters prior the TP...And in TP campaign it should be active right from the campaign start...

That is reasonable anyway, there would be no point in having that base in early campaigns (thus increasing loading times and memory usage), if it won't be active.

That wouldn't be a safe solution IMO. It will cause problems sooner or later...

Why? Due to the way I want to set up airbases (according to their real usage by squadrons whose duty was relevant to naval warfare) there might be several gaps between an air group and the next one. Going by your experience, those gaps might cause problems similar to airbases whose first air group is inactive early on. My idea is to fill those gaps with "filler air groups". They would be identical to regular air groups except for the fact that they would include a small number of unharmed aircraft with a very limited range. I don't see why they should cause problems...

I don't remember all the trick I did to bypass these problems, it was several months ago, but I do remember that I had to carefully inspect all airbase layers from all the campaigns and set them accordingly. I also remember that I had to create new (clone) airbases in Final years campaign because of this but I dont remember exactly why...:hmmm::D

You can download the archive and inspect the files for your self if you like, it can be opened with winrar or 7zip...:yep:

Yes, I would like to study your files, where can I download the zip version of TWoS? :)

gap

12-05-20, 06:03 PM

It seems that airplane radars can detect AI units without problems. They managed to attack and sink German freighter in the middle of the night and in extreme weather conditions with visibility no more than 300m and I set their WP significantly off course... :yep:

That's good news :yeah:

Among the other things, that means that we can get Tempest fighters equipped with air-to-air radar to intercept and destroy V-1 flying bombs in late '44 :D

For that to work, TDW's "dogfight" patch should be enabled. Do you have any experience with that?

BTW, I think you should equip your air raid sirens with radar for them to work at night as well as during daytime.

But I just couldn't make TDW patches for AC to work again from some reason. :hmmm:

Please read my comment on this subject in the post below

...and I can confirm that regular catapult ship can be cloned to AC and it may launch airplane, outside of 3D rendering area of course...:yep:

Did you set that CAM ship as a carrier?
If possible I would prefer not messing with ship types. CAM and MAC ships can be set as escort carriers with little consequences on generic traffic composition, as far as they are given historically plausible start end dates, but scout plane-equipped battleships and cruisers spawning in place of carriers woudn't be right :yep:

We dont have in SH5 appropriate plane type for this purpose though.

Aircraft units and 3D models are the least problem. We cam extract that biplane from the ship unit and make it in an air unit or, if need be, we can create a more detailed 3D model for the same use :03:

vdr1981

12-05-20, 06:24 PM

Wait, now that you to rethink about it, I seem to remember that for that patch to work correctly carriers needed an extra bone to be used as spawning point for their aircraft, but don't quote me on that. It has been a long time since I had that conversation with TDW, but the discussion should be somewhere in TDW's patcher's thread :hmmm:I tried with two types only, maybe some other AC type is capable of planes spawning by default...I'll test this when I have time...:hmmm:

Why? Due to the way I want to set up airbases (according to their real usage by squadrons whose duty was relevant to naval warfare) there might be several gaps between an air group and the next one. Going by your experience, those gaps might cause problems similar to airbases whose first air group is inactive early on. My idea is to fill those gaps with "filler air groups". They would be identical to regular air groups except for the fact that they would include a small number of unharmed aircraft with a very limited range. I don't see why they should cause problems...You were talking about airbase cfg file?? Aaaah ok then...Sry:up: IIRC everything will be OK until we don't have inactive airbase in our current campaign due to not yet reached or passed activation date...

Yes, I would like to study your files, where can I download the zip version of TWoS? :) In my signature

vdr1981

12-05-20, 06:33 PM

For that to work, TDW's "dogfight" patch should be enabled. Do you have any experience with that?Dogfights look a bit silly but they work more or less OK in general. Can't be compared with DCS or Il-2 AI dogfights though...:)

BTW, I think you should equip your air raid sirens with radar for them to work at night as well as during daytime.
Good idea, although they already have reflectors but with radar, sirens will start somewhat earlier I guess...I'll add them.

Did you set that CAM ship as a carrier?
If possible I would prefer not messing with ship types. CAM and MAC ships can be set as escort carriers with little consequences on generic traffic composition, as far as they are given historically plausible start end dates, but scout plane-equipped battleships and cruisers spawning in place of carriers woudn't be right :yep:Yes, it would be tricky definitively...I'd have to specify the exact ship classes in all taskforce layers for all campaigns although with N++ notepad it wouldn't be so complicated and time consuming...

gap

12-05-20, 07:07 PM

I tried with two types only, maybe some other AC type is capable of planes spawning by default...I'll test this when I have time...:hmmm:

Accorting to propbeanie, in SHIV all the carrier/escort carrier unit types are able to spawn aircraft. Hopefully this is also the case for SH5.

You were talking about airbase cfg file?? Aaaah ok then...Sry:up: IIRC everything will be OK until we don't have inactive airbase in our current campaign due to not yet reached or passed activation date...

Do you mean that gaps between an air group and the next one are not problematic?

For example:

[Unit]
ClassName=RAFNortholt ;-50087.640000 6186482.280000
3DModelFileName=data/Land/LAB_LargeAirBaseGB/LAB_LargeAirBaseGB
UnitType=406
MaxSpeed=0.000000
MinSpeed=0.000000
Length=1
Width=1

[AirGroup 1]
StartDate=19400618
EndDate=19400622
Squadron1Class=FHurricaneMkI ;No. 1 Sqn. RAF (fighter squadron, No. 11 Group - Battle of Britain)
Squadron1No=5

[AirGroup 2]
StartDate=19400801
EndDate=19400908
Squadron1Class=FHurricaneMkI ;No. 1 Sqn. RAF (fighter squadron, No. 11 Group - Battle of Britain)
Squadron1No=6

BTW, I have noticed that in OHII (as I said, I right now I can't check stock game) there is always a day of difference between the end of an air group and the beginning of the next one, whereas I would have expected them to use the same date. According to your experience, is that the correct way to set up two consecutive air groups, i.e. without end/start dates overlapping?

In my signature

:up:

Dogfights look a bit silly but they work more or less OK in general. Can't be compared with DCS or Il-2 AI dogfights though...:)

Indeed they are. SH aircraft AI is barely able to carry out attacks on naval targets, I would have been surprised if they could perform complex dogfight maneuvers, yet a poor fighter response against port bombing raids would be much more realistic than no response at all :up:

Good idea, although they already have reflectors but with radar, sirens will start somewhat earlier I guess...I'll add them

:up:.

Yes, it would be tricky definitively...I'd have to specify the exact ship classes in all taskforce layers for all campaigns although with N++ notepad it wouldn't be so complicated and time consuming...

It is not only the fact that editing taskforce layers would be a tedious work, but also that generic entries add a nice randomness to the game.

On a side note, I have checked the Wikepedia article on CAM ships (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAM_ship), and it states that those vessels were armed with a single 'Hurricat' fighter. The biplane in your screenshot is definitely not a navalized Hurricane, so either the modder who created that ship equipped her with the plane that looked more plausible to him ignoring the real historic armament, or Wikipedia is wrong and more than one aircraft type could be launched by those catapults :salute:

kapuhy

12-05-20, 07:55 PM

...and I can confirm that regular catapult ship can be cloned to AC and it may launch airplane, outside of 3D rendering area of course...:yep: We dont have in SH5 appropriate plane type for this purpose though.

EDIT:

This plane I mean...

https://i.postimg.cc/DwMzmyR7/SH5-Img-2020-12-05-23-14-21.jpg

The plane in this picture is Walrus scout plane which we certainly do have in SH5 (though, as per gap's comment, it should be really switched to Sea Hurricane which we fortunately also have).

EDIT: Walrus on CAM ship is set as equipment (from Flieger.dat file), replacing it with Hurricane would just require cloning Flieger.dat and replacing model in cloned file.

EDIT 2: Catapult would require changing too if we are to be 101% correct, it was copied from a warship model apparently and is correct for float planes, but Hurricane-launching CAM ships didn't have a crane attached to their catapults (there's no point as you wouldn't be able to reuse ditched Hurricane anyway)

gap

12-06-20, 09:05 AM

The plane in this picture is Walrus scout plane which we certainly do have in SH5 (though, as per gap's comment, it should be really switched to Sea Hurricane which we fortunately also have).

EDIT: Walrus on CAM ship is set as equipment (from Flieger.dat file), replacing it with Hurricane would just require cloning Flieger.dat and replacing model in cloned file.

EDIT 2: Catapult would require changing too if we are to be 101% correct, it was copied from a warship model apparently and is correct for float planes, but Hurricane-launching CAM ships didn't have a crane attached to their catapults (there's no point as you wouldn't be able to reuse ditched Hurricane anyway)

Well spotted kapuhy. A series of pictures in the Wikipedia article I mentioned yesterday clearly shows the craneless catapult and the Hurricane on top of it:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Hawker_Hurricane_on_CAM_ship_catapult_c1941.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Hawker_Hurricane_W9182_On_CAM_Ship.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Hawker_Hurricane_launched_from_CAM_ship_c1941.jpg

If I can add something, I think that being requisitioned/MoWT vessels, MAC ships would have been painted overall gray. I am sorry to say that because I like more black hulled ships, but in this case I am afraid that the black paint is totally out of place...

One more note: if set in game as escort carriers, CAM ships will fly the white ensign. Nonetheless the red ensign would be more adequate for them, as in reality they were commanded by a civil shipmaster*. I think that a switch of flag can be done by changing the flg node into an eqp node, and by specifying the red ensign in ship's .eqp file.
_________

* There was another class of catapult-armed ships designed collectively as 'Pagasus-class' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_catapult_ship) which, similar to CAM ships, could launch an Hurricane or a Fulmar but - unlike CAM ships - they were manned by military crew and officers. For this class, composed of only five vessels, the RN ensign would be okay.

vdr1981

12-06-20, 09:31 AM

Accorting to propbeanie, in SHIV all the carrier/escort carrier unit types are able to spawn aircraft. Hopefully this is also the case for SH5.
Well of course it is the case. I was talking about TDW patches, they aren't really functional to the best of my knowledge. Spawning planes outside of 3D rendering range work just fine in SH5 both for AC and air bases, with or without TDWs patches. Spawning planes in front of our eyes which should be possible with these patches is problematic...

Do you mean that gaps between an air group and the next one are not problematic?

For example:

[Unit]
ClassName=RAFNortholt ;-50087.640000 6186482.280000
3DModelFileName=data/Land/LAB_LargeAirBaseGB/LAB_LargeAirBaseGB
UnitType=406
MaxSpeed=0.000000
MinSpeed=0.000000
Length=1
Width=1

[AirGroup 1]
StartDate=19400618
EndDate=19400622
Squadron1Class=FHurricaneMkI ;No. 1 Sqn. RAF (fighter squadron, No. 11 Group - Battle of Britain)
Squadron1No=5

[AirGroup 2]
StartDate=19400801
EndDate=19400908
Squadron1Class=FHurricaneMkI ;No. 1 Sqn. RAF (fighter squadron, No. 11 Group - Battle of Britain)
Squadron1No=6BTW, I have noticed that in OHII (as I said, I right now I can't check stock game) there is always a day of difference between the end of an air group and the beginning of the next one, whereas I would have expected them to use the same date. According to your experience, is that the correct way to set up two consecutive air groups, i.e. without end/start dates overlapping?

I'm not really sure, but if we look at some other SH5 files and logics, that continuity in dates is probably there for a good reason...:hmmm:

It is not only the fact that editing taskforce layers would be a tedious work, but also that generic entries add a nice randomness to the game.
I was just thinking, by adding new nation which will be reserved only for British seaplane freighters, we could solve all problems, randomness in taskforces composition, ensigns and gray paint...:hmm2:

The plane in this picture is Walrus scout plane which we certainly do have in SH5 (though, as per gap's comment, it should be really switched to Sea Hurricane which we fortunately also have).

You are right! Thank you! :yep::up: I was too lazy last night to go trough the museum...:)

gap

12-06-20, 10:53 AM

Well of course it is the case. I was talking about TDW patches, they aren't really functional to the best of my knowledge. Spawning planes outside of 3D rendering range work just fine in SH5 both for AC and air bases, with or without TDWs patches. Spawning planes in front of our eyes which should be possible with these patches is problematic...

A real pity. That is something that only TDW could fix, but since he is no longer around... :-?

I'm not really sure, but if we look at some other SH5 files and logics, that continuity in dates is probably there for a good reason...:hmmm:

Sometimes stock files and good programming go in opposite directions... even worse for historical accuracy lol :D

I was just thinking, by adding new nation which will be reserved only for British seaplane freighters, we could solve all problems, randomness in taskforces composition, ensigns and gray paint...:hmm2:

Well, for 'seaplane freighters' (CAM ships, MAC ships and Fighter catapult ships) I don't see much problems in setting them as 'regular' escort carriers. The reason is that they actually played the same role as escort carriers before the latter became available, so as long as we set appearance/disappearance dates correctly for each ship and we specify British escort carriers in convoy layers, no ship would be used out of place: seaplane freighters will spawn within convoys early on, and starting from 1941 they will be gradually replaced by proper escort carriers. According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAM_ship#Programme_termination), from August 1942 CAM ships finally ceased sailing within North Atlantic convoys (even though 16 of them kept in service within Mediterranean and South Atlantic convoys until as late as September 1943). As for MAC ships (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_aircraft_carrier), I think they kept serving as such until the end of the war.

The only minor issue would be CAM and MAC ships flying the naval ensign rather than the merchant one, but in my previous post I already suggested an easy workaround to "force" them using the red ensign.

vdr1981

12-06-20, 12:07 PM

Sometimes stock files and good programming go in opposite directions... even worse for historical accuracy lol :D
I couldn't agree more BUT, we shouldn't forget that sometimes "good programing" without adequate testing can lead to game corruption and CTDs. I can not even remember anymore how many times I had to re-do examples of "good programing" from various "must have" mods which were seriously threatening to sink SH5 completely...I remember back then on my Subsim beginnings, I always had strange feeling that modders and mods will be ultimate savers and destroyers of SH5 since there were sooo many hidden problems caused by inadequate testing. My "feeling" proved to be correct...

Well, for 'seaplane freighters' (CAM ships, MAC ships and Fighter catapult ships) I don't see much problems in setting them as 'regular' escort carriers. The reason is that they actually played the same role as escort carriers before the latter became available, so as long as we set appearance/disappearance dates correctly for each ship and we specify British escort carriers in convoy layers, no ship would be used out of place: seaplane freighters will spawn within convoys early on, and starting from 1941 they will be gradually replaced by proper escort carriers. According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAM_ship#Programme_termination), from August 1942 CAM ships finally ceased sailing within North Atlantic convoys (even though 16 of them kept in service within Mediterranean and South Atlantic convoys until as late as September 1943). As for MAC ships (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_aircraft_carrier), I think they kept serving as such until the end of the war.

The only minor issue would be CAM and MAC ships flying the naval ensign rather than the merchant one, but in my previous post I already suggested an easy workaround to "force" them using the red ensign.

I like this whole concept of actually functional catapult ships, this wasn't the case in any previous SH title to the best of my knowledge...:yep: I'll think about it for some future Wolves updates... :hmm2:

gap

12-06-20, 01:01 PM

I couldn't agree more BUT, we shouldn't forget that sometimes "good programing" without adequate testing can lead to game corruption and CTDs. I can not even remember anymore how many times I had to re-do examples of "good programing" from various "must have" mods which were seriously threatening to sink SH5 completely...I remember back then on my Subsim beginnings, I always had strange feeling that modders and mods will be ultimate savers and destroyers of SH5 since there were sooo many hidden problems caused by inadequate testing. My "feeling" proved to be correct...

You are obviously right. My point was trying to limit the number of each base's air groups. Reason is that, with so many new RAF airbases that I want to add to the game, and so many "operational" air groups that I will be adding to each base (due to changes of squadrons and/or to change of aircraft used), I am afraid that loading times and memory usage might go beyond safety level.

Anyway, after your suggestion, I will be adding "filler" air groups to fill the possible intervals between an "active" air group and the next one. These air groups will do nothing but spawning one (or whatever is the minimum safe number) unarmed and short-ranged aircraft. Filler groups will also be used at the beginning and/or at the end of the whole air group sequence, in case a base is not active since day one and/or until the last day of the campaign that it will be used on. To keep on with my previous example, after the aforementione changes the cfg file looks like this:

[Unit]
ClassName=RAFNortholt ;-50087.640000 6186482.280000
3DModelFileName=data/Land/LAB_LargeAirBaseGB/LAB_LargeAirBaseGB
UnitType=406
MaxSpeed=0.000000
MinSpeed=0.000000
Length=1
Width=1

[AirGroup 1]
StartDate=19390801
EndDate=19400617
Squadron1Class=Trainer
Squadron1No=1

[AirGroup 2]
StartDate=19400618
EndDate=19400622
Squadron1Class=FHurricaneMkI ;No. 1 Sqn. RAF (fighter squadron, No. 11 Group - Battle of Britain)
Squadron1No=5

[AirGroup 3]
StartDate=19400623
EndDate=19400731
Squadron1Class=Trainer
Squadron1No=1

[AirGroup 4]
StartDate=19400801
EndDate=19400908
Squadron1Class=FHurricaneMkI ;No. 1 Sqn. RAF (fighter squadron, No. 11 Group - Battle of Britain)
Squadron1No=6

[AirGroup 5]
StartDate=19400909
EndDate=19450930
Squadron1Class=Trainer
Squadron1No=1

;****************** THE END ******************

What do you think? :)

I like this whole concept of actually functional catapult ships, this wasn't the case in any previous SH title to the best of my knowledge...:yep: I'll think about it for some future Wolves updates... :hmm2:

I am actually surprised that no one before has thought about that. Unfortunately we don't have a similarly good solution for scout plane-equipped battleships and cruisers, since converting them into carriers would mess too much taskforce layers and probably their AI too.

kapuhy

12-07-20, 03:17 AM

scout plane-equipped battleships and cruisers

A bit on a side from this discussion, but I wonder, if the general rule for capital ships in U-Boat infested waters was to sail at high speed and not stop for anything in order not to become an easy target for a torpedo, how do you regularly recover your scout plane?

gap

12-07-20, 06:40 AM

A bit on a side from this discussion, but I wonder, if the general rule for capital ships in U-Boat infested waters was to sail at high speed and not stop for anything in order not to become an easy target for a torpedo, how do you regularly recover your scout plane?

Is that a question about history or is it relative to SH5?

In the former case I am afraid I have not an answer, but being a protective measure I can imagine that spotters were launched more often in potentially hostile waters than in totally safe conditions, where no enemy was to be met.

Talking more specifically about the game, we should consider that - if no one finds a way to get TDW carrier patch to work - those scout planes would spawn outside rendering range; that is 20 km in stock game, probably more in TWoS. In other words, we would never see a battleship or a cruiser in 'alert state' launching her aircraft just in front of our eyes: we could imagine it to have been deployed long before enemy detection. On the contrary, in early war (before fleet carriers become available in numbers), those little planes would help task forces to be more "aware" of their environment and to better defend themselves.

vdr1981

12-07-20, 01:46 PM

Anyway, after your suggestion, I will be adding "filler" air groups to fill the possible intervals between an "active" air group and the next one. These air groups will do nothing but spawning one (or whatever is the minimum safe number) unarmed and short-ranged aircraft. Filler groups will also be used at the beginning and/or at the end of the whole air group sequence, in case a base is not active since day one and/or until the last day of the campaign that it will be used on. To keep on with my previous example, after the aforementione changes the cfg file looks like this:

[Unit]
ClassName=RAFNortholt ;-50087.640000 6186482.280000
3DModelFileName=data/Land/LAB_LargeAirBaseGB/LAB_LargeAirBaseGB
UnitType=406
MaxSpeed=0.000000
MinSpeed=0.000000
Length=1
Width=1

[AirGroup 1]
StartDate=19390801
EndDate=19400617
Squadron1Class=Trainer
Squadron1No=1

[AirGroup 2]
StartDate=19400618
EndDate=19400622
Squadron1Class=FHurricaneMkI ;No. 1 Sqn. RAF (fighter squadron, No. 11 Group - Battle of Britain)
Squadron1No=5

[AirGroup 3]
StartDate=19400623
EndDate=19400731
Squadron1Class=Trainer
Squadron1No=1

[AirGroup 4]
StartDate=19400801
EndDate=19400908
Squadron1Class=FHurricaneMkI ;No. 1 Sqn. RAF (fighter squadron, No. 11 Group - Battle of Britain)
Squadron1No=6

[AirGroup 5]
StartDate=19400909
EndDate=19450930
Squadron1Class=Trainer
Squadron1No=1

;****************** THE END ******************

What do you think? :)

That sounds OK to me but again, my knowledge of airplanes mechanics in the campaign is quite limited. I guess it should work generally. I'll make sure to post my findings as soon I learn something new about planes... :yep:

gap

12-07-20, 03:28 PM

That sounds OK to me but again, my knowledge of airplanes mechanics in the campaign is quite limited. I guess it should work generally. I'll make sure to post my findings as soon I learn something new about planes... :yep:

Thank you for your support Vecko :up:

If you don't mind, for now I have one last question: during your SH5 debugging activity, have you met any major problem - as ctd's or severe lags - connected with the large number of aircraft being drawn by the game at the same time? In other words: is there a limit that I should conform with when assigning planes to an air group, or I can be relatively free in equipping them with a (more or less) realistic number of aircraft?

kapuhy

12-07-20, 04:36 PM

Is that a question about history or is it relative to SH5?

In the former case I am afraid I have not an answer, but being a protective measure I can imagine that spotters were launched more often in potentially hostile waters than in totally safe conditions, where no enemy was to be met.

No, I was just curious how it worked in history - on one there's the notion that task forces containing precious capital ships were sailing at high speed and zigazgging to minimize chances of being torpedoed, and on the other what would be needed to regularly launch and recover scout planes - stopping entire task force including the expensive battleship so it can fish its scout plane out of the water. Possibly, several times a day.

Thank you for your support Vecko :up:

If you don't mind, for now I have one last question: during your SH5 debugging activity, have you met any major problem - as ctd's or severe lags - connected with the large number of aircraft being drawn by the game at the same time? In other words: is there a limit that I should conform with when assigning planes to an air group, or I can be relatively free in equipping them with a (more or less) realistic number of aircraft?

One more thing to consider: is SH5 "squadron" simply a group of aircraft flying together? If so, the realistic numbers would not be whatever the actual squadron had, but the usual number of planes in a group (which for many recon/patrol planes would be one).

propbeanie

12-07-20, 05:06 PM

Don't forget also that a squadron of six planes only expected 4 to be available at any given time, due to maintenance, waiting on parts, lack of pilot, etc. :salute: In the SH games, six planes means that you have six planes, though they might be "launched" individually or by twos...

gap

12-07-20, 07:13 PM

No, I was just curious how it worked in history - on one there's the notion that task forces containing precious capital ships were sailing at high speed and zigazgging to minimize chances of being torpedoed, and on the other what would be needed to regularly launch and recover scout planes - stopping entire task force including the expensive battleship so it can fish its scout plane out of the water. Possibly, several times a day.

If recovering those planes was so complicated that the whole process might have exposed a task force to more risks than it was worth, why did they carry them? A Walrus had a gross weight of more than 3 metric tons. Add to that catapult's weight. Wouldn't they spare that weight for extra stores/ammunition? I understand that, at some point, with the advance in radar technology and more fleet carriers available, scout planes enbarked on battleships and cruisers were made redundant, but I can't imagine them being carried around for no reason :hmmm:

One more thing to consider: is SH5 "squadron" simply a group of aircraft flying together? If so, the realistic numbers would not be whatever the actual squadron had, but the usual number of planes in a group (which for many recon/patrol planes would be one).

Don't forget also that a squadron of six planes only expected 4 to be available at any given time, due to maintenance, waiting on parts, lack of pilot, etc. :salute: In the SH games, six planes means that you have six planes, though they might be "launched" individually or by twos...

Good points. Let's put together some information.

In reality

According to Wikipedia

A squadron in air force, army aviation, or naval aviation is a unit comprising a number of military aircraft and their aircrews, usually of the same type, typically with 12 to 24 aircraft, sometimes divided into three or four flights, depending on aircraft type and air force. Land based squadrons equipped with heavier type aircraft such as long-range bombers, cargo aircraft, or air refueling tankers have around 12 aircraft as a typical authorization, while most land-based fighter equipped units have an authorized number of 18 to 24 aircraft.

In naval aviation, sea-based and land-based squadrons will typically have smaller numbers of aircraft, ranging from as low as four for early warning to as high as 12 for fighter/attack.

Until mid-summer of 1943 most bomber squadrons comprised three flights, "A", "B" and "C", each of 7–10 aircraft. [...]. During the expansion of RAF Bomber Command from the summer of 1943 many squadrons consisted of two flights, each having 8– 12 aircraft

The website of No. 8 Squadron (which belonged to the Aden Command and performed ASW patrols during WWII) contains some interesting information too:

In August 1941 the first Blenheim Mk IVs were received and by November the Squadron possessed over 20 of the improved aircraft. By the summer of 1942, the Vincents were finally withdrawn and replaced by the Blenheim Mk V. In September 1942, the Squadron strength was 31 Blenheim Mk Vs and 10 Blenheim Mk IVs.

Summing up, the typical figure for most Air Forces can be considered 12, 18 or 24 aircraft per squadron. My guess is that it is not an accident if the numbers above are all multiples of 2, 3, or 4, as this was the number of flights composing a squadron. That said, a minimum of 4 aircraft and a maximum in excess of 40 aircraft are also registered. Talking about the high extreme, I have a couple of remarks:

- No.8 Squadron had several detachments in Oman, Yemen and Somalia; this reduces the number of aircraft per station. I doubt its 41 Blenheims to have flown all at the same time just from one airbase.

- What should be considered besides number of aircraft, is number of aircrews per squadron. Especially by mid-late war, some RAF squadrons might have had more aircraft than they could actually operate, due to lack of crews. Unfortunately, informationion available on this point is pretty scarce.

In game

According to my experience (please tell me if I got something wrong), no matter how high is the number of aircraft assigned to nearby bases, their planes will always patrol singularly or in couples. If an aircraft or any another unit spots an enemy, it will call for reinforcements and more aircraft will visit the detection area. I have not direct experience of that, but according to propbeabie, in SHIV a maximum of 7 aircraft will look for our submarine if we were previously detected, which, imo, is pretty realistic. Even in this case (planes spawning purposely for attacking an enemy), having an higher number of aircraft assigned to a base, won't imply them spawning all at once.

Summing up: to the best of my (limited) understanding, a large number of planes in air groups won't have much effect on the size of "flights" (i.e. groups of aircraft flying together) spawned by that group, but it will increase the chance of aircraft spawning - singularly or in groups of two - for maritime patrol purposes. If the statement above proves true, relatively high numbers of aircraft per group should be reserved for long-ranged patrol bombers, because they need to cover a much bigger patrol area than shorter-range aircraft, especially in the suaezed SH5 world, where distances are bigger than in real world.

I wish to know your thoughts on these points guys :salute:

propbeanie

12-07-20, 10:06 PM

I have a video somewhere, where I was testing my submarine detecting enemy ships, and "phoning home" for an "airstrike". The 3 ASW type vessels were anchored, set to competent. My submarine was roughly 6200 yards away, outside any semblence of accurate fire from the enemy vessels. Generally speaking, after reporting my contacts, I would then see a response from a nearby airbase in roughly 20 minutes. First one airplane, generally (not always) too far to the "left" of the group to attack - even though they appeared to be well within visual range. A few minutes later (3-5??), there would be a group of 2 or 3 airplanes to the right of the group, sometimes close enough for at least one of the planes to attack, sometimes both. After an initial attack by an airplane, they next groups of planes would arrive generally "on-target", or close to it. Usually though, it seemed like there would be 2 or 3 flights of single & double planes already inbound that would not get the message. No matter what though, if there was any intervening terrain within the "spawn range", the airplanes would "crash", and then chance-generate a "Survivor", which is what I was testing for at the time...

finally found one of them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spz2m54MD_w
not as interesting as I had hoped - I used too much TC for continuity... there is another where an airplane crashes into the island mountain in front of the boat, and then another crashes into the one behind us. What I really remember is the one where 3 PBY sink all three ships in one combined attack... In this one, I end up having to do long-range torpedo shots to take them out, because the Allies had run out of airplanes... lol - the game will sometimes "skip a round", and doesn't send planes out each roll of the dice chance. :salute:

gap

12-08-20, 08:10 AM

@ propbeanie, interesting report and nice video. Thank you for sharing them!

Do you remember how many planes were assigned to the nearby airbase? During your tests, did you try playing with this number?

propbeanie

12-08-20, 10:01 AM

I knew you would ask me that, yet I still didn't look that up... :arrgh!:

I used a "regular" LAB_NormalAirBase, which for the time period, used AirGroup 2 (the list and some of the airplanes have since changed, btw):

[AirGroup 2]
StartDate=19420602
EndDate=19440101
Squadron1Class=LBSUSSearchPlane
Squadron1No=2
Squadron2Class=FBP51Mustang
Squadron2No=2
Squadron3Class=FBWildcat
Squadron3No=3
Squadron4Class=LBSPBY5A
Squadron4No=3
Squadron5Class=LBSPBY5
Squadron5No=3
Squadron6Class=USDiveBomber
Squadron6No=6
Squadron7Class=FBP47
Squadron7No=4
Squadron8Class=FBP40Warhawk
Squadron8No=4
Squadron9Class=LBB25Mitchell
Squadron9No=4
of which we normally saw the P-40 and Wildcat dispatched first, then the PBYs would show up, sometimes the Dauntless, and sometimes the B-25, which if they come, turn out the lights!... (cannons) :O: the "dive bombers" in SH4 are more like "glide bombers" that then either crash & burn immediately after launch, or pull-up, stall, and then crash and burn, even when set to "Expert", as vdr1981 alluded to earlier. Even the B-25s and PBY have issues with bomb runs. In FotRSU, all aircraft are set to "Expert", and they do fly better, though still not at a "competent" level. Maybe flight school student level... "You want me to do WHAT with that airplane?"... l:salute:

gap

12-08-20, 12:13 PM

propbeanie

12-08-20, 01:44 PM

In SH4, the ranges come from the airplanes' cfg files, and the "order of appearance" is all chance. Other than the "patrol" platforms, which go out every so often no matter what, the "response" airplanes are always a roll of the dice. If you have six planes, each plane has a die dot. If the game rolls a "one", the "one" plane goes out. If the game rolls a "two", the "two" plane goes out, etc. The only way in SH4 to control what goes out is to restrict the AirGroups and specific planes available. Such as, we might want Corsairs going out instead of Wildcats, if there is a US Marines' AirBase nearby, or maybe drop the number of planes available of each type, or just drop all but one or two plane types from an AirBase. It does involve cloning though. You might want to clone a Corsair one way for later CV use, while the land-based version might have a shorter range. You might also want to clone specific AirBase assets, such as an LAB_FP40_AirBase or LAB_LBWhitley_AirBase, or whatever... The only problems with more airbases is of course, complexity, plus more airplanes responding if they are all within range of the detected U-Boat... :roll: :salute:

gap

12-09-20, 08:26 AM

In SH4, the ranges come from the airplanes' cfg files

In addition to the max radius setting in aircraft cfg file, in SH5's AirStrike.cfg there is a global 'Maximum Aircraft Range'. It should be there also for SHIV.
I am not 100% about its usage by the game, but it is likely to override individual ranges of each plane, if they exceed that limit.

and the "order of appearance" is all chance. Other than the "patrol" platforms, which go out every so often no matter what, the "response" airplanes are always a roll of the dice. If you have six planes, each plane has a die dot. If the game rolls a "one", the "one" plane goes out. If the game rolls a "two", the "two" plane goes out, etc.

I understand that, but since all the dices are rolled at the same time, the first aircraft arriving from a given airbase to the point of detection, will be the top speed ones. Unless their number/range is limited compared to other types of aircraft, we will always see them. Indeed, soon or later slower aircraft will join the party too, but by that time we will be dead or we will have submerged and cleared the area for good.

As noted by kapuhy in this thread, in SH5 the most common aircraft encounters are with aircraft types which, historically, did not sink any U-boat and which - due to their operational usage, would have seldomly attacked any naval target. In a submarine simulation this is not good.

The only way in SH4 to control what goes out is to restrict the AirGroups and specific planes available. Such as, we might want Corsairs going out instead of Wildcats, if there is a US Marines' AirBase nearby, or maybe drop the number of planes available of each type, or just drop all but one or two plane types from an AirBase. It does involve cloning though. You might want to clone a Corsair one way for later CV use, while the land-based version might have a shorter range. You might also want to clone specific AirBase assets, such as an LAB_FP40_AirBase or LAB_LBWhitley_AirBase, or whatever... The only problems with more airbases is of course, complexity, plus more airplanes responding if they are all within range of the detected U-Boat... :roll: :salute:

You are making some good points. creating as many 'proxy clones' of each aircraft featured in game as the squadrons using it, is an idea I had myself. In practice, I think that creating specific clones for the main variants of those aircraft and for the various types of armament (i.e. AHurricaneMkIIC_bombs, AHurricaneMkIV_rockets, BBlenheimMkIV_dcs or TBMarauderMkI_torps), would be more rationale. Since in WWII warfare squadrons with similar duties tended to use the same aircraft with the same armament and they had comparable patrol ranges, it is likely that each aircraft cloned in game could be assigned to multiple airbases / air groups :)

propbeanie

12-11-20, 07:50 PM

The game doesn't seem to send all of its "response" planes out at one time, unless you are a submarine that's been detected, then you will see a large group come after you, but even still, it's almost like they are spawned with first one plane, then a bit later, two planes. I have had nothing but PBY respond a few times. Other times, only B-25. Others, just the worthless Buffalo "USFighter". While it depends upon the AirBase cfg and its squadrons, the AirBase does not send all of its airplanes out at once. However, they will keep sending them out until the "threat" is eliminated, though a cycle through the AirStrike cfg file might "miss" with a round or two.

You of course, can "clone" the AirBases also, and have them "specialize" in what you want, which is the way we did some of the bases around Japan. We were having too many airplanes crash into the mountains along the ocean because of having to fly from Nagasaki or Tokyo for a response to a sub detected off of Bungo Suido, or Kii Suido. We would get a plane response, but only a very few would make it. So we cloned the Small AirBase, and put 2-plane AirGroups of a given fighter in them, with the occasional patrol plane base, and it keeps players "honest" to a point, yet doesn't deluge them with too many planes, or planes crashing into land masses, causing system resource overload while the game tracks crashed planes and "survivors"...

You wouldn't necessarily have to make the AirGroups "historically numbered", with say 24 airplanes in its AirGroup, because the game will use all 24 of them. You would only need maybe six maximum, to get an appropriate response, unless you want to make the AirGroups the size of an average squadron response. One set of pilots would be resting, another patrolling, and a third on standby. Plus, there would be planes waiting on parts for necessary repairs...

By cloning AirBases to have different squadrons, you can then eliminate the inappropriate airplanes in the other squadrons, and then you won't have Hellcats and Mitchells coming in when you should have Beauforts & Mosquitoes... with rockets... and Leigh lights... and radar... :har:

kapuhy

12-12-20, 02:51 PM

(i.e. AHurricaneMkIIC_bombs, AHurricaneMkIV_rockets, BBlenheimMkIV_dcs or TBMarauderMkI_torps)

re: torps - do they even work in SH5? So far I've never seen torpedo bomber drop a torpedo.

gap

12-13-20, 07:45 AM

re: torps - do they even work in SH5? So far I've never seen torpedo bomber drop a torpedo.

With IRAI installed, they should. Nonethelesse, like in reality (or even ore), they are not perfect, and for using them each aicraft must be set carefully an tested. IIRC, the nastiest bug with them was they goings backwards once dropped. I don't remember what is the trick that fixes that, but in SH5 and SHIV there should be multiple threads and posts on this topic :salute:

@ propbeanie,

thank you for your long answer mate. Please find my replies below :)

The game doesn't seem to send all of its "response" planes out at one time, unless you are a submarine that's been detected [...]

In one of your first replies on this thread, you had written that the detection of a submarine "qualifies" for the spawning of up to seven "response aircraft" at any given moment. I suppose this is the max size of an "ASW response group", though its aircraft won't arrive all contemporarily, but in small groups of 1 or 2 aircraft every few minutes. From your last reply I also get that, after a longer interval, the game will spawn other "responde groups", even though probably we won't be anymore there for telling it.

Is my interpretation of your reports correct?

If yes, does the game spawn only one of such a "response groups" at any given time, or more that one group can be spawned if multiple airbases are within player's range?

Does the number of aircraft assigned to each base (beyond the maximum number of seven aircraft composing each ASW group) affect this scheme and, if yes, how?

Within each group, do faster aircraft arrive first, or the order of arrival is totally random?

You of course, can "clone" the AirBases also, and have them "specialize" in what you want [...]

With the working method I have in mind, we wouldn't have "generic" airbases. Each airbase modelled in game would correspond to a real RAF station, and its air groups will elvolve reflecting its WWII usage by various RAF squadrons. Only squadrons relevant to the game will be considered:

- defensive fighter squadrons located near the coasts of the British Empire, equipped with "bomb-less", "short-ranged" aircraft so that they will only act as coastal defenses against harbor raids, attacking any close-enough enemy with their guns/cannons;

- maritime surveillance/reconnaissance squadrons whose aircraft should be equipped with flares and sea marker bombs rather than explosive bombs.

- ASW squadrons, whose aircraft will be initially equipped with ordinary bombs, gradually replaced by depth bombs and (where they apply) torpedoes and rockets as the war progresses and more specialized weapons become available.

- Anti-shipping squadrons, whose aircraft will be equipped with bombs, torpedoes and rockets.

- Convoy-defense squadrons, whose airccraft will be equipped with a variety of different armaments, depending on base location and on the most likely menace that they would have faced.

Possible gaps between one "operative" air group and the next one, will be filled with "filler air groups". See post #44 in this thread (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2711782#post2711782) on what I mean for "filler group". Should one of the operative air groups cause any problem (as per your example), I will reduce the number of its aircraft to ridiculous amount, or I will replace it with a filler group.

You wouldn't necessarily have to make the AirGroups "historically numbered"[...]

Well it all depends on how the game will use those aircraft, but I see your point anyway.

Whatever is the most appropriate number of aircraft per squadron, I want to keep this number as constant as possible. If at some point, in reality, an airbase hosted two squadrons equipped with the same aircraft, in game I want that base to have roughly twice the number of aircraft it would have had if only one squadron was using it. Likewise, if historically a squadron had one or more detachments, in game it should contribute to each of its bases a lesser number of aircraft than it would if all its aircraft where "assigned" to one base.

gap

12-13-20, 10:15 AM

@ vdr1981 Re. "Carriers spawning aircraft when they have a contact detected"

I have finally found the post where TDW describes the working of his patch. I also mentions a testing mission though I am not sure that he included it in the patcher. Hope that helps you in understanding why the patch didn't work during your tests.

Here's the link:
https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2079044&postcount=2193

propbeanie

12-13-20, 03:52 PM

With IRAI installed, they should. Nonethelesse, like in reality (or even ore), they are not perfect, and for using them each aicraft must be set carefully an tested. IIRC, the nastiest bug with them was they goings backwards once dropped. I don't remember what is the trick that fixes that, but in SH5 and SHIV there should be multiple threads and posts on this topic :salute:
Seems to me there were clues in Rubini's SH3 thread...

@ propbeanie,

thank you for your long answer mate. Please find my replies below :)

In one of your first replies on this thread, you had written that the detection of a submarine "qualifies" for the spawning of up to seven "response aircraft" at any given moment. It seems to, yes I suppose this is the max size of an "ASW response group", though its aircraft won't arrive all contemporarily, but in small groups of 1 or 2 aircraft every few minutes. This is correct From your last reply I also get that, after a longer interval, the game will spawn other "responde groups", even though probably we won't be anymore there for telling it. Correct. Response based upon AirStrike.cfg settings for the "timing" between the 'dice roll', or random number. If you stay in the location, you will see a 2nd wave, and if you are seen, a third wave later, etc.

Is my interpretation of your reports correct? yes

If yes, does the game spawn only one of such a "response groups" at any given time planes will spawn from the same group, until it runs out of planes apparently. I have not tested long enough beyond to see if other bases respond, or more that one group can be spawned if multiple airbases are within player's range? That is difficult to tell for certain, other than all of the planes seem to come in to "play" from the same generally direction. I would say only one AirBase responds, seemingly the closest. One way to tell for certain is to build a scenario and have two AirBases in a "quiet" area of the world, maybe just a few km difference in distance from the "target" area, and both with different AirGroups, roughly 90-130° separation at the location of your "target", and see what happens with the response when the "target" is detected.

Does the number of aircraft assigned to each base (beyond the maximum number of seven aircraft composing each ASW group) affect this scheme and, if yes, how? It does seem to affect the response. If there are only 2 airplanes total for an AirBase, that is all that is sent. AirBases with more airplanes do seem to have a maximum number they will send out at any given "response", based on the AirStrike.cfg counter. One aspect of this "response" is that it is much easier, as a submarine, to "see" something attacking you, than it is to monitor the airplanes attacking something else that might be beyond the horizon.

Within each group, do faster aircraft arrive first, or the order of arrival is totally random? It seems to be the roll of the dice influences the aircraft sent, as well as their spacing. Their flight speed does affect when they arrive, of course, such that it might be you would see all of the planes at about the same time, if the slower planes are spawned first, and the fastest planes last, or it might be that you would see them spaced out over a period of time, if the fastest came first, and then the slowest. They do seem to "fly by" the area, and then "return to base" along similar flight paths, though if another airplane finds something to attack, it does seem to generate a "report", and most of the planes when returning will then also attack. Several runs of a given scenario would all result in different airplanes, different flight paths, different attacks, etc., so that makes "testing" somewhat more difficult.

With the working method I have in mind, we wouldn't have "generic" airbases. Each airbase modelled in game would correspond to a real RAF station, and its air groups will elvolve reflecting its WWII usage by various RAF squadrons. Only squadrons relevant to the game will be considered:

- defensive fighter squadrons located near the coasts of the British Empire, equipped with "bomb-less", "short-ranged" aircraft so that they will only act as coastal defenses against harbor raids, attacking any close-enough enemy with their guns/cannons;

- maritime surveillance/reconnaissance squadrons whose aircraft should be equipped with flares and sea marker bombs rather than explosive bombs.

- ASW squadrons, whose aircraft will be initially equipped with ordinary bombs, gradually replaced by depth bombs and (where they apply) torpedoes and rockets as the war progresses and more specialized weapons become available.

- Anti-shipping squadrons, whose aircraft will be equipped with bombs, torpedoes and rockets.

- Convoy-defense squadrons, whose airccraft will be equipped with a variety of different armaments, depending on base location and on the most likely menace that they would have faced.

Possible gaps between one "operative" air group and the next one, will be filled with "filler air groups". See post #44 in this thread (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=2711782#post2711782) on what I mean for "filler group". Should one of the operative air groups cause any problem (as per your example), I will reduce the number of its aircraft to ridiculous amount, or I will replace it with a filler group.
Sounds like a plan!

Well it all depends on how the game will use those aircraft, but I see your point anyway.

Whatever is the most appropriate number of aircraft per squadron, I want to keep this number as constant as possible. If at some point, in reality, an airbase hosted two squadrons equipped with the same aircraft, in game I want that base to have roughly twice the number of aircraft it would have had if only one squadron was using it. Likewise, if historically a squadron had one or more detachments, in game it should contribute to each of its bases a lesser number of aircraft than it would if all its aircraft where "assigned" to one base.
When we attempted to build "appropriate" bases for a given RL air group, we would usually end up with skies polluted with airplanes. We put the 38th BG B-25 AirGroup at Port Moresby, New Guinea, but 72 planes seemed a bit excessive, so we made it 16 planes. Yet, a person could not operate their submarine between New Guinea and the Admiralities north of the Bismarck Sea, and Guadalcanal south of the Solomon Sea, for all of the airplanes. The B-25s were constantly in the air, and the Japanese of course, had to have an air response to the B-25s... lol - mass hysteria! Plus, they sank everything in sight! Nothing left for the subs. So we cut the B-25 group back to 6 airplanes and shortened their operating radius quite a bit. It is much better now. :haha: :salute:

Demon777

12-14-20, 09:08 AM

it looks like in SH4/SH5 all aircaft have "two sides of one coin"

on one side, we have almost stupid AI with no immersion to air warfare like in IL-2 etc. On the other side, the simple increase of aircart numbers may result in ending up the Battle of Atlantic 1-2 years earlier :)

propbeanie

12-14-20, 03:30 PM

You sir, are correct! The planes were not modeled to be a major player in the game, and the player was not supposed to want to look at the beautiful scenery and wonderfully modeled airplanes and ships of the game, but to rather stay inside his little steel coffin, water dripping from every surface, and grin and bear it looking through a periscope instead... lol - That way, you never see the airplane crash after it dive bombs you, or you never see that what took your boat to the bottom was the plane itself, and not its bomb, which had fallen harmlessly 30 meters away... lol - It is a balancing act to get a decent, appropriate airplane response. Plus, the planes do not "dog fight", so their only true natural enemy are surface ships and submarines... :roll: - unless, of course, they crash into each other, which they do from time to time... or crash into hills that are over 500m in height... :roll: "AI" need not apply for a job here. Only AD (Artificial Dum-dum) is accepted by the game. :salute:

gap

12-14-20, 06:24 PM

Seems to me there were clues in Rubini's SH3 thread...

Weren't air torpedoes a feature introduced with SHIV? :hmmm:

Indeed, there is an Air Torpedo mod for SHIII by Rubini, but I think it exploited the same workaround as the ship torpedo mod (where torpedoes are spawned in game as the muzzle flash effect of an invisible dummy gun); I doubt anything related with their working and with their setup to apply to later SH games :hmmm:

planes will spawn from the same group, until it runs out of planes apparently. [...] All of the planes seem to come in to "play" from the same generally direction. I would say only one AirBase responds, seemingly the closest.

Resuming:

Once an unit is detected, there is a chance that response aircraft will spawn from the nearest enemy base within detected unit's range. If, considering max radii of the assigned aircraft, no air base is within range, no response aircraft will spawn.

The chance that the selected airbase will actually spawn response aircraft depends on a number of factors like airbase veterancy level and day/night time as well as a number of related parameters in AirStrike.cfg (i.e: Default Air Strike Probability, Probability Increase factors, Atenuation Factor, Airbase Modifiers and Night Modifier). If someone could provide the formula actually used by the game for calculating this chance, that would be cool.

The chance of a response "session" is calculated at fixed time intervals equal to Logic Steps Between Air Sessions (AirStrike.cfg) x 90 seconds.

The maximum number of response aircraft spawned per session is variable, depending on the type of unit (ship, submarine, port, coastal defense, etc, Axis/Allied threat zones count as if they were a refular unit) whose detection has "triggered" the response. In SHIV, the typical response against a submarine is composed of a maximum of seven aircraft.
The minimum number number of response aircraft spawned per session, depends on the number of aircraft with the appropriate range assigned to the selected airbase and "available" for the mission.
Resuming, if we are detected and the nearest airbase has more than 7 aircraft assigned with enough range to perform a response raid, only 7 aircraft will spawn (i.e. the maximum hardcoded limit for ASW attacks), but if that base has only 4 aircracft available, then only those 4 will spawn.

All the aircraft composing a response group will come from the general direction of the airbase they spawned from. If that airbase has more than one aircraft type assigned and available, the composition of the response group will be random. Aircraft won't get to the operation area all at once, but at short intervals and in small groups of 1, 2 or 3 aircraft.

No matter if the aircraft composing a response raid are killed in action or they return to base after accomplishing their mission, they become "unavailable" for the next raids, yet, on they way back to base they are still "active"; they will report any enemy unit if they detect one (thus triggering a potential cascade of "resposne raids"), and they will attack it if they still have any weapon available.

If the unit which had triggered the air response was not destroyed during the first raid, more raids will be considered by the game if the selected airbase has still some aircraft available. Indeed, that will involve waiting for the next dice roll.

When we attempted to build "appropriate" bases for a given RL air group, we would usually end up with skies polluted with airplanes. We put the 38th BG B-25 AirGroup at Port Moresby, New Guinea, but 72 planes seemed a bit excessive, so we made it 16 planes. Yet, a person could not operate their submarine between New Guinea and the Admiralities north of the Bismarck Sea, and Guadalcanal south of the Solomon Sea, for all of the airplanes. The B-25s were constantly in the air, and the Japanese of course, had to have an air response to the B-25s... lol - mass hysteria! Plus, they sank everything in sight! Nothing left for the subs. So we cut the B-25 group back to 6 airplanes and shortened their operating radius quite a bit. It is much better now. :haha: :salute:

LOL :rotfl2:

Did you try playing with AirStrike.cfg settings in order to reduce aircraft activity?

gap

12-15-20, 09:14 AM

I have just found a couple of books containing information on USAF Squadrons similar to the information we already had on RAF ones:

Air Force Combat Units of World War II (https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/21/2001330256/-1/-1/0/AFD-100921-044.pdf)

Combat Squadrons of the Air Force WWII (https://media.defense.gov/2010/Dec/02/2001329899/-1/-1/0/AFD-101202-002.pdf)

SHIV modders as well as SH5 ones might be interested in having a close look into those documents :salute:

propbeanie

12-16-20, 11:49 AM

Weren't air torpedoes a feature introduced with SHIV? :hmmm: Yes, but I can't remember if that was the initial release, or one of the "updates"... The problem of the torpedo not launching properly was there also though - or at least, for a period of time. Part of the problem was plane speed, as well as plane height when launching, which may have been "fixed" in v1.5. I do not recall where it was, but someone mentions working on fixing the backwards torpedo launch, and it may well have been a TDW thread instead of Rubini...

Indeed, there is an Air Torpedo mod for SHIII by Rubini, but I think it exploited the same workaround as the ship torpedo mod (where torpedoes are spawned in game as the muzzle flash effect of an invisible dummy gun); I doubt anything related with their working and with their setup to apply to later SH games :hmmm: Exactly on the "spawn" method. This does bring to mind though, the fix, and that was the actual spawning of the torpedo being initiated from the "splash" of the "fake" drop... The drop did not matter, since the "splash" is what spawned the actual torpredo. Then, it is just a matter of "aiming", of which there is none... lol - well, actually, there is, it's just that the aiming of the torpedo for the game AI utilizes its base platform, which is a gun, and a shell shot from a gun travels much faster than a torpedo... :roll:

Resuming:

Once an unit is detected, there is a chance that response aircraft will spawn from the nearest enemy base within detected unit's range. If, considering max radii of the assigned aircraft, no air base is within range, no response aircraft will spawn. yes

The chance that the selected airbase will actually spawn response aircraft depends on a number of factors like airbase veterancy level and day/night time as well as a number of related parameters in AirStrike.cfg (i.e: Default Air Strike Probability, Probability Increase factors, Atenuation Factor, Airbase Modifiers and Night Modifier). If someone could provide the formula actually used by the game for calculating this chance, that would be cool. There is a write-up on that - in the AirStrike.cfg itself?? Anyway, the game decides if it will respond (is usually does on the first run-through). It then decides which airplanes are available that can reach out at the detected range, and pulls randomly from that pool. The game will usually not use one plane type exclusively, but rather, spread the response, as can be seen in that video, where the first plane is a P-40, the next three are Wildcats, then a PBY (probably not seen in that particular video), etc. The other factors are then applied to the response equation.

The chance of a response "session" is calculated at fixed time intervals equal to Logic Steps Between Air Sessions (AirStrike.cfg) x 90 seconds.

The maximum number of response aircraft spawned per session is variable, depending on the type of unit (ship, submarine, port, coastal defense, etc, Axis/Allied threat zones count as if they were a refular unit) whose detection has "triggered" the response. In SHIV, the typical response against a submarine is composed of a maximum of seven aircraft. This is what it appears to be.
The minimum number number of response aircraft spawned per session, depends on the number of aircraft with the appropriate range assigned to the selected airbase and "available" for the mission. Yes, but does include all types of planes, dependent upon range.
Resuming, if we are detected and the nearest airbase has more than 7 aircraft assigned with enough range to perform a response raid, only 7 aircraft will spawn (i.e. the maximum hardcoded limit for ASW attacks), but if that base has only 4 aircracft available, then only those 4 will spawn. yes - total aircraft though, not just one type

All the aircraft composing a response group will come from the general direction of the airbase they spawned from. If that airbase has more than one aircraft type assigned and available, the composition of the response group will be random. Aircraft won't get to the operation area all at once, but at short intervals and in small groups of 1, 2 or 3 aircraft. yes

No matter if the aircraft composing a response raid are killed in action or they return to base after accomplishing their mission, they become "unavailable" for the next raids, yet, on they way back to base they are still "active"; they will report any enemy unit if they detect one (thus triggering a potential cascade of "resposne raids"), and they will attack it if they still have any weapon available. I am not certain of "availability". It seems that an AirBase seemingly generates more airplanes than it should, sometimes apparently generating its new response off of the airplanes that should still be enroute back to base, but are outside the player's "spawn range".

If the unit which had triggered the air response was not destroyed during the first raid, more raids will be considered by the game if the selected airbase has still some aircraft available. Indeed, that will involve waiting for the next dice roll. yes

LOL :rotfl2:

Did you try playing with AirStrike.cfg settings in order to reduce aircraft activity?
Yes, we "tweak" those every so often in attempts to get a more predictable response. Probably one of the main problems found in FotRSU, and this applies to Sea assets as well, is the disparate sources of a lot of the assets imported to the mod. Each author of a ship or plane has their own idea of how to do things, and they build them for their own version of the game, which that "environment" may well be significantly different from what they are currently being used in... :salute:

I have just found a couple of books containing information on USAF Squadrons similar to the information we already had on RAF ones:

Air Force Combat Units of World War II (https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/21/2001330256/-1/-1/0/AFD-100921-044.pdf)

Combat Squadrons of the Air Force WWII (https://media.defense.gov/2010/Dec/02/2001329899/-1/-1/0/AFD-101202-002.pdf)

SHIV modders as well as SH5 ones might be interested in having a close look into those documents :salute:
Very nice! Thank you.

gap

12-20-20, 02:04 PM

The problem of the torpedo not launching properly was there also though - or at least, for a period of time. Part of the problem was plane speed, as well as plane height when launching, which may have been "fixed" in v1.5. I do not recall where it was, but someone mentions working on fixing the backwards torpedo launch, and it may well have been a TDW thread instead of Rubini...

I have made a quick search on this topic on subsim forums, and all the mentions I have found are about SHIV and SH5. I myself experienced the issue while importing in game a beautiful B-25 model by JU_88.

I am not 100% sure about that, but I think the fix resides in eqp node naming or in its positioning relative to the 3D model of the plane :hmm2:

There is a write-up on that - in the AirStrike.cfg itself??

Those comments are not entirely clear to me, for one thing they don't say how the 'attenuation factor' is applied, and the part relative to 'coverage factor' calculation is a bit nebulous. I would have preferred a set of formulas, but at least those notes shed some light on the general meaning of the main settings. Most of them are multipliers, so if we double one we should half the Default Air Strike Probability (or viceversa), if we want to keep about the same air raid probability.

I am not certain of "availability". It seems that an AirBase seemingly generates more airplanes than it should, sometimes apparently generating its new response off of the airplanes that should still be enroute back to base, but are outside the player's "spawn range".

I am sure I took this "availability" concept from one of your previous replies, but I probably misunderstood you. Thank tou for clarifying that!

Yes, we "tweak" those every so often in attempts to get a more predictable response. Probably one of the main problems found in FotRSU, and this applies to Sea assets as well, is the disparate sources of a lot of the assets imported to the mod. Each author of a ship or plane has their own idea of how to do things, and they build them for their own version of the game, which that "environment" may well be significantly different from what they are currently being used in... :salute:

That's a general proble. In theory, before being merged into a mega-mod, any mod should be tuned to work well with the rest, but indeed that's not always an easy task.

Anyway, talking more specifically about air strikes, the only aircraft property with a direct effect on their probability, should be max radius and maybe max speed.

You sir, are correct! The planes were not modeled to be a major player in the game, and the player was not supposed to want to look at the beautiful scenery and wonderfully modeled airplanes and ships of the game, but to rather stay inside his little steel coffin, water dripping from every surface, and grin and bear it looking through a periscope instead... lol - That way, you never see the airplane crash after it dive bombs you, or you never see that what took your boat to the bottom was the plane itself, and not its bomb, which had fallen harmlessly 30 meters away... lol - It is a balancing act to get a decent, appropriate airplane response. Plus, the planes do not "dog fight", so their only true natural enemy are surface ships and submarines... :roll: - unless, of course, they crash into each other, which they do from time to time... or crash into hills that are over 500m in height... :roll: "AI" need not apply for a job here. Only AD (Artificial Dum-dum) is accepted by the game. :salute:

:rotfl2:

You make it sound like a joke whereas the dumb aircraft could be described as modding drama.

Just one note: TDW developed a patch for making SH5 aircraft to "dogfight". Well, their air duels don't come even near to an actual dogfighting, but seen from a periscopic perspective... :haha:

propbeanie

12-20-20, 08:51 PM

I have made a quick search on this topic on subsim forums, and all the mentions I have found are about SHIV and SH5. I myself experienced the issue while importing in game a beautiful B-25 model by JU_88.
Some of the "discussions" are in unrelated threads. TDW was famous for divulging details on another of his mods, while discussing a newer one. But I thought someone in the SH3 threads, while discussing Rubini's torpedoes had done something to "fix" them before SH4 had "fixed" them... dad-blame worn-out RAM I've got in my noggin...

I am not 100% sure about that, but I think the fix resides in eqp node naming or in its positioning relative to the 3D model of the plane :hmm2:
wish I could remember...

Those comments are not entirely clear to me, for one thing they don't say how the 'attenuation factor' is applied, and the part relative to 'coverage factor' calculation is a bit nebulous. I would have preferred a set of formulas, but at least those notes shed some light on the general meaning of the main settings. Most of them are multipliers, so if we double one we should half the Default Air Strike Probability (or viceversa), if we want to keep about the same air raid probability.
Unfortunately, they don't say what type of multiplier, such as one seems to be as it is written, while the next seems to be a percentage, but I am never certain if I'm dealing with 1 x 0.0001, or a 1 x 0.01 when they say '0.01' for some of the settings. In other words, is it really a one hundredth, or is it one one hundredth of a percent, which is a "one ten thousandth"... lol

I am sure I took this "availability" concept from one of your previous replies, but I probably misunderstood you. Thank tou for clarifying that!
Again though, I am not certain where that "line" is that the game considers a platform as "available" to go back out once again, but I have seen it where a "fast" airplane, such as a Wildcat, will seem either like it's late to the response, or that maybe the game ran an early AirStrike probability, because I have already seen 4 of 4 Wildcats around my sub, and yet, just after they have dropped off of radar, there are a couple coming toward me again. No other way to explain, unless they did happen to come from a 2nd airbase, but followed the same routing as the first base... ?? The only way to find out, is to do a series of tests with only one airbase with only one air group with a very limited supply of airplanes, and see what happens when the enemy is detected...

That's a general proble. In theory, before being merged into a mega-mod, any mod should be tuned to work well with the rest, but indeed that's not always an easy task.
AI visual, and other sensors also come into play, and not just for the airplanes. The ships or shore installations that might report a sighting of the enemy, or a radar detection, or a huff-duff, etc., all come into play for the "balance". We have seen seemingly innocuous changes affect more than we would like, and oftentimes, it isn't noticed until a large group of people get their hands on the mod... :roll: "What happened to the DD? Are they deaf dumb & blind?", only to have the next round have a "What happened to the DD? I died within 2 minutes of shooting my torpedoes! They were on my like stink, and sank me on the first pass!"... lol

Anyway, talking more specifically about air strikes, the only aircraft property with a direct effect on their probability, should be max radius and maybe max speed.[quote]
yes, and I'm not certain the game considers the plane's speed. I would imagine the game considers the plane type also, especially if the detection is a long way off.

[QUOTE=gap;2714991]:rotfl2:
You make it sound like a joke whereas the dumb aircraft could be described as modding drama.

Just one note: TDW developed a patch for making SH5 aircraft to "dogfight". Well, their air duels don't come even near to an actual dogfighting, but seen from a periscopic perspective... :haha:
I do remember having fun watching that quite a few years ago... lol :salute:

gap

12-23-20, 03:45 PM

Unfortunately, they don't say what type of multiplier, such as one seems to be as it is written, while the next seems to be a percentage, but I am never certain if I'm dealing with 1 x 0.0001, or a 1 x 0.01 when they say '0.01' for some of the settings. In other words, is it really a one hundredth, or is it one one hundredth of a percent, which is a "one ten thousandth"... lol

Hi Beanie, your doubts illustrate pretty well why I prefer formulas to textual notes. Airfield and night modifiers for sure are simple multipliers (1=100%).'Probability Increase' factors are not that clear though. They might be in percent (1=1%) and they might be actually added to the calculated probability. If that was true, supposing that the calculated probability of an airfield spawning planes is, le'ts say, 20% and a 'Probability Increase on Player Detection' of 40 applies, the final probability would be 20% x (1 + 0.4) = 28%

The only way to find out, is to do a series of tests with only one airbase with only one air group with a very limited supply of airplanes, and see what happens when the enemy is detected...

I agree

AI visual, and other sensors also come into play, and not just for the airplanes.

You are righty. In the worst possible scenario, if two enemy airbases were placed within each other's range, aircraft from one of the bases would trigger a response from the other base and viceversa. Unless aircraft "availability" is considered, I suppose that would trigger a endless loop of violence lol :doh:

That would be a nice testing situation btw.

I'm not certain the game considers the plane's speed. I would imagine the game considers the plane type also, especially if the detection is a long way off.

If memory serves, once TDW said that aircraft had to be within n minutes (travelling time) from an enemy unit for them to be considered for a "response" strike against that unit, "n" being a function of the loigical steps setting. Not 100% sure about that, but if that was true, faster aircraft would have an higher chance to spawn since the would cover the same distance in lesser time than slower ones...

U-190

05-21-22, 10:39 AM

As the title says, here are some long-standing doubts of mine that I never managed resolving:

Are aircraft (or any other AI units) able to use their non-visual sensors for spotting other AI units, or they are only effective against player's boat?

For airbase-spawned aircraft, do they need to be in the same base and/or airgroup to act coordinately (i.e. a group of bombers with their fighter escort)?

For airbase/carrier-spawned aircraft, is there any way to make some classes not to spawn at night or - conversely - to only spawn in night time?

For airbase/carrier-spawned aircraft, do they inherit their veterancy level from the unit they spawn from, or how else is their veterancy level determined?

For airbase/carrier-spawned aircraft with multiple armament loadouts, is there any way to predict which loadout will be actually used in different circumstances? Is that random, or how else the game is assigning them?

For airbases and carriers with multiple airgroups, do their airgroups need to be sorted sequentially according to their start date? Can an airgroup start before the previous airgroup is ended? In other words, can an airgroup have a start date which is earlier than previous group's end date?

Has anyone tried adding one or more airgroup(s) to any non-carrier sea unit? That would be useful for simulating CAM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAM_ship)/MAC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_aircraft_carrier) ships and scout planes aboard cruisers and battleships.

Any hint by some knowledgeable subsim mate would be much appreciated :)
The behavior of aircraft and ships is random. The AI behavior is recorded in one common configuration file. I was trying to solve the problem you are talking about in IRAI v0.0.45. For more advanced behavior, each individual AI should have its own behavior configuration file. A similar expansion is observed only in later versions of modern games.
I think that I will still make attempts to work on this problem.