A bunch of questions on aircraft

[vdr1981]

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=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?

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...

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...

Originally Posted by kapuhy

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! I was too lazy last night to go trough the museum...

[gap]

Originally Posted by vdr1981

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...

Originally Posted by vdr1981

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...

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

Originally Posted by vdr1981

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...

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, 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, 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]

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

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, 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, 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... I'll think about it for some future Wolves updates...

[gap]

Originally Posted by vdr1981

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?

Originally Posted by vdr1981

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... I'll think about it for some future Wolves updates...

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]

Originally Posted by gap

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]

Originally Posted by kapuhy

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.

[kapuhy]

Originally Posted by gap

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.

Originally Posted by gap

Thank you for your support Vecko

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).

[vdr1981]

Originally Posted by gap

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...

[gap]

Originally Posted by vdr1981

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...

Thank you for your support Vecko

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?