jwilly

Registered Users
  • Content count

    20,923
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

jwilly last won the day on July 7

jwilly had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

519 Hero

1 Follower

About jwilly

  • Rank
    WWII Online Builder [GOLD]
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Navy
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. The physics-based approach has the capability of being more realistic for more types of targets and interaction scenarios. The old-CRS approach was the same as WarThunder currently uses, i.e. create an approximation for a particular set of circumstances. That can give you the same results as the physics approach if your approximation factors are correct (the reason infantry results suddently got wonky when more and smaller fragments began to be thrown is because the old system unexpectedly had two approximation-factors that were both wrong but balanced each other out, and when one was fixed the other one suddenly didn't work at all) and if you always and only apply that approximation in exactly that set of circumstances (an approximation for damage to trucks won't work for a truck that has 1/4" steel protective plates).
  2. Obvious, therefore irrelevant. But, green (17,130,17) vegetation might be made more distinct from green (8,128,8) tanks.
  3. WWIIOL is always multiplayer, so all of the ReShade effects based on depth would be disabled by design. Not at all saying it's the intent of the program designers or the persons suggesting its integration/enabling, but any program that provides a capability to either increase or decrease the visual differential between two colors can be used in-game to make particular units more visually prominent against game backdrops.
  4. A 105mm HE round detonating against any part of any WWII airplane should make it immediately at least non-flying. A tail hit would blow off the tail, a wing hit even at the wingtip would blow off enough of the wing that the plane would not be flight-capable. Taht'd be from blast and local fragmentation effects. There easily could be additional fragmentation damage to pilot, engine, fuel supply, cooling system, control lines. German 1940 105mm AP for sure was lethal to Matilda I and II. It was a battery of 105mm howitzers firing over open sights that likely got most of the Matilda kills at Arras. The story that it was German 88mm guns that got those kills was a bit of internal propaganda by 15th Army, building up Rommel while badmouthing Goering's Luftwaffe AA troops who manned those guns and were mostly sheltering in their trenches during the battle.
  5. I keep seeing this. Other than it being fireable below horizontal, what's wrong with the German 30mm HE RG? Obviously every RG, and also the PIAT, should be impossible to aim below horizontal. That'd require code, but it'd considerably improve realism.
  6. A "proper defense" reailsm-wise would be for all of the defenders that are going to be part of the initial battle already there, dug in and ready, before the first shot is fired...and the attacker having at least twice the force level, and maybe 3X. That of course would be in the context of capture being re-defined as no in-supply enemy troops able to put direct fire on the capture area, and your troops there being in supply.
  7. CRS can't compete based on its marketing budget. It can't compete based on its development budget. It can't compete based on its graphics. It can only compete based on its greater-tha-the-competitors realism, combined with its teamwork gameplay. "X admittedly is unrealistic but it should be kept because Y is even more unrealistic" is not a good argument from either side. A much better argument is "now that the unrealism of X is being fixed, what's the timeline for fixing the unrealism of Y? And if there's no timeline yet, is it on a published list of things to be fixed?"
  8. From the many available videos, a person that's competently preparing to fire a full auto rifle-caliber gun braces themself, perhaps by setting their rear leg back and leaning onto the front leg. I'd call that "standing deploy". Require a player intending to fire an LMG to standing-deploy at the firing position. It'd be a new stance. I'd propose that it take one second for firing from the waist, or two seconds to fire aimed. The shooter can rotate but not walk/jog/run. Rotation for this and all other weapon positions should take into account the weapon mass and the distance from the center of mass to the center of rotation. The greater the rotational inertia, the slower the rotation is to begin and to stop.
  9. (1) is titled Lag, but the problem description has nothing to do with lag and neither does the solution. There's work underway pertaining to infantry injury/death energy, so it may make sense to wait on this until after the infantry patch. In any case, having a fixed timer for wounded-to-death would be unrealistic. It would treat a low energy fragment to the arm the same as a rifle bullet through the thigh or a high energy fragment to the torso. (3.1) is an excellent idea. I don't know what changes it would require in CRS's workflow, but every customer that complains wants an immediate acknowledgement by a human that at least they've been heard. (3.2) another excellent idea, but I doubt if there are anywhere near enough resources to implement it.
  10. Lighting?
  11. All air forces had rules for minimum drop altitude, and trained for compliance with those rules, so that pilots would be less likely to get bomb-shrapnel damage to their plane...or be self-killed. 2.5 seconds is a realistic average of rules-based minimum allowed drop altitudes. 1 second would be low enough that realistically, bomb damage to bombers would have to be modeled. That would mean tracking thousands more items, to no realistic end because realistically pilots were expected to drop general purpose bombs from higher altitudes. By making the bomb fuzing distance equivalent to 2.5 seconds drop time, the coding and client/server work to manage all those fragments that might hit the bomber doesn't need to be done, and the game achieves realism.
  12. Not literally for all divisions, but just about all frontline Regimental Combat Teams (3 per division) in the spearpoint Armies had at least one company of tanks or tank destroyers detailed to them. Only one "independent" tank battalion was assigned to the same infantry division from D-Day to the end of the war. All of the others were moved around as needed. Clearly, though, the US Army came closest of all the WWII national armies to achieving an actual combined arms structure.
  13. The Panther commander got out first, but had his bell rung or something...he fell off the turret then fell off the tank. The radioman, loader and driver got out from their respective separate hatches. The gunner was last coming out, and was in the commander hatch with flames coming out of it around him when the #3 hit penetrated the turret on a line that would have caused the shell and/or spall to go through his legs. Whatever occurred at that moment, the gunner apparently dropped back into the tank, which by then had a heavy propellant fire. One body was found in the tank the next day. It's possible that something about hits 1 or 2 caused prior injury to the gunner, or that the already burning propellant fire had seriously injured him before he could get from his seat up to the commander hatch. The commander survived the war. One of the other three crewmen died within days in hospital, perhaps from burns or an internal shrapnel injury or infection. Hogwash. Any penetrating hit on any tank is a few seconds of hell followed by death or incomprehensible survival. Where the tank got hit and exactly what happened then was basically luck. After the change to wet ammo storage, Shermans burned less than German tanks. But, no WWII design factor could change the fact that immediately following a penetrating hit on any tank, there were pieces of razor sharp, yellow hot steel flying around at supersonic speed. The only good measure of WWII tank quality was how many enemy kills the tank got before it was destroyed. Shermans were very, very good at infantry support, and got lots of kills that way.
  14. It wasn't possible in mid WWII to build a tank that could not be killed by a well placed enemy first shot, and also was highly mobile, highly reliable, and manufacturable in huge numbers. It has always been the case that the first tank to accurately fire is likely to win, or at least survive. American tankers paid the price, not for having bad tanks, but for being the attackers. Defenders often get the first shot. Classically, attackers must have a 3:1 force ratio over defenders to expect to prevail. That's because defenders often get the first shot, and attackers thereby take losses. We knew that going into WWII. We brought enough forces to get the job done, and those forces did get the job done...in large measure because our tanks were so mobile, so reliable, and available in such large numbers. The Germans almost never had enough enough tanks to adequately defend everywhere we had enough tanks to attack with.