Server Issues? Questions? Tips for 4.33.1?

[Buschwick]

Looks like ground forces have changed slightly! Good changes I might add.

Browsing the BMS forums I noticed that the average bandwidth that people connect with is 1024. Why are you wanting 300? I also noticed a few posts about latency and connection issues contributing to spawn issues for targets...which I've seen on many occasions.

I've we were to attempt an SOP of 1024 bandwidth for one campaign, what harm harm would that do? And that's entirely inquisitive...I have no clue how that works.

Thank you for this server! :)

now back to RTFM :)

[=VG= SemlerPDX]

The server underwent a large update and cleanup yesterday, it had been having CPU usage issues that may have caused spawn issues and such before yesterday.

Moving forward, know that things should be better. Please report any issues that pop up after yesterday's cleanup - I'd like to know if it solves the issues we were having with frozen AI aircraft in the sky, and airbases and other ground textures not spawning or being empty or blank.
!hi

[Derk]

Thanks for your time sticking with the issues in the campaign and the server. I was just in for an hour or so and had large scale issues with missing objects. Human flights showed OK and good comms. Had a number of missing airbases, including Seosan on one flight. (It looked like a grass strip - lol). Also, I had my human wingman shot down by bandits neither of us saw after flying sweeps for about 30 minutes. I also was directed by AWACS to within 3 miles (tacan) of a tanker and had nothing visually. I did fly a TE right after the campaign flight with another human and it seemed fine for objects.

Not sure if your reading up on issues like these on the BMS forums, but it seems as though the same issue many are experiencing due to bandwidth in campaigns. I'm even struggling with my own host campaigns. Falcon Online is recommending their clients to use 1024 bandwidth. Does the VG server host have enough bandwidth set for us clients to try a higher setting than 300 bandwidth to see if this helps?

[=VG= SemlerPDX]

I think we may need to try that higher bandwidth setting. There are a few pilots online right now, I will check back each hour and will restart the server with a few proposed changes, including the 1024 bandwidth setting.

You input is very helpful; I've been reading about the different problems people are having hosting a BMS 4.33 server, hope this helps.
!hi

[Derk]

Your on to something good I think Semler. I was on for three flights with BW 1024 and not a single server or campaign issue detected. I started alone, but was joined eventually by 4 or 5 others. At one point there were 5 in the 3D and all was running well for me. No complaints either from my human wingman. I did see a mix of other BW settings (1024, 512, 300). Seemed to not mind the mix.

Did not get to check on comms with others. Still a bit confusing on which UHF to set for team comm I'm guessing. It's never been set here on the VG server campaign that I know of. I used to use UHF 13 so others in the 2D could chat to you in flight, but with the BMS 433 update, that channel is too saturated with AWACs calls to be of value for human comms. Other seem to like UHF 6, so I'm going with that for now. Thanks for your time keeping this running for us.

[Brain]

So, you actually connected and played successfully on the VG public campaign server using a BW setting of 1024? With several other players online at the same time?
I'd usually be mad about it because it caused problems in the past (I strongly remember some ruined flights in 4.32 u6 because of one client) but given we can pretty much rule out everything else ...

Well, bandwidth seems to be an issue and I can understand why. We don't need synced control surfaces and pilot head movements but "it's a cool new feature" and nothing we can do about it. Why it has priority over "loading" crucial objects is beyond me but what do I know about making a game.
Anyways, the minimum BW for a campaign appears to be 1024 or at the very least 768. If anybody wants to dig deeper into the BMS forums, please do so. I need a brake after reading some of the most unintelligent/useless posts ever.

[=VG= SemlerPDX]

Server restarted, server bandwidth is capable, so let the server start with it's default setting (2048) - I'd like players to connect with no less than 500 and let's see how this works out.

**I'll note that this morning (should be day 3) the Campaign was either finished or the AI Server Pilot's dummy mission was completed somehow, but the screen was back to Mission Schedule and a Blue Debrief screen was displayed for the server dummy pilot (a KC-135) - normally "he" sits on the tarmac in the parking area of Kadena. Not sure if this indicates the Campaign finished or some other issue.

Restarted to Day 1, going out of town today (was only able to get packed yesterday), back very late/early tommorow.
!hi

[Sinu]

The server appears to have crashed today. I was landing at Seosan when I saw blue text at the top of my window and the game was paused.

I have not been able to connect to the server since.

[=VG= SemlerPDX]

@Sinu - thank you for your post. This can happen, and if I get busy around the house, I have no way of knowing unless some players bring it to my attention. Thanks - and feel free to post up anytime there is an issue or if the server is just down like this, we are grateful for the reports!
!hi

[Sinu]

Well - thank you for maintaining and running a public Falcon server in the first place. It's truly an awesome thing.

Can you confirm what bandwidth setting we are supposed to be connecting with? Your TS states 300 whereas I am seeing some discussion in this thread with differing numbers.

I am under the impression that incorrect client bandwidth settings can cause havoc with the server.

[Brain]

I'd like players to connect with no less than 500 and let's see how this works out.

The TS also still states VG is running 4.32 U7...somebody needs to update this and maybe add a link to this post or forum section.
We had a BW mix (2x300 + 1x500) and everything went smooth but I still remember issues with different BW settings back in the 4.32 days. Better safe than sorry IMO.

EDIT: also noticed the server info on the bottom still reads 4.32 and could use an update ... if people ever scroll that far down do find information :D

[=VG= SemlerPDX]

Sorry, those issues went under the radar. Will update the TS info and site links here. *but contractor is at the house today and tomorrow is thanksgiving - I've added a note that 'the info is expired/see home page BMS posts', and I will get all 4.32 items updated at my earliest convenience. Thanks for the heads up!
!cheers

[Sinu]

We're having some problems fragging player flights on the server. Every time we generate a flight and attempt to load in we get an error stating "Your flight has been cancelled." and the package gets removed from the FRAGO.

Very strange - and it's happening at both the 120th FS and the 157th out of Seosan.

My friend and I both are experiencing this problem.

[=VG= SemlerPDX]

Well, it's day 2 or three now - gonna restart to day one to fix this issue. Will make sure there are no active flights first...

[Sinu]

Appreciate the quick response - as always!

[=VG= SemlerPDX]

Sinu LAN_WROTE ...

Can you confirm what bandwidth setting we are supposed to be connecting with?

Players should connect with a bandwidth of 500 - info on TS3 and website that is contradictory will be changed this weekend when I get some time.
!hi

[Brain]

Just as BLUFOR was making a push north ... did you have a look if Seosan is (...was) still operational? Could have been the reason why.

[Sinu]

I hate to be the bearer of terrible news every day but it appears that the server crashed again. We are unable to connect.

[=VG= SemlerPDX]

no worries - anytime it flops, drop it here. server restarted.
!hi

[=VG= SemlerPDX]

Woke up this morning not 10 hours from last restart, and server is crashed again at the desktop. Going to take down the server this morning to do maintenance and try to figure this out - first step, removing all the stupid Windows 10 crap they keep trying to shove down everyone's throat...



UPDATE: Server back up, hoping it runs better now that BMS is the only thing it should be "doing"; also, server bandwidth has been raised significantly; Please keep an eye out for concurrent campaigns launched by pilots - I will as well - I do want to make sure any new players know they can only run a TE or play on the Campaign already running.

!hi

[Sinu]

The added bandwidth may well just do the trick.

On a completely off-topic note: has there been any discussion regarding adding an American F-16-BLK52-CM squadron to Seosan? The ROK F16 just lack some of the good toys (HTS pods, centerline jammers, small diameter bombs, etc)

Adding a squadron is easy using Tacedit - basically you just make a campaign save file of a campaign on Day 1 05:00 and edit it to add the new squadron to Seosan airbase - then you run that savegame every time you want to host the sever. You can disable AI spawning by unclicking "set by HQ" in the same manner as the other squadrons.

Just a suggestion - thanks again four diligent maintenance work.

[Derk]

Sinu - would the BLK40 F16's in the 36th squadron at Osan provide the same 'toys' your looking for? I fly those for the HTS pod and JSOW's when I want to use those. If they are about the same, then making that squadron human only may server the same purpose without having to edit the campaign.

[Sinu]

Yes, that could work - although you'd be removing another whole fighter squadron from action.

It'd kind be nice to keep Seosan the "human" airbase.

I'll keep the BLK40's in mind - thanks for the tip!

[=VG= SemlerPDX]

We had been having stability problems, and when we didn't we had problems with the campaign ending (or just being void of any fun/cool/important missions) on day 2 early morning, so we turned of HQ fragging of flights out of Osan, and players could use the F-16 block 40's there with the new toys - we also have turned off HQ fragging at Kunsan in order to allow the DPRK a snowball's chance in hell.

I've done a ton of stability tweaks to the server this morning, along with the increased bandwidth, and I hope we will see how the campaign actually plays out.
!cp
If not, don't be shy about posting up here if there's any issue or any crashes.

And we are more than open to adding extra aircraft to Seosan so that players don't need to use another airbase, but I'd like to get some new tests with the same setup we've been running to see if anything I did today helps.

[Brain]

I already thought about a modified Day 1 save to include some of the new toys Benchmark Sims gave us, but it's hard without "overdoing it" considering the most common threads are easy AI, low-tech MiGs with the occasional MiG-29s in the mix.
(NOE, 20nm north of the FLOT, got jumped by 3 MiG-23s at 16000+, less than 15 miles away, simply lofted AIM120s at them and won)
Harriers and Warthogs would work well for CAS but question is how many people would actually use them on a regular basis and therefor if it's worth it. Hornets appear to be too strong (just look at the possible loadouts) and I don't think anything else would fit into KTO.

We could switch to "strong DPRK", get more modern toys (IIRC including a carrier group with Hornets) and still have a fairly balanced campaign, but then: how many people are actually confident going up against Fulcrums and Flankers with AA-12s on a daily basis? I'm all for raising the bar but with the lack of interest in the forums (still people with 300BW) and communications in game (a few people never respond) it's hard to teach how to deal with the more hostile environment. Some would probably quit which isn't in anybodies interest I guess.

Seosan and Osan are close together so a mixed Blk40/52 package is already an option. Kunsan could be changed to have a squadron of each as back up in case the other ABs get knocked out...maybe even US Blk52 to make up for the longer travel time (nothing is free).

Anyways, I have to agree with Semler. We are still pretty much testing the server and should change as little as possible for the moment. Just thinking out loud here.

@Sinu:
KF-16C Blk52s come with an internal jammer, making space for a center line tank and allowing for more A2G ordnance. No "cool" weapons but extensive CAS with 6 Mavs and 6 MK20s is still kick-ass.
F-16C BLK40s get all the cool stuff but have a notably weaker engine.
Think it's a fair trade off given the current circumstances.

EDIT: MiG23s can't even shoot down a fully loaded A-10A (Osan) at 3000ft, 260kias. Calling it "Easy AI" is being extremely generous.