Just kidding Gap, take your time (nut not to much though...:D)

First give me simple model so I can confirm that your GR2 bunkers will not be blocked due to coast proximity when placed on the same coordinates as my dat bunkers. I dont want to place 100 bunkers on british coast just to see later that I have to move and test every single gun once again...:yep:

Check latest patch readme and enable it...You'll see that sonarmens initial speed estimation is disabled now...

There is a high probability that ship was bugged, if you have encountered her near coast line or as a strange single warship somewhere at open seas...This is a large problem with SH5 AI and it is still unsolvable...
Form your posts I can assume that you're not quite satisfied with SH5 AI? Well , join the club, same here...:)
Chek IRAI documentation and make few posts in IRAI thread and , who knows, maybe we can even attract TDW's attention...:yep:

:up:

I will send them your way in 30 min/1 hour; just the time for the last touches and for packing/uploading the files. :)


They shouldn't, unless collision detection is handled in a different way for dat and GR2 objects: the GR2 bunker is exactly the same size as its SHIV counterpart.

The current bunker should only be used along the the German coastline. British coastal defences looked nothing like German bunkers, and we can model them as well based on the stock land coastal defences and other 3d models available on the web. Are you into putting this level of realism in TWoS? :D

And now you're telling me that?:)

I have to protect British harbors in order to counteract all the craps and limitations involved with SH5 AI and , if possible, to make harbor raids at least a bit more dangerous and demanding. Right now this is child play and British (or any other allied) harbors are totally unprotected...

Placing axix bunkers along German and France coastline would only be unnecessary stretching already overstretched game engine. This is player vs allied campaign , not vice versa...:yep: I could place one or two near player harbors just for "coolness" but that's about it...:yep:

Regarding German/British bunker topic, for me they are all the same, a bunch of concrete with barrel in the middle of it :D, but you know me...:)

Those bunkers were "GO" in GWX and OM , so why not in TWoS too?

Anyway , to have actual British bunker in game will be very nice, but let's first protect those "poor" harbors and make a hell of newcomers favorite source of cheap tonnage... :up:

:doh::O:

Sorry, I was so busy with 3d modelling that I almost forgot about my usual historical research activity :D

I understand that.

Not the whole Atlantic Wall indeed. Game stability has the highest priority; just a few bunkers/ports here and there. :up:

Because... well, you know me as well as I know you :D

Okay good plan, :up: but during your breaks don't miss reading the following articles, and the next time don't tell me I didn't warn you :):woot:

Coastal artillery (general overview with some photographs of German and British emplacements)
Atlantic Wall (Germany)
Bunker types (Germany)
Cross Channels guns in WWII (Germany and UK)
British anti-invasion preparations of WWII
British hardened field defences of WWII
Maunsell Forts (UK)

Hahahah, you're killing me Gap! :haha::up:

large address aware
 

Any idea if using "large address aware" on the Sh5.exe would conflict with TWOS ?

...at least I hope I am giving you a pleasant death :O:

Please check what I got for you:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/pu...arge_Bunker.7z

cfg, eqp and sns files included. You need to create a sim file with ship unit controller; I dint add it myself as you know how to set it. Also not that you might want to change unit type setting in cfg file. Currently the unit is set as type 20 (super battleship).

In game screenies, please! :)

:up:

I don't think so.

The usage of LAA on SH5 is a bit controversial though. I remember having read not lesser than four years ago a post by a forum member who apparently knew about computer scienece more than I do. He stated that SH5.exe out of the box is already large address aware. IIRC, he continued by saying that using LLA or any other similar application on the exacutable would actually turn the large-address flag off, thus making the game to use lesser memory rather than more memory. :hmm2:

Instead of screenshots I'll upload a combined mod with a test mission so you can see what is going on easily ...:yep:

Everything look OK IMO although I'll probably have re-test bunker placement once again.

http://www.mediafire.com/download/70...illery_GR2.rar

I'll also need this platform too, because some bunkers are very picky about coast proximity.
http://s6.postimg.org/8tve2g5f1/SH5_...4_20_59_21.jpg

Here's dat version too, so you can compare functionality, stability or whatever...
http://www.mediafire.com/download/a5...illery_DAT.rar

:up:

Just a quick question... how can you prevent the new bunker(s) from spawning randomly within campaign traffic where a generic British elite patrol craft is called for?
In my opinion we should set two generic nations (one for each side), and put the coast defences in their roster. I have other uses in mind for them besides the one I just said, like for instance having some coastal boats to sail without ensigns...

I agree and I had exactly the same thought about two generic nations...

I chose "Elite Escorts" because this category is nonexistent in SH5 campaign :yep:

:up:

I think you meant "elite patrol craft" (type 16) :03:
One day we might need to use that type for proper patrol boat models than a bunker. The same goes for OH's "Z ships". If memory serves me well, they currently replace the "rare tanker" type 107. When Trevally set them this way, we had so few tanker classes in game that this looked like a good option, but again, it is my hope that someday soon we can have a wider range of targets, requiring the "borrowed" types. As a matter of fact you have already added two new tankers to the game, not to mention the big Japanese oiler that I sent you a while ago... :)