Now that HSFX v7 has been released, we turn to SEOW v7. There are certain tasks that need to be done, plus some new features that need to be supported or developed. What I would like to do is compile a list of features and tasks so we can see what steps are needed to get to a release of SEOW v7.
1. Update AircraftLoadouts table DONE
2. Update Object_Specifications and Object_Costs table DONE
3. Update Airforce_Units table DONE
4. Add new object images for MP Costs page DONE
5. Revise technics.ini and rocket.ini files as SEOW mods DONE by Emil
6. Add new maps, e.g. Moscow, Africa, France, etc (JP contributions) DONE
7. Add support for variable-strength Divisions (Petr suggestion) DONE
8. Add support for new icon sets for ground units (Petr suggestion) DONE
9. Add support for skins on parked aircraft DONE
10. Add support for ending positions for Chiefs DONE
11. Add support for shared kills counting in Stats
12. Correct operation of forward supply points DONE
13. Finalize AJAX support in MP DONE
14. Revise proximity recon model to represent mobile visibility better DONE
15. Revised ground formations/emplacements for dug-in units (Devill suggestion) DONE
16. Probability of reinforcement appearance (Kopfdorfer) DONE
17. Airbase supply requirement to enable loadout selections (Warg) DONE
18. Combat Effectiveness Model and ground skill updates DONE
19. Ability to set a value in DB so that a unit would not be affected by barrages (bunkers, forts). (Petr) DONE
20. A predefined "mask" in the form of an object (definable size possibly?) for the MP which would enable admin to effectively forbid all ground and naval units to "enter into this mask" - called Exclusion Zones (Cmirko) DONE
21. Support for the new Waypoint type for aircraft in 4.12, Artillery Spotter (Charlie) DONE
22. Barrage resistance now incorporated (Petr) DONE
23. Disembarkation modes now include an "immobile but hostile" option. (Petr) DONE
24. Make sure that SPGs pivot when stationary by just moving them 0.5m or so in each mission (Emil suggestion) DONE
Let me know if there are other ideas and we can discuss.
Cheers,
4Shades
Last edited by IV/JG7_4Shades on Fri 03 Jan 2014 1:39 am, edited 23 times in total.
1. Percentage damage to Factory plates visible to opposing side.
2. Persistent free naming.
3. Transferring of ships with cargo and Free name in between sectors.
4. Ability to link supply points between sectors. So one withdraw would only allow transfer to 1 or more specific supply points in a different sector.
5. Ability to set a value in DB so that a unit would not be affected by barrages (bunkers, forts).
6. Redeployment variant, in which a unit that was loaded and unloaded once, cannot be loaded/unloaded again. Perhaps the disembark value can be used for this? If so, once the disembark value is set, units with this value do not show up in the load/unload list?
7. Ability to combine mulitple reduced flights (of the same exact plane into 1.
Petr, your requests are great and useful, but they need a lot of work. As I have understood the Mike's request, we have to update the SEOW database so that it could work using HSFX7. It's the prior work to do, without this update, we cannot use HSFX7 for SEOW campaigns ^^
1. Percentage damage to Factory plates visible to opposing side.
I did think about this at the time the feature was coded. In my mind the factory plates are to simulate distributed cottage industries, underground installations etc. I believe the Allies seriously over-estimated the effectiveness of aerial bombing on late-war industrial production, so I am not sure that giving precise factory plate damage listings to the enemy is appropriate.
4. Ability to link supply points between sectors. So one withdraw would only allow transfer to 1 or more specific supply points in a different sector.
I think we can do this after a fashion now, by limiting the number of active supply points in a map. That is, you can specify that a only a subset of air (or ground or sea or rail) points are active for SOG transfers. Not exactly what you meant, but not too far off it.
If this is too pretentious from an SEOW non-participant (so far) , please ignore this post.
I have 2 considerations for you to attempt to include in the SEOW version to be compatible with HSFX 7.
1) MINEFIELDS IN SEOW
I know there has been discussion before but I did not find any resolution
( we can , we can't we will , we won't) in terms of discussions on the inclusions of minefields in SEOW.
I believe it is necessary to separate the discussion into landmines , and sea mines.
Why?
Sea mines could basically be considered by the game as immobile torpedoes at a given coordinate ( complicated of course , if you want to consider wind and/or current). Any vessel that strayed through that coordinate would make contact with that mine and undergo various consequences as the result of said contact.
I believe they need to be considered separately from landmines because it seems to me the system has more "ready to accept the concept" components for sea mines , and they are better represented as individual objects. They should be droppable from ships of several different classes , and by aircraft in coastal patrol roles. They should be sweepable by Minesweeper class vessels.
This would require graphic mods of seamines (of various nationality types) as well as the addition of such mines to applicable aircraft ordnance loadouts. Probably more difficult would be the addition of minelaying/minesweeping to various ship categories as possible actions in game.
Landmines are (in my view) most easily represented as an abstract with a possibility (% chance) of affecting various unit types based on the unit type and the density of the minefield ( possibly the variable effectiveness of anti-personnel vs anti-tank mines as well).
This gives two more tasks to our underworked engineer units in SEOW - namely laying minefields and removing them.
Questions this raises are :
a.What determines the size and shape of a given minefield?
b.What kind of unit can place/remove a minefield?
c.How long does it take a unit to do so?
d.What determines the density of a given minefield?
e.How does this relate to the possible effects of minefields?
f.What ARE the possible effects of minefields?
Possible Answers
a. Supply available , size of unit laying a minefield and time taken.
Regarding shape I haven't a good idea where to start here.
b. I belive that placing and removing (reducing the effectiveness of ) a minefield should be possible by any infantry/engineer unit , but that engineer units should be both faster and more effective at doing so.
c. Depends upon the unit size and type and its state of morale.
Possibly terrain type also.
d. Time and supply spent.
e. Denser Minefield has a higher %age of having an effect.
f. Delay. Units might try detour around a minefield , or stop dead in their
tracks.Temporary Damage. Permanent Damage. Unit Destruction.
Possible effect on morale to a unit if unable to get out of a minefield
easily.
2) More effective Japanese Torpedoes and appropriate ship behaviour to reflect their use. In WW2 the Japanese had the most effective naval Torpedo , the Type 93 Compressed Oxygen propelled ( nearly wakeless) "Long Lance"torpedo.
IJN surface ships outclassed the Allies in tactics ( specializing in night battles) and combining incredibly long engagement ranges for their torpedos with nearly smokeless powder in their naval gun charges , to really mess up the Allies in night surface actions until mid 1943 when the Allies (Esp USN) began to get more dependable torpedos , and especially radar directed naval gunfire.
Further , the USN had begun to delete torpedo armament from their cruisers ( only the Atlanta class retained torpedo tubes as of the battle for Guadalcanal timeframe) prior to WW2 , while the IJN maintained Torpedo tubes on most of their cruisers. In night actions against Japanese destroyers and cruisers with aggressive Captains and long lance torpedos US surface vessels were vulnerable.
Several USN Vessels were hit and sunk , without believing that they had been engaged by IJN surface vessels.
Specification examples of ranges by speeds
22,000 m (24,000 yd) at 48 to 50 kn (89 to 93 km/h; 55 to 58 mph)
33,000 m (36,000 yd) at 37 to 39 kn (69 to 72 km/h; 43 to 45 mph)
40,400 m (44,200 yd) at 33 to 35 kn (61 to 65 km/h; 38 to 40 mph)
However, IJN announced officially the maximum performance of the Type 93 was 11 km (5.9 nmi; 6.8 mi) at 42 kn (78 km/h; 48 mph).
Comparatively :
The US Mark 18 was 20 ft (6 m) long, weighed 3,154 lb (1430 kg), had a warhead of 575 lb (260 kg) of Torpex with a contact exploder, and had a speed of 29 kt (54 km/h, 33 mph) and a maximum range of 4,000 yards (3,650 m). It also had a tendency to circle back on the firer.
British 21 inch Mark VIII
Specifications:
Mark VIIIs loading to Polish Navy submarine ORP Sokół
Mark VIII
Entered Service: 1927
Weight: 3,452 lb (1,566 kg)
Length: 259 inches (21.6 ft) (6.58 m)
Explosive Charge: 750 lb (340 kg) TNT
Range & Speed: 5,000 yards (4,570 m) / 40 knots
Early Mark VIII**
Range & Speed: 5,000 yards (4,570 m) / 45.6 knots
Explosive Charge: 722 lb (327 kg) Torpex
Late Mark VIII**
Range & Speed: 7,000 yards (6,400 m) / 41 knots
Explosive Charge: 805 lb (365 kg) Torpex
The Mark VIII was designed around 1925 and was the first British burner-cycle design torpedo. It was used from 1927 on submarines of the O class onwards and motor torpedo boats. The principal World War II version was the improved Mark VIII**, 3,732 being fired by September 1944 (56.4% of the total number).
German
Name G7a
Weight 3,369 lbs. (1,528 kg)
Overall Length 23 ft. 7 in. (7.186 m)
Negative Buoyancy 605 lbs. (274 kg)
Explosive Charge
(see Notes) 617 lbs. (280 kg) Hexanite
Range / Speed 6,560 yards (6,000 m) / 44 knots
8,750 yards (8,000 m) / 40 knots
15,300 yards (14,000 m) / 30 knots
Power Decahydronaphthalene (Decalin) Wet-Heater
The standard torpedo prior to World War II, used by all platforms during World War II: surface combatants (Kreuzer, Zerstörer, T-Boote, S-Boote) and U-boats at night. Nicknamed "ato" by German crews (i.e. atem- or air-torpedo, indicating the steam propulsion) to distinguish it from the G7e (electric torpedoes).
Producing this torpedo took about 3,730 man hours per torpedo in 1939 but this fell to 1,707 hours by 1943. This was significantly more than what it took to produce the electric G7e.
The 44 knot speed was found to overload the engine and was not used during the early years of the war. The early models used in 1939 had ranges about 20% less than those given above. Used a four-cylinder radial engine that drove a single six-bladed propeller.
The Federapparattorpedo (spring-operated torpedo) or FAT variation had a simple guidance system that allowed a series of long or short legs or loops at the end of a configurable length of straight course.
44kn speed was only used for S-Boote. According to certain sources only used from surface vessels during the last part of World War II.
Anyway I just thought I'd throw out some food for thought. I hope this is not an inappropriate place to do so.
I agree fully. However in order to operate properly in SEOW mines would need to be added as game mods (e.g. to HSFX). We have suggested this a few times to the mod community but no-one has come up with a compelling implementation yet.
On the torpedo stuff, again that is a mod. Frankly, the whole submarine and torpedo performance system of IL-2 could do with a serious review.
1. Percentage damage to Factory plates visible to opposing side.
I did think about this at the time the feature was coded. In my mind the factory plates are to simulate distributed cottage industries, underground installations etc. I believe the Allies seriously over-estimated the effectiveness of aerial bombing on late-war industrial production, so I am not sure that giving precise factory plate damage listings to the enemy is appropriate.
+1 to Petr's request, but with a slight change based on your response:
I would like to suggest that the factory plates damage assessment be linked to recon.
Higher percentage of recon gained through spies on the ground, less (but still a good estimation) as a result of aerial recon. Would promote the use of BDA recon flights to asses the damage done in previous sorties against factories.
On the same issue another request for in the stats: Player score credited for bomb hits on factory plates.
Currently there is no score value for bombs hitting factory plates?
Don't know if the log registers the weight of the bomb that hits, but if this is possible then it would be to the benefit of bombers able to carry heavier loadouts.
Cheers!
IAF.ViFF
Israel's Combat Flight Sim Community website: www.preflight.us
No it doesn't register bomb weight or explosive charge. But it does register the amount of damage per hit. We still have to turn that into score points in order to include it in the Statistics.
IV/JG7_4Shades wrote:No it doesn't register bomb weight or explosive charge. But it does register the amount of damage per hit. We still have to turn that into score points in order to include it in the Statistics.
The problem is that there is a wide variance of weight and number of bombs carried in the loadouts of different aircraft in IL2. You can carry one big bomb, or carry many small bombs, but one constant differentiating factor is payload gross weight. Does the factory plate take more damage from a heavier bomb? or does the damage accumulate only based on the number of bombs that hit? (the latter not the case I hope).
It would be nice to give a greater score to pilots that carry a heavier load, i.e. incentive for taking the heavier bombers for bombing factory plates. If the factory plates take more damage from heavier bombs, can we perhaps make the score tied to the nominal value of factory plate damage that a specific pilot inflicts in the mission?
I'm thinking it would probably be most efficient to create a new type of score "Damage to Industry" for factory plate damage so it does not mix with the regular ground score, and its affect on the pilot rating would be appropriately as you would determine.
Just for aesthetic purposes the score value itself can be some reduction ratio of the nominal values of the factory plate damage inflicted by the pilot.
Cheers,
ViFF
IAF.ViFF
Israel's Combat Flight Sim Community website: www.preflight.us
would it be possible to program a predefined "mask" in the form of an object (definable size possibly?) for the MP which would enable admin to effectively forbid all ground and naval units to "enter into this mask" ?
my idea is to enable "seow designers" to organize "scenario" campaigns and also one could use those object as "known mine field" objects....
The structures listed below are provisions for new features in upcoming SEOW releases. The DCS/MP code changes to drive these features are NOT yet written.
1. Airbases Table: new field "Wide"
To indicate whether side-by-side takeoffs/landings are feasible at each runway.
2. AircraftLoadout table: new field "Rearm_Delay"
Specifies the number of hours required to load each loadout.
3. Army_Units table: new field "Max_Platoons"
To limit the number of platoons per organizational division. Maximum value is 64 (default), minimum is 0.
4. Army_Units table: new field "Icon_Set"
To associate new coloured icon sets with ground units in MP.
5. Campaign_Settings table: new field "Disembarkation_Active"
To support a refined freight load/unload model, preventing load-reload actions, and also allowing for optional immediate-active status of unloaded units.
6. Campaign_Settings table: new field "Ground_Skill_Updates"
To enable an option for evolving skills of ground units.
7. Campaign_Settings table: new field "Freight_Radius"
To separate freight loading/unloading range from CC range.
8. new table "Exclusion_Zones"
To specify regions/areas on the map that one or both sides may not enter.
9. Object_Specifications table: new field "Barrage_Resist"
To allow designers to specify morale effect modifier to incoming barrages for each ground object type.
10. Sector_Status table: new field "Total_Queries"
To record the total number of SQL queries performed by DCS in the previous operation (Initialize, Build, Analyze, ClockAdvance).
More ideas to come as we identify them.
Cheers,
4S
Last edited by IV/JG7_4Shades on Tue 29 Oct 2013 6:31 am, edited 2 times in total.
