I get a platform not found in library for wildcat and avenger when i try and run the editor. Note that I tried to change a few airbases to dump the fake planes first...

hmmm

Crap. I changed the 1 base and 1 CV back to the way they were, and i still cannot run the editor even after uninstalling the mod with JSGME.

Anyone know wtf this mod screwed up?

I'm not planning to script them myself but here is what you can try out to add the planes to the campaing:

here are three files that you have to look into here.
These files are:

DATA/LAND/LAB_SmallAirBaseUS/LAB_SmallAirBaseUS.cfg
DATA/LAND/LAB_MediumAirBaseUS/LAB_MediumAirBaseUS.cfg
DATA/LAND/LAB_LargeAirBaseUS/LAB_LargeAirBaseUS.cfg

Opening one of these, forexample LargeAirbaseUS you will see something similar to this:
I've highlighted the important lines here.
These lines corresponds to the planes that would be possible to meet when playing campaign mode, but only for the LARGE airbases.

After installing the planes you have to take a look in the

DATA/ROSTER/AMERICAN/AIR directory

If you add a new airgroup or change a existing you have to add one of the new installed squadronclasses based on the name in the corresponding CFG file in the DATA/ROSTER/AMERICAN/AIR and the new installed airplane..

The airbases come in different sizes so in order to add the planes to all the different types of airbases you have to add or change the airgroups in all the three files (LARGE, MEDIUM and SMALL)

Uhhm.. I hope someone understands what I mean!

Do you?;)

No, the latter part confuses me. I installed the US planes mod. I opened the large US airbase and changed the planes to real planes. No problems. I changed the CV's airgroup to have real planes, too. Tried to launch editor and it crahed. changed the files back the way they were before, uninstalled US planes mod, and still the editor is now dead saying that the wildcat and avenger have platforms not found in the platform library.
Argh.

OK, this mod doesn't add plane classes to Names.cfg inside Roster.

That's the default. Shouldn't all the new planes get an entry in here as well?

Sadly there are some unscrupulous folks out there who refuse to give credit for other people's mods that they've used. All a modder requires is that proper credit is given. Surely it's not too much to ask.

Now this instance is, I'm sure, an honest mistake, but there are a few folks out there who refuse to give credit even after being asked numerous times. It's no wonder that modders here are getting a little testy on this issue - after all we spend hours, days, even weeks making mods for free - so I think we deserve, at the very least, to get fair recognition for our efforts - after all, our work makes the game better for the whole community.

OK, assuming this is the right thing to do, I made a new Class entry for each plane in Names.cfg, and I changed the large US airbase as a test and nothing blew up. My problem before was (I think) that without a class entry, the mission builder lost its mind.

Anyway, the 5 critical "dynamic" files to change are the large, normal, and small US air bases, and the Wasp CV and Casablanca CVE cfg files. I'm happy to change them, but I'm unclear on the exact way to dole them out to people. I will finish messing with those basic files tonight, then look for someone to point me in the right direction to release them. At that point all the randomly generated planes (except those with explicit waypoints in a .mis file) will be fixed.

The best release solution would be to include the changed cfg files along with a new release of this particular mod (assuming all the ducks are in a row for credits with the model makers who did the real work).

Another issue is that the bomb loadouts on these US planes are every bit as screwy as the japanese loads. They need some tweaking. I could tweak those as well, but since that is the work of the original guys who made the models, is that OK?

If folks are interested I'll also change the UK bases to have the Hudson in place of the B-24, at least for the early air groups. I'd keep the Brewster since the RAF flew them in the far east, and use the PBY because everyone used the PBY.

tater

Sounds great! :up:

If you add new ships to campaing layer this would be the way to do it, so i guess it is the same with airplanes.

So when adding the names under the [air] part in names.cfg (roster) fixed the crash issue?

Seemed to. Part of the problem may have been that when I altered the airgroups at the air base, I was unsure which way to use the name. I looked at the existing files as a model, but the use of AFB_USFighter vs FB_USFighter vs USFighter didn't seem all that clear. I might have typoed 1 as different from the others.

In the layers, the large majority of planes seen is the result of the airbase placement, at least for enemy planes. There are a few patrol patterns of "real" planes (a specific plane placed on the map flying waypoints). Those would obviously also need changing. The problem on my end is that the Lancs pissed me off so much I deleted every single US plane I saw in the harbor traffic layers, So I have no idea where they are now.

Honestly, the US planes don't make much of a difference to me, I rarely ever even see them.

Hmm. I see.

PM me if you need fresh files. I have one fresh and one modded install :D

I think you have to use the short name, the first of the names under [air]

Forexample:

LBSUSSearchPlane NOT Search Plane

I haven't tried with airplanes, but I've tried with ships.

OK, I changed all the US airbases to have PBYs, B-24s, and either F2Bs or F4F/P-38s (yeah, some 38s appear a little early).

I changed the CVs to have the current VB unit, but changed the VTs to TBFs, and the VFs to F4Fs.

I changed a few of the US loadouts, dropping the PBY load since it only had 4 hardpoints, not 6, and added a 2xtorpedo load that it had in RL.

Here's my only issue right now: The 3d models on the CVs. The CV eqp points to US_Fighter and US_TorpedoBomber as the planes on deck---but those 2 planes are actually called USFighter and USTorpedoBomber in the files. In no place can I find them with the _ after US. So what would I call the F4F which is coded with a Class Name of FBWildcat? FB_Wildcat?

Any ideas? In a few days when I have my kick ass new machine up and running I will just bash away and test, but my current rig is so slow it hurts to load up the game, then a test mission, only to have nothing happen.

If I can replace the 3d models on deck for Wasp and Casablanca then I will have a total fix ready except for a few scripted Lancs flying from PH and maybe Manila.

tater

Can someone who has added the correct planes to their campaign files post those files? I'd much prefer that to reinventing the wheel. Thanks in advance.

I'm afraid I don't have time to test it right now, I can do it later today and see what I find.

However. I think the name you should be using is the one without the underscore. If you take a look in the DATA/AIR directory you should find the new installed aircraft.
When opening the right directory for that particular aircraft there is ONE CFG file. Open that one and check the CLASSNAME. This is the name you should use if you want to add the airplane in the campaign.

When looking in the AIR folder I see that many of the aircraft has underscore in the directorynames, and when opening the CFG file in the airplanes directory and looking at the class name the underscore is gone.

Example: The class name is what is important. I'm almost certain :-?

Look at the eqp file for a US CV/CVE in the Sea folder. The 3d models on deck are pointed to in the same way that the sailors on deck,guns, etc are. The same dive bomber above is pointed to as US_DiveBomber.

Vindex, the planes are NOT in the campaign layers for the most part, there are a small handful of planes flying patterns as part of "harbor traffic" but the bulk that would be seen would be randomly encountered planes flying from CVs or from airbases. The files that need changing are the cfgs for those platforms. (I'm making an assumption that the firendly airbases and CV airgroups react to player units and overfly them, though perhaps I am 100% wrong)