Special Aircraft Service

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Worth including in 3.9?  (Read 1358 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

EHood

  • Supporter
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 603
Worth including in 3.9?
« on: February 19, 2020, 08:50:12 AM »

For some weeks now I've been considering adding this mod, published by Epervier, to my BAT installation:

https://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,20511.0.html

The original idea was simply to obtain a standard, stationary J2F, which is to say a Duck with its feet on the ground, no spinning prop, and no tow tractor attached, and the possibility of using optional skins, this for a set of Pearl Harbor attack missions I've been working up. The mod includes other very intriguing objects as well, but I've been given to understand that it takes a good deal of work, much over my head, to install, and if I did manage to succeed, I could only share my new missions with those whose BAT installations include the mod. Changes to various .inis would be required, so I suspect that incorporating the mod, even as a JSGME option, in a normal BAT upgrade - like, say, a future 3.9 - might not be feasible. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to know if it would be possible to include the mod in a future BAT upgrade.
Logged
A ya tsi-tsalagi.

Vampire_pilot

  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8630
Re: Worth including in 3.9?
« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2020, 08:58:12 AM »

the "stationary" Ducks are already in BAT!

funny enough, I have recently built a mission where you'll fly a Duck and these "stationaries" (Ships, vehicles, static and moving...) are present there as well
Logged

EHood

  • Supporter
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 603
Re: Worth including in 3.9?
« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2020, 10:45:27 AM »

Thank you, sir, for the reply. I've just gone into my BAT FMB and had yet another look at the "StationaryPlanes" menus. All of them. I can find only two Ducks among the stationary selections, both in the "StationaryPlanes_Taxi" category. One of these, "J2F_ground," has the undercarriage extended, but it also has a spinning prop. The idea of having 19 of these spotted on Ford island, all with their engines running, is strange to contemplate. But then, so is the notion of using the only other option I can find, "J2F_MOV," as each of this variety comes with a tow tractor permanently attached to the tail.

Could you tell me, please, where to find a stationary Duck with the undercarriage extended and the engine turned off? It also occurs to me that the Duck mission you recently built might provide a clue. Have you published this mission?

Once again, with much appreciation,

EH  :)
Logged
A ya tsi-tsalagi.

Vampire_pilot

  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8630
Re: Worth including in 3.9?
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2020, 11:37:21 AM »

(Ships, vehicles, static and moving...)    would be the key;)
Logged

EHood

  • Supporter
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 603
Re: Worth including in 3.9?
« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2020, 08:45:47 AM »

I'm sorry, vampire_pilot, but I'm simply not finding a normal stationary J2F. Last night I examined not only all of the FMB menu categories for moving and stationary items, but the WAW/air, chief, ships, and stationary.inis as well. I did (re)discover, in the "StationaryShips" category, the J2F_sea, but this item is a waterborne example with the undercarriage retracted and a spinning prop. So, apart from J2F_sea, J2F_ground, and J2F_MOV, my installation doesn't seem to include a standard, standing Duck with the undercart down and the prop stopped.

Am I missing something? An entire category, perhaps?

 :-[
Logged
A ya tsi-tsalagi.

Plowshare

  • Modder
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 639
Re: Worth including in 3.9?
« Reply #5 on: February 20, 2020, 09:08:16 AM »

Why not simply place individual flying Ducks at the appropriate places using the taxi-to-takeoff option and time them for, oh, say an hour or more? I just threw one on Ford Island and this works fine for me.

Bob
Logged

Vampire_pilot

  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8630
Re: Worth including in 3.9?
« Reply #6 on: February 20, 2020, 09:30:37 AM »

Actually, you are looking a very specific unit, I understand now. Well, I briefly checked and it might be that exactly this single one is missing (i did use other variants myself tbh) but as a matter of fact, Plowshare has just posted the workaround for basically any plane.
Logged

EHood

  • Supporter
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 603
Re: Worth including in 3.9?
« Reply #7 on: February 20, 2020, 10:18:12 AM »

Once again, many thanks. I still hope to add to be able to add that fleet of "normal" stationary Ducks to my Pearl Harbor mission one day. The new "First Wave" mission is not meant to be as speculative as the original, which assumes that a fair number of USN fighters were able to take off from Ford island and Ewa during the raid. The number of Red flights in the new version will be much reduced; some of these will represent civil aircraft such as, for example, a pair of Piper Cubs which had taken off from John Rodgers Field, adjacent to Hickam Field, just prior to the raid. Since there will be only a few active Red flights, I'll follow a suggestion another SAS member once offered in this regard: I may be able to put four or five active Duck flights on Ford island, and set these flights so that the engines never start, and they will remain as inactive targets for IJN strafing runs.

In case you're wondering, the original, "what-if" version, made for 4.12.2 in 2014 (!!), can still be found here:

http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&file=details&id=4959

BTW, my Pegasus installation is working wonderfully well. I've even regained the use of maps which refused to load in previous iterations. My Intel graphics card is still a perennial pain in the patoot (eg, I still get the spiky clouds now and then), but nothing comes up that a few mouse clicks can't sideline.

We live in hope.  8)
Logged
A ya tsi-tsalagi.

EHood

  • Supporter
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 603
Re: Worth including in 3.9?
« Reply #8 on: February 20, 2020, 12:07:28 PM »

I need to offer my thanks to Plowshare, whose reply (#5, above) is a concise version of what I attempted to describe in my previous. I simply overlooked Plowshare's post, and for that I must apologize.

Cheers,

EH
Logged
A ya tsi-tsalagi.
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.089 seconds with 20 queries.