jwilly

Registered Users
  • Content count

    21,460
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    35

jwilly last won the day on November 14

jwilly had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

770 Hero

1 Follower

About jwilly

  • Rank
    WWII Online Builder [GOLD]
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Navy
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. I don't think there's any daylight between the boundaries of "no significant effect, why bother" and "enough of an effect on gameplay to fully encourage griefing". I don't think FF=on can possibly work in a game with a F2P option. Old-CRS, well before F2P, said there would be enough dysfunctional player behavior that the game would be messed up. Old-CRS also said experience in other games showed them that they'd need at least an order of magnitude more GMs in game at all times than the peak number they'd ever had.
  2. The WIP you criticize is for a suburban or smaller-town construction with brick walls and a wood framed peaked roof. That construction was very common in western Europe from the middle ages through now. There are tons of WWII photos out there showing similar damage states for that construction type. The alternate building you propose is a central city all-masonry, flat-roof construction. That's a good suggestion too, but not interchangable with the WIP. They're appropriate for different places. I don't understand how you've compared the "efficiency" of the two models, or concluded that the suggested one requires fewer polys. Also...the WIP is fully realistic even though simplified, in that it is surrounded by rubble. What is supposed to have happened in the suggested building model...someone sent in Merry Maids and told them to remove all the rubble and clean it up? The complete roof, almost all of the third and fourth floors, and much of the first and second floors were wrecked...they'd fill the building at least to the second floor, with a similar rubble height around some of the outside depending on which way the upper stories fell. I'm glad the game's models take that fundamental realism-aspect into account, and hope they continue to do so.
  3. Possibly the copy that was installed had already been installed elsewhere, so didn't have an available serial number for activation. Or, maybe the installed copy was downloaded from some dodgy net source, and the supposedly activatable serial number that came with it, didn't work. Unactivated OS software is pretty useless. Unknown source OS software is worse. I'd think you'd want to format the C: drive to a clean state and start over with an activatable OS installation.
  4. The stumbling block for ideas like this in past years has been the likelihood of complaints that: 1. While Side X holds the stations at both ends, Side Y has forces physically controlling at least one point on the game-world rail line between them, so how did the trains get through? 2. There's a railroad bridge in that intercity line, and it's down...so, again, how did the trains get through? The past conclusion has been that adding rail ground-force-movement functionality without causing these problems would need to wait until trains became modeled dynamic objects in the game world. Then to move forces from city A to city B, it'd have to be possible to physically move along those tracks without being blown up by enemy ground forces, or wrecked by air attack, or falling into a river.
  5. One possible way of addressing the question of interactive damage...a destroyed building blocks an adjacent street...might be: 1. Create logic running on the server that manages how much damage can exist in a given small area, so that no area becomes entirely inaccessible and no movement direction entirely blocked no matter how much destructive energy is locally applied. 2. Develop "road rubble" world-objects. These would have no undamaged state, either visual or collider. "Road rubble" objects would be placed in urban areas on top of streets/roads alongside large buildings. Such world objects would appear and become collidable only when triggered by the damage logic, based on the damage state of an adjacent large building.
  6. The point, I think, is that "realism" is a complex matrix of ratios between game functional parameters. When one thing is made to work unrealistically i.e. infantry can observe at a longer range, either the game world will begin working unrealistically because now infantry can observe targets from farther away than those other units can observe or engage that infantry, or a bunch of other ranges also have to be changed. The first outcome gives up realism, a key marketing distinction for the game. The second outcome basically gets us back where we started, but with all interactions occurring at longber range.
  7. There may be opportunities for improvement, i.e. a wrecked second floor frame likely would collapse without support in all four corners, all construction elements have to be structurally integral at at least three points to stay in place, and the absence of realistic thickness in brick walls is relatively unnoticeable in intact buildings but is very prominent in wrecked ones, which have a lot of exposed wall-ends. But as to unrealism of a wrecked building depiction as framing only, blast having blown off the wall and roof skins, observe the rear second story of this British house during the Blitz. The photographer didn't walk around to the garden to give us a better photo, but I think similarities are apparent. I found this with a few seconds of image search...I'm sure better photos for this concept are out there.
  8. Call up your developer-associate Scotsman and have him get a pic or video from one of his acquaintances at a tank museum...oh, that's right, he departed. Unfortunate.
  9. Only if all players are paid subscribers, with "skin in the game", so to speak. With easy-come, easy-go F2P, the player type that enjoys being disruptive becomes a factor. Per the extensive experience of the original CRS group at game creation and management, the creativity of such disruptors exceeds the ability of game managers to keep up. Friendly kills, for instance, are not always the actual fault of the shooter. Sometimes the shooter had no visibility on the killed friendly, even though that friendly is irate at being killed. Sometimes the killed friendly intentionally moved into another player's fire. The negative rank points concept is a management nightmare in practice, because good customers are vocally complaining that they were penalized for something that another player caused, and if no GM witnessed the event there's no good resolution path. .votekick also can be a management problem. Any such mechanism will be taken advantage of, to get rid of an unwanted player that wasn't actually griefing...a non-member disruptor on a carefully planned squad operation, for instance. How do the game managers handle complaints that that's happened? Until the game can have enough GMs to be everywhere at once at all times, FF=on is just commercially non-viable.
  10. Games are very simplified compared to real life combat. In order to get to an overall-realistic-feeling degree-of-difficulty and learned-skills requirement, some of the few parameters that the game developers can control are over-emphasized. Other players have adapted to it, via their own combination of skills and learning.
  11. WWII tanks with power turret drive used one of three systems; 1. Electric drive off the main (engine starting) battery set, with energy replenishment by the main engine generator. Generators, unlike post-WWII automotive alternators, required engine RPM of typically twice idle before their output voltage was high enough to provide charging, so with the engine off or running at idle the batteries ran everything...until they were discharged, at which point the main engine could not be electrically restarted and required manual cranking if such a system was provided, or a jump start from another vehicle. Examples: French B and S tanks. 2. Electric drive off an auxiliary battery charged by an auxiliary ("donkey") engine which drive a generator and was governed to run at a single rpm high enough to always provide charge. Example: German PzKpfW IV. 3. Hydraulic drive off a hydraulic pump driven by the main engine. Since storage of significant energy is not practical in hydraulic systems, the pump had to be running to create pressure. The advantage of such a system is that much more HP can be applied through a small hydraulic motor, compared to the same amount of turret turning force from an electric system of the same volume and weight. The disadvantage is that the hydraulic pressure is linearly proportional to engine RPMs, so the hydraulic motor runs very slow at idle, goes like crazy at redline, and is zero with the engine off. Yes, exactly. But revving a tank engine to create more hydraulic rotation speed makes the exhaust sound much louder than at idle, and of course much louder than when off. Correct modeling of different transmission types and thus hull pivot turn capabilities is another "opportunity for improvement" for CRS. That's inherent to using a continuously proportioning hydraulic transmission, not a separate design choice. in any case, tank drivers had a job to do, and whatever controls they were provided with was how they did that job. If their tank had a mechanical transmission, they got to be good with brake levers and other controls if they had the aptitude. Obviously hydraulic transmissions were the wave of the future. They however were vastly more expensive to build. Was it a good idea for the Germans to design future-tanks if it meant they could only build a quarter as many of them compared to a hypothetical alternate design that was only as engineering-sophisticated (which is to say, crude but effective enough) as their key opponent's tanks? Were the Germans fighting a war, or were they engaged in an engineering-elegance contest? That's been a question for the historians.
  12. The "solution" to the "Tiger problem" is to proceed to introduction of the Panther triad...I hope, Panther + M36B1 90mm + Firefly...after which the tanking game will be entirely a matter of who gets the first hit.
  13. Current CRS management decides how to market their game. In earlier times CRS said that other (mostly bigger, mostly much-larger-marketing-budget) FPS games had soaked up the customers who don't care about realism or don't have a correct understanding of it, and greater realism seemed to be CRS's opportunity-niche.
  14. Incorrect. It was an intentional CRS design decision, since the intended marketing was toward realism. While a tank crew obviously could and did exit their disabled tank and run for their lives, a tank crewman getting out and becoming an infantryman, in the general case, would be unrealistic. So, that wasn't made part of the code. Getting out of a tank to become infantrymen. Getting out of a vehicle to take a leak, or go have dinner, or because you just got stuck or had a wheel blown off and you'd rather run for cover than stay there and die, is quite realistic. It however is not an action that needs to be modeled as part of a combat game. A tanker jumping out to become an infantryman is not realistic, which...it was said by CRS in the early days...is why it's not part of this game.