Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hguderian]

Oops...I didn't want to break any statement/agreement. It was intended to be just a suggestion.

Thanks again for your works!!

[SAS~Storebror]

Don't worry mate, you ain't gonna "break" anything.
All you need to be aware of is that it's quite unlikely that someone from the team will join that type of subplot discussion.
That's not for us trying to be impolite, it's just a measurement we've had to take in order to ensure that we'll find time for modding, not just for answering things in our mod works threads.

Best regards - Mike

[Flying H]

I´ve got a problem though, I have no pylon or structure to carry the underbelly stores, at least not in the QMB screen. (I didn´t think about looking ingame though)

[Stratodog]

Love it.  Thank you very much sir.   

[Boelcke]

thx for this Mod, it´s a great addition to the game

i´ve found one problem: using this mod, the P 47 (stock) loadouts aren´t compatible with older campaigns, the planes are exploding when spawning, because of the loadouts

is it possible to rename the stock loadouts so that it´s compatible again?

[Stratodog]

is it possible to rename the stock loadouts so that it´s compatible again?

For instance: have the stock loadouts first, followed by all the new ones?  Thus preserving the stock and adding to it?

[SAS~Storebror]

Thanks for your suggestions.
All inquiries and bug reports up to this post have been evaluated, first post in this thread has been updated accordingly.
Thanks for working together with us on this WIP!

Best regards - Mike

[Flying H]

Great work Mike!

[Boelcke]

thx for your efforts

[Thunda]

Yeah, excellent Mike- much appreciated. Can I just clarify that we would add the new lines in 'weapons.ru' after the original stock lines?

[SAS~Storebror]

Can I just clarify that we would add the new lines in 'weapons.ru' after the original stock lines?

Hm...
I'm really wondering how much this would make sense.
First let me stress that the "weapons.ru" file is just a translation from the internal name of the ordnance option to some readable plain text version. That said it just doesn't matter which order you give to the entries in "weapons.ru" as long as they're there at all. What really matters is the order of ordnance options in the plane's class file respectively it's cod file, but here again for the reported bugs (aircraft exploding on mission start, old weapon loadouts not available anymore) the order wouldn't matter either, it's all about the loadout with it's internal name being there or not.

Now this leaves us with two possibilities:

• Extend the ordnance options by adding all stock options right like they were in front of the new ones.
  Benefit of this is that you clearly know where you're leaving the stock area and where you're selecting new ordnance options.
  Drawback is that this creates a lot of duplicate ordnance options which only differ in the amount of bullets carried, since except for a few stock loadouts all others have their counterpart in the new loadouts already.
  Another drawback is that the bullet count on stock loadouts simply doesn't seem historically correct and there's no obvious reason to keep those wrong values.
• Apply the stock internal names to the new ordnance options where applicable and add the few ones missing (1000lb bomb on center rack plus options, stripped for historical inaccuracy).
  Benefit of this is that there won't be duplicates, bullet count would be historically correct, the only thing being historically wrong would be the additional 1000lb center rack loadouts.
  This would work with older missions too, since the internal loadout option names would be kept.
  Drawback is that the old stock loadout options would be somewhere inbetween new ones, not in front of them.
  This could easily be overcome by adding some special flag to the new options in order to "mark" them for separation from the stock ones.

I guess I'll simply offer both ways so you can see which one fits better.

Best regards - Mike

[PA_Willy]

I vote second option. Best compromise.

Thank you for this work. I like a lot the new droptanks.