• Announcements

    • Dodger

      Seeking Squad Leaders!   04/09/2017

      Soldiers!

      We are seeking Squad Leaders to volunteer their squads to help us test the upcoming Squad Forums system. This system will integrate squads who wish to participate into a self-sustained "forum within a forum." You will be able to add members to your squad, assign permissions, and create forums/calendar events on your own. The idea behind this system is part of our commitment to support squads as a integral part of our community. This service will be offered free of charge to all squads of World War II Online upon launch. Our goal is to offer all of the services a squad off-site forum can offer but free of charge and tied in to our existing forum service. So what do you need tested? We need willing volunteers to test the whole system - make forums, post threads, assign permissions, etc. The idea is to have several squads giving it a test run to point out any flaws before we launch it publicly. What are the requirements? We are ideally looking for medium to large squads - Ideally ten people or so plus, but smaller squads feel free to apply - and a willingness to use our platform. It's important to note (as of now - these may be included at a later date) we are unable to convert posts from a private forum if your squad previously used one, and you (or your XO's and recruiters) will need to assign individual members permissions. It is entirely possible that in the future this system will be automatically linked to the game's squad roster, but as of now developer priorities are elsewhere (1.37 and steam, w00t!) How do I sign up? PM me ( @Dodger ) on the forums, or email me at dodger@playnet.com - Please indicate your squad name and how many members you have. I will get back to you with more instructions.

    • GVONPAUL

      Recruiting drive.   04/16/2017

      With the anticipated influx of new players on the heels of this summer's Steam release, there is a reasonable expectation that forum traffic will increase. I'm looking for volunteers, not just to moderate, but to help answer new players' questions or direct them toward the correct answers. The forums may be a player's first contact with the game and we want to ensure that it is a positive experience. A happy player is a player who sticks around and the more new players we can retain, the more resources we will have for development.
      With that in mind, we are looking for current players with a positive attitude and posting history. PM me if you are interested.

madrebel

Registered Users
  • Content count

    12,043
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

madrebel last won the day on January 15

madrebel had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

75 Vet

About madrebel

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday
  1. agreed, infantry have been pampered far too long. model weapons as they were, chips fall, tweak if required - else let chips continue to fall
  2. that is a loaded question as you aren't defining 'worth' answer is it depends. me personally, if i drop below 144fps i'm unhappy. about 6 months ago i bought a 27" 1080p 144hz screen. most people called me stupid for buying a 1080p 27" instead of a 2K or 4K. then they argued i should just buy one of those with gsync. Now we're into the $600 range for the screen. Oh, and if i want to play at => 144fps i need no less than 1 x 1080gtx preferably 2. Now we're into the $2000 range. No, 4K isn't worth it - to me. fast forward 2 years and 1.5 GPU generations from now ... maybe playable 4K is more affordable but i still think it will be in the $1000 range for acceptable performance. now, your definition of acceptable performance doesnt have to match mine. if you're ok at 30fps then 4K is in the range of affordable now depending on what 'affordable' means to you.
  3. which allied gun is operating so poorly compared to what it ought to be that the german equivalent outperforms it by 3x?
  4. so what went wrong with the flak30? lack of recoil spring dampner or CoG placement problems? Perhaps the mass isn't correct where it needs to be such that the non deployed towed works fine but when deployed this 'central' mass maybe moves backwards with the spotter? In theory i guess it really doesn't matter if they just shed the rain guard and changed the RoF. If they could do that and get rid of the barrel climb all the better.
  5. wasn't aware that was a thing. can you describe the problem you're attempting to correct in a bit more detail?
  6. correct me if i'm wrong but it isn't even mechanically possible to recoil UP without also forcing the hand wheels to move as well given they're a geared mechanism?
  7. just fyi IRL the 111 (and all level bombers) were massacred anytime they attempted the CAS role. i appreciate that you enjoy doing this, but, just understand the 111 in this scenario should always have trouble as this just wasn't the intended role. all HE are about to get improved by a lot. idk exactly how much but scotsman is a nut about this stuff and did weapons work for our military as i understand it. have some faith in him. meaning, the flak30 may suck less soon via the HE audit alone. if that indeed occurs, the flak38 will still be required as the correct choice but waiting for it will suck less as the flak30 should actually hurt when it hits. if the flak30 is still terrible, don't expect much from a single flak38 either as it uses the same ammo as the flak30 iirc.
  8. and nobody is disagreeing or telling you no. however i would warn you that the flak38 isn't all that amazing in a single barrel format. further, don't sleep on the flak30 we have. its current in game effects upon airplanes WILL be changing soon and lethality should increase. granted same will happen to the allied 25mm but w/e. need the flak38 no doubt. a better way would be to suggest a trio of either AA or AT guns be made to fill gaps. germans could use the 4.7cm czek AT gun and the flak38. if you also modeled the 20mm polston here you now have the guns required to do all the proposed light SPAA, multi barrel light towed AA, and the multi barrel light SPAA. however you might get more traction suggesting something else that fills a gap somewhere in the allied list and or leads to a big variant win as the rats aren't likely to stop what they're doing just to model a single new weapon.
  9. they just added SPAA, you act as though they're completely ignorant of the AA situation.
  10. in theory like in the penetrable wall discussions you could have 'aluminum frame' as well as a 'wood frame'. airplanes are simple like that there were only two types of frame material really. now you can apply different effects upon taking damage. really only applies to HE and its effect but would still be cool.
  11. people have a hard time with equal and equivalent. one of those two words can produce an outcome that is in fact the other word ... but the other word may not in fact be the case between two of the other words ;-).
  12. spitfire was not a structurally stout airplane. not that it was in danger of falling apart per se but it just wasn't known as being the kind of plane to get you home with any high probability after taking heavy damage like say ... anything radial and aircooled. the spits wings were also not known to be super strong a problem mentioned frequently as something to watch for in a high speed dive. the dangerously light elevator controls at high speeds presented a very real and actual danger of the wings folding on you. i've read a few stories of pilots dying this way. so no, if anything the spitfire and really all small single engine water cooled planes ... 109, d520 etc none of these should take very much damage before really adverse reactions begin occurring that said, HE shots to a hurricane's tail were known to have less effect if an aluminum tube section wasn't struck or ... i forget what was behind the pilot in a hurricane. battery, aux fuel, radio, sometimes oxygen, control junctions etc could be back there but with the exception of major things like fuel tanks i don't think we model the others. maybe oxygen bottles? anyway, with very few exceptions single engine water cooled fighter planes were never known for being particularly robust, and the spit certainly wasn't tops of that list anyway. *edit* just to clarify, once the C wing arrived (with the spit ... 7? and late in the spitV prod cycle late 42 early 43 as i recall) it did improve structural strength a good deal and did so again with the E wing. We aren't talking P47 rugged here though, you lose half a wing in a spit you better GTFO and hit the silk highly doubt it is flying home.
  13. there is nothing incorrect about flying 109s down low, even slow given the right situation.
  14. I'm not going to speak for him, but in all the talks and post from Scotsman that' ive read over the years conceptually this is simple and I'd be shocked if Scostman doesn't have experience with this in his work over the years. Other games as an example have defined this in as simple as iirc 3 different 'surface types' to i recall reading a design blog about having different types of wood surfaces modeled. i would think something like 'wood wall' 'wood fence post' 'stone wall' 're-enforced stone wall' is really all we would need. "but madrebel, some walls were just brick n mortar and some where concrete and and" ... uh huh. 4, maybe max 10 types is all we would need to have a 'good enough' approximation. here, i'll add a 'wall' type that i'd LOVE to see defined in game 'hedgerow' maybe one day we can get all the way down to small branches, twigs and leaves affecting a round but for now 4 basic penetrable walls would be very interesting. scratch that, 5, you'd have to have some/all spawns as ... idk ... vibranium? can't allow pentrations through to spawn points so you have to have a wall that is god mode. However, can the engine do it and can the models themselves do it? If yes, is it something simple that can be set on a single file and affect every appicable 'wall' asset in game or is this a one by one edit of every building model in every town ... cause that [censored] ain't gunna happen even if it is technically doable.
  15. saying allied aa was not as good isn't accurate. wasn't initially as numerous is more accurate. their guns though were fine and in some ways superior. example, the allied 20mm class typically out weighed the german equivelent, also typically had a higher muzzle velocity too. germans need the flak 38 for sure. the 3.7mm would be nice since its RoF is grossly superior to the bofors, but, the bofors works great and was used in numbers by the germans. further this is a red v blue matchup so you can't claim any bias, for that reason the bofors is a general positive for the game more than the german 3.7cm would be IMO. with the new SPAA we're down to only needing 20mm multi barrel options preferably something that could be reused as both towed and SPAA and then LMG AA deploy ability and IMO the ground to air aspect is standing on a real solid foundation.