Print

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

[SAS~Anto]

Is this supposed to be a sort of joke in order to make a point or is this actually so? Cause if it is, please let me know which ones you're referring to so I can disable them already ... not only are there too many variants of Spits and Yaks, but also of 109's, Fw-190's, P-38's, Ju-87 ...

No, no joke at all. We have some Yak, Zero and Fw-190 variants in which only a handful were made and consisted of tiny modifications, many of which for IL-2's sake are simply cosmetic. As for Bf-109s, I can say personally that all the variants I worked on did see action, but some models again were limited production (e.g. F-0, G-3) or only claimed to see action in records (e.g. K-6). Spitfires, well people just went crazy with them and for Ju-87s, it is mostly due to poor slot consolidation.

I don't have the list handy, as it was now many months ago that this was discussed and decided on. In coming week a few of us are discussing and working on DBW 1.7, so I will remind Piet to post up the list

[FANATIC MODDER]

For God's shake, how many times I should say, go on with what you do and GIVE THE CHANCE for people to have all the extra work with the way I described how many times? 3? Should I write it again?

Is that so much out of reality to proceed as planned, and add a substancial amount of extra material that can be added that way? (And it's not only about air.ini)

The point is that in essence, you don't want even to discuss it. Not even bother with it. You try to close the discussion. That annoyes me.

Maybe some mods were purely cosmetic, but LOOK at last in my inis, "cosmetic" planes are simply not there (ok the P-40 recco maybe one!).

The important question is, who will work with Xmx value? Can this be improved or all the source code has be to re-written? Who can answer to this?

[saab ja26]

With the missing planes I myself will not be installing DBW 1.7.

[LuseKofte]

I think you start to get rude, I think it is you that does not listen. I read all you have written. And I have read it in previous discussions when it was decided. We have listen to the majorety of DBW users when the further development of DBW was decided.

It is you who chosen not to listen, You are forcing your will above others in this matter.

Pleace stop it before it go too far. This topic is evolving to be rather unpleacant.

[FANATIC MODDER]

I agree. I heard this rap before. I am talking about "discuss" and then you respond about "forcing my will". Sure this is damn rude. Do whatever you like. Bann me. I am tired of this. The fun is over. There is no point to waste time in something when the friendly enviroment is gone. I am too old for this.

[Königstiger]

I think "Userfriendly" and "standardised" should be the great words that dominate all modding and specially the DBW.
Whenever somebody trys to change something to make it easier for the users, there are a few persons who don't like this
BUT thats okay: Make youre way and inform other people about the possibiltys and alternative ways  ...but please dont try to kill other Opinions 

Cheers, Hendrik

[STAX18]

You can use this method with every mod installation with jsgme (for example DBW 1.6 or the new 1.7).
You can do many different jsgme folders for every war theater and time period you want, with all the specific planes and an reduced air.ini.
I have collected mods for about 1.200 air.ini entries and with this method you can pimp up any standard mod pack with your favours mods.
If you reach the java wall, just split your theater or time period in two different jsgme folders.

I have done this by a similar way:

Until today I never get any problems with extra planes.

I run DBW 1.5 and this are mine extra planes (16 additional entries in air.ini):
1.) Fw190F-8_Late, Fw190F-9, Fw190F-9/PB (-Fw-190A-8(Beta) disabled, Canopy problem!)
2.) IAR80early, IAR80B, IAR80C, IAR80M, IAR81Cnew
3.) B-26
4.) a) T-33 & b) RF-80A
5.) F6F-5N
6.) FM-1_GM
7.) TB-3_4M-17_T_DZZMod & TB-3_4M-34R_T_DZZMod
8.) Il-4late (same mod)
I have activated this planes with me own build jsgme-folder.
Others mods I have activated via jsgme are Ecran Wide, Forgotten Countries Full & MissionPro Combo by PAL.
No other mods else are installed. My DBW RAM usage is 512 MB.

Because I expect to hit the java wall, I have prepared jsgme-folder for different theaters (like SCW, ETO, MTO, EASTFRONT, PTO, KTO...)
so I would activate only my additional plane set for the theater of the specific mission I would like to play.

My system specs are:
WinXP, 2x3,0Ghz, 3 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450

[LuseKofte]

You have never been anywhere near ban or warning, but you ar surely not a good listener. I told you in the start of DBW 1.7 that it wasnt a democratic decition to make, it is only you that want DBW as is. The author of DBW has concluded after numerous attempt to go around the bounderyes of gameengine. To reduce the slots so people can have theyre own choise. That is it. You wil have to accept it or choose another pack, or do not upgrade to 1.7.
The point is , it is your choise. Do not behave as we have in any way offended you.
I told you before that you have gone a long way to make a option for upgrading to 1.7. You do not read what I am saying. There are no need to stop improving 1.6. But it will not stop the release of 1.7

[FANATIC MODDER]

Ok. What I am trying to say. The essence of this topic. Let's start a discussion to standarise that (I am referring to STAX18 post) , to make it more official. This will help everybody. Campaign builders. Users that they don't have to download seperately every single installation. Modders that their work will be exposed to more people. I think everybody will benefit from that. And then I start getting some crazy answers like I am trying to jam the whole 1.7 or cancel all the work that has already been done for 1.7. I wonder if I ever gave a single sign that I don't respect the work of others.

[agracier]

You can use this method with every mod installation with jsgme (for example DBW 1.6 or the new 1.7).
You can do many different jsgme folders for every war theater and time period you want, with all the specific planes and an reduced air.ini.
I have collected mods for about 1.200 air.ini entries and with this method you can pimp up any standard mod pack with your favours mods.
If you reach the java wall, just split your theater or time period in two different jsgme folders.

I don't have much experience with jsgme installs ... I usually do manual installs in my #DBW folder ...

Now I perfectly understand the concept of making different air.ini files for different theaters of war or periods. It seems a very simple and sensible way of working around the java limit. But a question: I usually leave the mod files themselves in #DBW, even when I disable an air.ini entry. Sometimes the modders give the most unusual names to their folders and it is difficult to track them down again. I know they can be renamed, but that can also give probs with updates and all.

So I just leave the mod folders in #DBW, not disabling them, this makes it fast and easy to enable/disable air.ini entries. . Does this affect the java limits in any way? I read that a disabled air.ini/stationary.ini entry will not read the corresponding javafiles, but is this certainly so? I would just like to check with members who know about these things.

[CWMV]

Ok. What I am trying to say. The essence of this topic. Let's start a discussion to standarise that (I am referring to STAX18 post) , to make it more official. This will help everybody. Campaign builders. Users that they don't have to download seperately every single installation. Modders that their work will be exposed to more people. I think everybody will benefit from that. And then I start getting some crazy answers like I am trying to jam the whole 1.7 or cancel all the work that has already been done for 1.7. I wonder if I ever gave a single sign that I don't respect the work of others.

This discussion has already taken place, over the course of several months. Everyone from the modders, to mission and campaign builders, to the regular user was allowed and even encouraged to participate. Many options, including the not-so-revolutionary method that you describe were considered and the decision was made to go with the simplest route.
Why reopen discussion on a ,matter that has already been discussed ad nauseam and come to a conclusion?
EDIT: Just checked my PM's. The public discussion about slot merges yay or nay, and other methods (including yours) go back to mid august!
Day late and a dollar short I would say.

[FANATIC MODDER]

I don't have much experience with jsgme installs ... I usually do manual installs in my #DBW folder ...

Now I perfectly understand the concept of making different air.ini files for different theaters of war or periods. It seems a very simple and sensible way of working around the java limit. But a question: I usually leave the mod files themselves in #DBW, even when I disable an air.ini entry. Sometimes the modders give the most unusual names to their folders and it is difficult to track them down again. I know they can be renamed, but that can also give probs with updates and all.

So I just leave the mod folders in #DBW, not disabling them, this makes it fast and easy to enable/disable air.ini entries. . Does this affect the java limits in any way? I read that a disabled air.ini/stationary.ini entry will not read the corresponding javafiles, but is this certainly so? I would just like to check with members who know about these things.

I can answer you by experience: It can affect them, and sometimes I had to disactivate a mod completely to make others run smoothly. By now, I had only three cases: Fiat G.56, Swordfish Mk.II and lately the Bredas Ba.65. So yes it can affect them, but these cases had been rare. Most of them, being there enabled in the JSGME but not loaded from the air.ini, there's no visible difference. That's why I am talking about a proccess of standarisation, to ensure that all of them together will work smoothly in every installation.

This discussion has already taken place, over the course of several months. Everyone from the modders, to mission and campaign builders, to the regular user was allowed and even encouraged to participate. Many options, including the not-so-revolutionary method that you describe were considered and the decision was made to go with the simplest route.
Why reopen discussion on a ,matter that has already been discussed ad nauseam and come to a conclusion?
EDIT: Just checked my PM's. The public discussion about slot merges yay or nay, and other methods (including yours) go back to mid august!
Day late and a dollar short I would say.

I don't claim that I discovered the wheel. My contributions to IL-2 development have been very poor compared to others. The point is that I tested, it worked. I have now in my #DBW folder, 3.85 GB, 33.312 files and 1.115 folders. 57 mods activated (some of them merged mods that are available normally only as seperate installs).
My wrapper says


Scanning #DBW folder took 223 milliseconds.
Total number of modded files = 32961.
Sorting modded files list took 8,080 milliseconds.
Removing 84 Duplicates took 0,661 milliseconds.
Total files opened = 81561
Total search time consumed = 4,162 milliseconds (0,004162191413 Seconds)
Search Time per File = 51,032 nanoseconds (0,000000051032 Seconds)
Average Search Iterations required per File = 8,5

So the difference is that there is no theoretical discussion, it's tried and tested. I pushed it to its limits. That's the only substancial thing I did, but hey, I did it.