Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


madrebel last won the day on August 19

madrebel had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

323 Salty

1 Follower

About madrebel

  • Rank
  • Birthday
  1. I voted other. My other: Higher resolution terrain. Longer visual ranges for aircraft IDn other aircraft and at least double the range for AFVs (take infantry completely off the vis list for planes for all i care) IMO a laundry list of 'gamey' aspects would self correct with proper terrain. Visual range improvements open up more realistic ID ranges for planes too - enabling RDP to function more cleanly (i hope).
  2. idk - but i'd check the hangar searching a few weeks back. essentially allies = "you guys suck at life and can't figure out how to intercept us - lol herp derp roll tide" german players = "i'm not going to spend all night trying to spot you through the soup, have fun bombing undefended factories" many people argued the details. general consensus is germans need the ju88, allies the wellington, and we all need clear skies. until the skies are clear, with much longer view distances, RDP will never function well for the interceptors nor the escorts. this will always lead to burn out and boredom. first the interceptors will just get frustrated and stop trying to intercept. when this happens, the escorts stop flying escort. sooner or later, even the grognards that love flying bombers ... even these guys eventually stop. RDP should be turned off and not re-evaluated until such time that we can see in a straight line for more than 3.72 miles. interceptors and escorts need at least 10 miles of view distance so they can properly do their damn jobs.
  3. 100% - they got bored so stopped. the why for the boredom has been discussed.
  4. and at your age you should be focusing on breathing exercises, not restriction. last thing you'd want is someone to come in the room and freak out that grandpa isn't breathing ;-).
  5. Steyr-Mannlicher was the primary rifle for both - for the most part. Both used Mp34/40s along with other designs. Both used Mg34s. Both were promised German ATGs, both were primarily left wanting along with the Romanians - leading to a crushing defeat in Operation Saturn. Hungary offset with German/Italian small arms, as did Romania/Bulgaria but both Romania, Bulgaria, and the Finns made extensive use of captured Russian small arms as well. IMO these three (Hun/Bulgaria and Romania) should be grouped into a larger force seeing as there is so much commonality not only in weaponry but real life Orbat had all these forces together supporting the German flank as I recall. Finns should one day be their own thing.
  6. define simulation. you suggest this game doesn't attract simulator fans yet fail to actually define what you mean. you don't need logistic to have simulation as an example. you cant simultaneously say 'not a real sim' and also fail to define what is in fact a real simulator. do note, not agreeing nor disagreeing per se just merely stating, there are lots of hyper defined simulators and some less defined - theyre all simulators though.
  7. you don't have to kill to have 'friendly fire'. What if friendly HE instantly drains stamina? What if HE knocked you off your feet? What if HE made you drop your weapon? What if (insert other non lethal 'crowd control' mechanic here)? Doesn't have to be a kill, just needs to be a deterrent that gives a tactical reason to avoid doing it. We tried the shell shock thing - it ended up just sucking IMO. these things need to be given a bit more thought as you don't want to make the experience suck while trying to make it both more realistic and deliver an interesting mechanic. IMO.
  8. no to FF except for over the horizon HE and bombs - perhaps even grenades. Reason I suggest this is these types of weapons can be used to create zones of invulnerability and without FF its really face roll simple - just spam. This community can't handle the concept of two accounts and potential spying - enable FF and the fallout would be ... well just don't do it.
  9. hydraulic pressure - is my guess. tiger turret was intended to have two gears, one low for 1000rpm and one high gear for 2000rpm. likely then the RPM is what was required to generate enough hydraulic pressure to move the turret in their respective gears.
  10. Actually choked up a bit. *#$% cancer! Jammy was one of a very small number axis RDP geeks. I recall he and KGBB way back when being the backbone of w/e RDP effort the axis could muster. Quite a few large flights and some of the most epic memories I have are from his efforts. sad irl ... see you on the other side bro.
  11. sounds like the player base by and large already voluntarily side locks - what's left to discuss?
  12. load balancing, meshing, you're splitting hairs. the backend cell hosts can do all that since 2001. there is no reason too right now as you'd have individual cell hosts with a single player on them. further, latency only improves when you've got groups of players on a single cell host all geo-located within 50ms of each other and the cell hosts. cell hosts in say the EU with players interacting with players on a cell in texas would still experience similar latency issues as they do now. you 'might' shave off a few milliseconds via the cell to cell connection being on better infrastructure vs EU client to US cell host to US client. a us cell talking to a eu cell would have a few MS advantage, not huge, but a little. ideally you'd want to drive players into cells based on region then have AOs specifically labelled as 'EU AO' so that players know "hey, if i want to play infantry from the US i'm going to be at a disadvantage to the other EU players in this AO". that's all fairly simple however - why? a single cell host for the most part handles all the current load and establishing a colo footprint or cloud instances costs money. now do note, there would need to be some changes/optimizations here and there as the cloud was born long after ww2ol had only a skeleton crew. the underlying design though could pretty easily run in say AWS or GCP or etc etc etc. as long as the links/networks are there, strat updates would still flow between cell hosts and the central DBs in texas and things would just work. if we had the population that required it, this game can scale pretty well considering. how do you think thousands of players could all be in the same world back in the early 2000s? do you even understand how ahead of the rest of the world the back end networking in this game really was? if you did you wouldn't be talking about meshing servers as you'd know - its already there. has been since 2001 where a rack full of single core dual socket single core, pentiumD based xeon's, 12GB of RAM, and 100mbit networking managed to support thousands of players simultaneously. If you weren't aware, that same server struggled to handle 32 players in quake, tribes, UT, etc any contemporary shooter struggled on that same hardware. plenty of things wrong with the engine, networking too has issues (hence the recent update) but don't let that fool you. there is some genius in that design and it was done well before anyone else tried it.
  13. ww2ol has had this since 2001.
  14. trash. their failure to move on to the A7M after the catastrophic loss at midway ... well midway pretty much was VJ day ... they just refused to give up.
  15. There are a lot of reasons, many of which have nothing to do with how much RAM you can or can't address. SImply put, it costs more to support more than 1 'thing' be it 64bit or multiple different types of chassis in your fleet of vehicles. this is why many manufacturers of cars now run a single common chassis/engine/transmission that they then bolt on different bodies too. in many cases, a single model across multiple manufacturers shares the same underlying frame, engine, tranny, etc. in tech, having only one code base to manage costs you a LOT less. further, if done poorly, 64bit may slow you down. can you think of reasons why?