PWCG

[Stonehouse]

Just posting this again in this forum. Not my work all credit to the CheckSix squadron. Unfortunately, no longer maintained but is available via web archive.

Installing and Using Pat Wilson Campaign Generator - Installing and Using Pat Wilson Campaign Generator

[AcesDarthBubu]

37 minutes ago, Stonehouse said:

Just posting this again in this forum. Not my work all credit to the CheckSix squadron. Unfortunately, no longer maintained but is available via web archive.

Installing and Using Pat Wilson Campaign Generator - Installing and Using Pat Wilson Campaign Generator

Thanks @Stonehouse. Reading through some of the old forum and realized its also a known issue that cant be fixed. I wonder whether setting the ground spread parameter to a smaller value will prevent units in the middle of the sea.

[Czech693]

On 12/19/2025 at 9:12 PM, FungibleofFungible said:

Is it possible to add planes to PWCG without having to wait for Pat to do it? I'm okay with just being patient but I'm not sure if there is a method for actually doing it and I just don't know about it.

Difficult and tedious.  I tried adding the latest amored vehicles to Tank Crew and finally gave up as it was a headache.  Really makes you appreciate the work Pat Wilson has cone.

[FungibleofFungible]

8 hours ago, Czech693 said:

Difficult and tedious.  I tried adding the latest amored vehicles to Tank Crew and finally gave up as it was a headache.  Really makes you appreciate the work Pat Wilson has cone.

I see, that's a shame but I understand.

BTW, do you know anything about adding custom squadrons? I'd like to make some extra mosquito units for a campaign I want to start but I can't seem to get the units to show up when I make a new campaign.

[lokifinch]

For the PWCG BOS version 17.1.1 and IL2 BOS patched to current version

I don't know if this is a IL2 game issue or a PWCG issue. 

For a PWCG created bomber mission, on the Normandy map, me as German.

I am using Ju88A4 and a wingman in a flight of 6 bombers. 

When we get to the Target Final waypoint the flight leader (AI) has us circle the waypoint indefinitely.

Happened in all the PWCG BOS bomber missions so far.

Anyone experience this issue?

[Barracuda4Surf]

Hi guys!
I hope someone is able to help me over here :)

I have been using PWCG for quite a while now, but recently I ran into some issues.

I chose to fly the Western Front Channel Campaign and it works okay, BUT:
I am not able to choose a plane replacement anymore (other than a Ju-88C 🤨)
Flying on the german side I am well into July now and a 109-F4 is nowhere to be seen. 
To check this out (because of the introduction date maybe)  I started an Eastern Front Campaign where the squadron explicitely told me it has F-4's, but no, only F-2's available.

I didn't have had this before in previous versions, I even could call in FW-190's on the Channel Front in 1941 (which was cool to simulate the arrival of the first 190's)
Also there is only 1 squadron of A-20's on the Channel Front, where before there where all the american medium bombers to see.

So... any ideas?

[peterk1]

I've been getting this error a lot lately.

Early 1942. Between Moscow end and Stalingrad start. Playing on a quiet region of the Stalingrad map. German campaign flying BF-109s.

Seems to happen on some of the more interesting/rare/fun mission types. This last one occurred on a deep patrol / Free Hunt type mission so it's not due to loading up bombs or anything.

I have a feeling that maybe a recent IL-2 update added a date constraint to some option that PWCG has been using freely up until now. Just a guess.

Error always occurring on flight leader plane:1 but that probably doesn't mean that he is the only one who has the problem.

Pat, I'm actually a retired coder who used to be very fluent in Java. If you're not really working on the code that much any more, may I ask whether you think I'd be able to figure it out on my own fairly easily? I think I saw you post a  Github link a while back. Would this be something hardcoded or in a config file?

========

PWCG Error
Wed Dec 24 00:53:59 EST 2025
pwcg.core.exception.PWCGException: Invalid payload for plane: 1
    at pwcg.campaign.plane.payload.PayloadDesignations.getPayloadDesignation(PayloadDesignations.java:22)
    at pwcg.campaign.plane.payload.PlanePayloads.getSelectedPayloadDesignation(PlanePayloads.java:51)
    at pwcg.campaign.plane.payload.PlanePayload.generateFullModificationMask(PlanePayload.java:179)
    at pwcg.mission.flight.plane.PlaneMcu.write(PlaneMcu.java:388)
    at pwcg.mission.mcu.group.virtual.VirtualWaypointPlanes.write(VirtualWaypointPlanes.java:44)
    at pwcg.mission.mcu.group.virtual.VirtualWaypoint.write(VirtualWaypoint.java:106)
    at pwcg.mission.flight.waypoint.virtual.VirtualWaypointPackage.write(VirtualWaypointPackage.java:96)
    at pwcg.mission.flight.Flight.write(Flight.java:80)
    at pwcg.mission.io.MissionFlightWriter.writeFlight(MissionFlightWriter.java:39)
    at pwcg.mission.io.MissionFlightWriter.writeFlights(MissionFlightWriter.java:33)
    at pwcg.mission.io.MissionFlightWriter.writeFlights(MissionFlightWriter.java:25)
    at pwcg.mission.io.MissionFileWriter.writeFlights(MissionFileWriter.java:158)
    at pwcg.mission.io.MissionFileWriter.writeMission(MissionFileWriter.java:62)
    at pwcg.mission.Mission.writeGameMissionFiles(Mission.java:190)

[Czech693]

On 12/22/2025 at 7:15 PM, FungibleofFungible said:

I see, that's a shame but I understand.

BTW, do you know anything about adding custom squadrons? I'd like to make some extra mosquito units for a campaign I want to start but I can't seem to get the units to show up when I make a new campaign.

Are you talking about extra AI mosquito units?  I guess AI or playable would be the same.  Copy and paste an existing mosquito squadron with a new squadron number.  You'll then have to go through the file and make changes within the coding to change it to your new squadron unit number because everthing in the file will be pointing at the original squadron.  You have to do this line by line to make sure you get everything changed.  It'll still have the original squadron's airfield locations and other info.

Edited December 25, 2025 by Czech693

[FungibleofFungible]

10 hours ago, Czech693 said:

Are you talking about extra AI mosquito units?  I guess AI or playable would be the same.  Copy and paste an existing mosquito squadron with a new squadron number.  You'll then have to go through the file and make changes within the coding to change it to your new squadron unit number because everthing in the file will be pointing at the original squadron.  You have to do this line by line to make sure you get everything changed.  It'll still have the original squadron's airfield locations and other info.

That's odd because I'm sure I did exactly that and it didn't work. I'll have to go through it again I guess, maybe I missed something small then

EDIT: it was one bracket in the weighted roles tab lol

Edited December 25, 2025 by FungibleofFungible

[AeroCrab]

20 hours ago, peterk1 said:

I've been getting this error a lot lately.

Early 1942. Between Moscow end and Stalingrad start. Playing on a quiet region of the Stalingrad map. German campaign flying BF-109s.

Seems to happen on some of the more interesting/rare/fun mission types. This last one occurred on a deep patrol / Free Hunt type mission so it's not due to loading up bombs or anything.

I have a feeling that maybe a recent IL-2 update added a date constraint to some option that PWCG has been using freely up until now. Just a guess.

Error always occurring on flight leader plane:1 but that probably doesn't mean that he is the only one who has the problem.

Pat, I'm actually a retired coder who used to be very fluent in Java. If you're not really working on the code that much any more, may I ask whether you think I'd be able to figure it out on my own fairly easily? I think I saw you post a  Github link a while back. Would this be something hardcoded or in a config file?

========

PWCG Error
Wed Dec 24 00:53:59 EST 2025
pwcg.core.exception.PWCGException: Invalid payload for plane: 1
    at pwcg.campaign.plane.payload.PayloadDesignations.getPayloadDesignation(PayloadDesignations.java:22)
    at pwcg.campaign.plane.payload.PlanePayloads.getSelectedPayloadDesignation(PlanePayloads.java:51)
    at pwcg.campaign.plane.payload.PlanePayload.generateFullModificationMask(PlanePayload.java:179)
    at pwcg.mission.flight.plane.PlaneMcu.write(PlaneMcu.java:388)
    at pwcg.mission.mcu.group.virtual.VirtualWaypointPlanes.write(VirtualWaypointPlanes.java:44)
    at pwcg.mission.mcu.group.virtual.VirtualWaypoint.write(VirtualWaypoint.java:106)
    at pwcg.mission.flight.waypoint.virtual.VirtualWaypointPackage.write(VirtualWaypointPackage.java:96)
    at pwcg.mission.flight.Flight.write(Flight.java:80)
    at pwcg.mission.io.MissionFlightWriter.writeFlight(MissionFlightWriter.java:39)
    at pwcg.mission.io.MissionFlightWriter.writeFlights(MissionFlightWriter.java:33)
    at pwcg.mission.io.MissionFlightWriter.writeFlights(MissionFlightWriter.java:25)
    at pwcg.mission.io.MissionFileWriter.writeFlights(MissionFileWriter.java:158)
    at pwcg.mission.io.MissionFileWriter.writeMission(MissionFileWriter.java:62)
    at pwcg.mission.Mission.writeGameMissionFiles(Mission.java:190)

It has been a long time since I fixed this in my local version of the code, but looking at a diff against the original code it looks like I added some payload designations to the P-40 and the Li-2. Unfortunately, these are in the code itself (in src\main\java\pwcg\product\bos\plane\payload\aircraft if you go looking) so without a recompile you can't really do anything about it. If you have a mind to, though, it is a whole lot of fun to get the code (https://github.com/PWCGDeveloper/PWCGCampaign) and dig into it. Be warned - there is a lot of code there , but it is just a fantastic bit of generosity that Pat has given us access to it.

[Czech693]

8 hours ago, FungibleofFungible said:

That's odd because I'm sure I did exactly that and it didn't work. I'll have to go through it again I guess, maybe I missed something small then

EDIT: it was one bracket in the weighted roles tab lol

Yep, that's the problem when you start editing them.  It's a little thing like a quotation mark or a comma.  Notepad++ will sometimes show those omissions by highlighting them.

[Czech693]

On 12/24/2025 at 11:44 AM, Barracuda4Surf said:

Hi guys!
I hope someone is able to help me over here :)

I have been using PWCG for quite a while now, but recently I ran into some issues.

I chose to fly the Western Front Channel Campaign and it works okay, BUT:
I am not able to choose a plane replacement anymore (other than a Ju-88C 🤨)
Flying on the german side I am well into July now and a 109-F4 is nowhere to be seen. 
To check this out (because of the introduction date maybe)  I started an Eastern Front Campaign where the squadron explicitely told me it has F-4's, but no, only F-2's available.

I didn't have had this before in previous versions, I even could call in FW-190's on the Channel Front in 1941 (which was cool to simulate the arrival of the first 190's)
Also there is only 1 squadron of A-20's on the Channel Front, where before there where all the american medium bombers to see.

So... any ideas?

I seem to remember this issue in the past.  Go on leave and when you come back new aircraft should be available.

Edited December 26, 2025 by Czech693

[ShiningAlpaca]

Would this mean I could theoretically add the Chaika to the career mode in Moscow? Just curious if it works for early access planes as well?

On 11/27/2025 at 1:10 AM, kraut1 said:

I suppose it is not possible to remove a plane from AI. There are no parameters available.

What you could try to have a similar result:
If you decide to fly for squadron xx with the "only player flyable" plane type yy remove this plane from all other squadrons and when you create the mission you have the possibility to choose this plane type only for you, the player and choose for the other AI pilots of your squadron the other plane types.

 

[kraut1]

In general the Chaika is normal plane like all other planes.
In EMG the Chaika is already implemented.
Due to the high sophisticated Dynamic Career / Campaign management in PWGC it is much more complex and I don't have so much time...

What I tried in PWCG, but without success / solution for definition of the static plane:

i153.json.zip

34th Fighter Air Regiment.json.zip

i153.json.zip

i153.jpg.zip

 

It works a bit:

But here is the end / a dummy static plane for the I153 to be defined somewhere???:

Sorry, have no further time available
Wish you much success!

Edited December 27, 2025 by kraut1

[AeroCrab]

Static plane definitions (and payloads, which would have been the next issue you ran into) have to be defined in the code itself, so unfortunately there isn't a way to add aircraft to PWCG entirely from the BoSData files.

[FungibleofFungible]

On 12/27/2025 at 10:28 AM, AeroCrab said:

Static plane definitions (and payloads, which would have been the next issue you ran into) have to be defined in the code itself, so unfortunately there isn't a way to add aircraft to PWCG entirely from the BoSData files.

Is it not possible to edit the Java files to do it? I gave it a shot on my own but I still don't know how to open it.

[AeroCrab]

7 hours ago, FungibleofFungible said:

Is it not possible to edit the Java files to do it? I gave it a shot on my own but I still don't know how to open it.

Maybe? This is frankly my first experience with Java (all my experience is C++ and ASM), so it might be possible to run things without the wrapper, I don't know. I got the Eclipse IDE and the wrapper tool that was referenced in the code and then just sort of fought through it all until it generated the appropriate exes. But it seems like it should be possible to run it all as straight Java, I just don't have any idea how to do it.

[Mysticpuma]

Regarding Java, maybe ask on the SAS forums for help, they have a lot of experience there 👍

[Flashy]

Hi Pat,

Hope you had a relaxing holiday season and happy new year! I wanted to get your opinion on an issue I have noticed with PWCG missions for WW1 planes: Even if I set the AA level to low, the missions are being generated with a crazy amount of AA around targets, which results in any bombing mission in a 2-seater always being a suicide mission. More worryingly, PWCG also seems to be using WW2 AA carriages on the trains it generates for these missions. Needless to say, WW1 planes and WW2 AA doesnt end well. Is there a way to drastically reduce the AA level around targets for generated missions, and also to get rid of any WW2 AA (and also that horrible m-flak cannon thing)? At the moment I am having to go into the missions in the ME once generated and delete the AA placements, check all the trains for WW2 AA carriages and then run the mission file through a text editor to replace any mention of the m-flak gun with the standard 77mm German AA gun just to make the missions survivable... but this gets old pretty fast when you have to do it for every mission... 

 

thanks!

Edited Wednesday at 10:40 AM by Flashy

[Stonehouse]

10 minutes ago, Flashy said:

Hi Pat,

Hope you had a relaxing holiday season and happy new year! I wanted to get your opinion on an issue I have noticed with PWCG missions for WW1 planes: Even if I set the AA level to low, the missions are being generated with a crazy amount of AA around targets, which results in any bombing mission in a 2-seater always being a suicide mission. More worryingly, PWCG also seems to be using WW2 AA carriages on the trains it generates for these missions. Needless to say, WW1 planes and WW2 AA doesnt end well. Is there a way to drastically reduce the AA level around targets for generated missions, and also to get rid of any WW2 AA (and also that horrible m-flak cannon thing)? At the moment I am having to go into the missions in the ME once generated and delete the AA placements, check all the trains for WW2 AA carriages and then run the mission file through a text editor to replace any mention of the m-flak gun with the standard 77mm German AA gun just to make the missions survivable... but this gets old pretty fast when you have to do it for every mission... 

 

thanks!

Consider using the AAAmod found here 

 

As I recall - perhaps incorrectly - Pat also uses my mod to address stock AAA issues as a most of the issue is outside PWCG. Suggest try it and see if the problem goes away. The M-Flak is set up in stock to use the machine gun AI Bot and this accounts for much of the issue. I've created a light flak AI bot specifically for such weapons (it is actually a 37mm shell not an MG style weapon) to address such concerns.

 

Edited Wednesday at 10:50 AM by Stonehouse

[Flashy]

Okay thanks @Stonehouse I will definitely install that and see if it helps.  I also just wanted to see if we could maybe get a ultra-low AA setting or something for PWCG because even on low it is putting something like 20-30 AA guns around a target.. which is pretty insane, even with Low AI skill.. try flying a lumbering F.E.2.B through that and coming out alive the other side 😅

BTW, is that m-flak thing historically correct for early missions? From what I could find online, it was only used from about mid-1917 onward, and even then it was very rare and only used for high value targets.. 

Edited Wednesday at 11:02 AM by Flashy

[Stonehouse]

1 hour ago, Flashy said:

BTW, is that m-flak thing historically correct for early missions? From what I could find online, it was only used from about mid-1917 onward, and even then it was very rare and only used for high value targets.. 

I don't know how Pat populates his missions with ground units so cannot answer about the density of AAA in PWCG missions, he would have to advise.

I do know that he uses low skill for AAA in all PWCG missions.

The issue with the stock gun is two fold. The effective range is quite high @3000m when in fact this was the theoretical range for targeting aerial targets. In reality the effective range was about 1500m due to sight limitations etc at the time. The mod reduces the range to 1500m for engaging aircraft. The second issue is that the gun is given the MG bot definition, and this reduces aiming error quite quickly. I gave it its own AI which converges slower. It still is quite dangerous but not as bad as stock. I have seen references to it being used from late 1915 for important defence locations. I did see it said to be not a common weapon and reserved for important sites.

[Flashy]

Thanks for the explanation! It definitely makes sense and helps explain why its very difficult to survive any kind of encounter with the m-flak in the base game. The only time I have survived that gun in the last month or so was while flying an HP-400.. it still hit my plane 16 times (I counted the bullet holes), but luckily it was all wing and tailplane hits, so nothing critical was damaged and I could still fly.. but that was a rare event.. most of the time as soon as you see that thing firing you have two choices: a.) accept you are going to die and see if you can bomb the target before it gets you or b.) drop you bombs now and just head home again. Neither option makes for very fun gameplay..  it seems your mod (as well as the one which replaces WW2 guns on trains with WW1 guns) could solve the issues.. 

[AeroCrab]

Had to dig around in the old forum on the "too much AA" thing as I remembered some associated bugs but couldn't remember what exactly. Here's a quote of what I wrote at the time:

Quote

The primary source of all this AA is around bridges and, more importantly, railroads. There are two bugs associated with all this. The first one is this (in buildAAAKeyPositionForMission):

       if (!currentGroundSetting.equals(ConfigSimple.CONFIG_LEVEL_ULTRA_LOW) || !currentGroundSetting.equals(ConfigSimple.CONFIG_LEVEL_LOW))

That logic is supposed to gate creation of bridge and railroad AA, but it is always true (instead, "||" should be "&&"). All that does, though,  is make the "low" setting not particularly usable (elsewhere in the code, there are checks for ultra_low, and bridge and railroad AA is skipped for that). The big-ticket item, and the one which I find kind of funny, is less of a "bug" and more "things are different for FC". Specifically, the code looks for certain substrings in the model name (like "railway") and if found calls that a railroad item for AA purposes, and builds AA units around them. The problem is that the FC map contains a lot of items like "railway_pillar" and "railway_sign", so Francois and his buddies in the 437th Railroad Sign Defense Corps are ready to give the Germans what-for if they come for any for the signage. 

So basically you get <config key> number of AA units for each one of those, and it is a comedically large amount. Unfortunately, there really isn't anything you can do about it without modifying the code. I've done that here to preprocess the railroad templates and declare the first "station" item for a group the "base" station, then only do AA for that. My average FC mission these days (I have other changes, so not really directly comparable) with a Low AA density is around the 40-60 range - and for me, Low includes bridge and railroad AA; I changed the initial logic to  if (!currentGroundSetting.equals(ConfigSimple.CONFIG_LEVEL_ULTRA_LOW)).

Basically, for FC without code changes, you either set the simple AA config to ultra-low, or you get All The AA.

[Flashy]

16 hours ago, AeroCrab said:

Had to dig around in the old forum on the "too much AA" thing as I remembered some associated bugs but couldn't remember what exactly. Here's a quote of what I wrote at the time:

Basically, for FC without code changes, you either set the simple AA config to ultra-low, or you get All The AA.

Thanks @AeroCrab. Is @PatrickWilson aware of these issues? It seems like you have already solved the problems for him, so isnt it just a case of him making the same changes for the "official" PWCG code?

 

BTW, I am already using ultra-low for AA, and still getting an unsurvivable level of AA over some targets... 

 

As an aside: do we have sources on what the actual level of AA around something like a train station was during WW1? The mission generator should probably stick to a level that is plausibly historical if we do.. I read somewhere that aerodromes would usually have 2-3 AA guns and maybe a searchlight on average, so that is what I would think the average train station should also have..5 guns tops.. obviously big railway junctions which were more critical to the war effort could have more..

Edited Thursday at 08:47 AM by Flashy