jwilly

Registered Users
  • Content count

    24,643
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    68

Everything posted by jwilly

  1. I think a triad of HEAT rifle grenades was on the Roadmap a few years ago, wasn't it? Work was done in that direction. The French Brandt 50mm HEAT RG, and the Fallshirmjagers' unsuccessful 60mm HEAT RG first used on Crete, were both modeled. There are CRS renderings still around. Any chance that eventually those two weapons plus the working-fine-then-withdrawn British #68 HEAT RG could become a deliverable?
  2. Maybe there'll be a surprise offset for each of the items you listed. @XOOM
  3. Wellington, He111 is the medium bomber set. No doubt an American element on the way. Maybe someday there'll be a French element as well. A20/DB7/Boston, Ju88 is the fast bomber set.
  4. I still think the solution is to evaluate pop very locally and quickly, and provide additional lethality...lots more, in the form of FF=on artillery missions...for the locally-right-now underpop side.
  5. The only thing that's ever "plainly" clear from customer numbers is that changes to the game to favor Side X, and disfavor Side Y, likely would result in more Side X players and fewer Side Y ones. But, no one ever requests a change to the game that would favor the side they play less. Everyone with a strong opinion is of the opinion that what needs fixing is their preferred side needs to be buffed, and...usually...the other side needs to be nerfed. That's just basic fairness, right?
  6. The "compile" part is a seat-license for Creator. Expensive, and said to be non-intuitive. Everything you move from the tile designs to PPO status has just been shifted to that last part of the developer work, where the Speedtree stuff and towns are created. Lots of slow heavy lifting, with not a lot of tools to help you do the work. OTOH you get the flexibility to have pretty much anything you want in your toolbox...other than tools, of course.
  7. That was the exact marketing conclusion that CRS came to, that led them to the Rapid Assault project. I think the limit of the Creator terrain engine technology is a set of 64 tiles. I don't actually know if two tilesets at different sizes can co-exist. Rapid Assault, since it had no requirement to be integrated with or based on the existing terrain, was using a single all-new tile set at a size unknown to me. It's surprising, once you try to create a tileset for this purpose, how not-far 64 tile designs goes when you have to build a connected world using those tiles and no others. Having tried to re-engineer the existing technology many years ago for a better water-terrain solution, I don't see how it would work to use something like Voxel Farm if where you need to end up is tiled terrain suitable for the ground game. The Speedtree stuff and related details are the last part of the developer work, to customize each tile to fit into its local world.
  8. There have been several technologies over the years for procedurally generating wide-scale terrain. The challenge, I think, is that most ground spotting and fighting takes place at distances no greater than a few hundred meters, or maybe a little more. So, most of the most important aspects of the terrain need to have their highest performance at that scale at the high end, and...for infantry gameplay...at much tighter scales. I'm not aware of procedural approaches compatible with Creator that work at those small scales. The WWIIOL implementation of Creator involved building a set of 800m x 800m tiles...I think about 64 different designs...containing (in various combinations) roads, bridges, airfields, railroads, forests, rivers, shorelines and ocean-water. Creator provides an engine that starts by laying out a grid-array of "basic" tiles, with none of the features listed above. Then the shoreline of the ocean-water is defined...that involves particular tile types. Then the terrain developers can remove "basic" tiles, one at a time, and replace each one with one of the custom tiles at any of four compass orientations, arranged so that roads, railroads, forests and so forth all connect and line up. There's a whole set of technology and mechanics related to tile corner elevations, tile "stretching" and seam matching, easiest to set aside for a separate discussion. Much of the terrain developer's work is just beginning at that point. Buildings and most other terrain features and details are either placed individually, or are placed algorithmically and then adjusted individually to remove conflicts and achieve the local design goals. It's also possible, but a lot more work, to do a localized fully-custom terrain solution. The limitation of the existing terrain technology IMO mostly comes from the 800 meter tile size, which handles rolling hills OK but is way too big to allow good modeling of rough terrain. It's also too big from the perspective of texturing. It might be possible to integrate a second tile-set, 50m x 50m. That would allow for modeling terrain 256x rougher, but it would require 256x as much developer work. Doc and others have told us many times over the years that the existing 800m tiles are right at the edge of being non-viable in terms of getting the work done at all. In any case, I don't think there's a viable terrain solution in the procedural-engine direction. The output of such an engine could be beautiful for an air-only game, but I don't see how it could work for an infantry game.
  9. In the past, Presagis's perspective on Unreal conversions was that Unreal was a very limited system compared to Creator, so conversions from the latter to the former would be for temporary demos and the like and significant data loss and capability loss were OK. Epic's publishing of their DataSmith toolset may help with this. I do note though that everything here is v. 1.0 at the latest, published three weeks ago, and the release notes are both sparse and liberal in listing fundamental things that aren't, or aren't yet, supported. It still looks to me as if Presagis's corporate perspective is that no one in their right mind would re-publish something developed in Creator in a gaming engine, so supporting the use of Unreal for easier demos has no downside. As to importation of hobbyist models...sure, there's lots of stuff out there. Scotsman for one has been telling us for years that he has access to lots of American, German, British, French and Italian stuff. The question in regard to such models is whether their availability will make a difference to the game, or whether instead the need is for stronger gameplay mechanics and better terrain.
  10. I don't recall a change to the game-history. It appears though that on a full-year tier system, T1 is correct.
  11. Valid answer. Seems that the valid answer would be "here's some data on typical rapid RoF for the bolt action rifles, including whether the shooter can or cannot maintain his sight picture. Let's make the game rifles match this data."
  12. One of the benefits of having a "historical validity crowd" is that it provides an objective pathway to an unbiased answer. That's very useful from a commercial perspective...compared to just letting the side-biased folks get heated up and rage-quit.
  13. This fix was announced by CRS as a fait accompli maybe twelve years ago...? I never did hear what the holdup was.
  14. So let's get started on the complaining. Plz give the French their already-modeled HEAT RG in T0.5. Note to history fans: 150,000 available summer 1940, and used during WWII. And restore the long-ago-modeled British HEAT RG to T0. Note to history fans: actively used by the BEF, summer 1940. And, plz take away the unreal / non-representative French, British and American HEAT sapper charges. Note to history fans: this weapon-type was used only by the Germans.
  15. Usually in marketing, it's considered fundamental that whatever you're doing that's numerically most successful isn't where you should focus your thinking about change. The numbers are clear...a substantial majority of customers are here to play infantry. That's been the case since the beginning. Based on that fact, it's hard to argue that infantry gameplay is worse than tank, air and naval gameplay. That's just not what the customer numbers say.
  16. To include an image in a post, you need to upload the image-file to a site that "hosts" image files. Then you include in your post a link to the uploaded image-file. This actually hasn't changed since the beginning, so likely it will come back once you get re-started. The Carrier is scheduled for an upcoming patch...either Soon, or sooner than that.
  17. Oy. It had a long way to go.
  18. I don't have a horse in this race...or at least I don't have a strong commitment to one. I however would hope that CRS's Lead Marketing Officer...some guy named @Xoom, I'd guess...would be very clear on the answers to the questions posed above.
  19. Or Aruba and the other French-dominated refinery centers of that part of the southern Caribbean, plus those of northern Venezuela.
  20. Scotsman recently posted on this exact specific topic...in fact, in a thread of yours...so maybe something is happening behind the scenes. ...and previously he posted here:
  21. I agree on the textures. 8^) And, I don't disagree on the game's core mobiity technology, and wheeled drag factor vs. tracked drag factor vs. bump map orientation and magnitude, and how to handle halftracks and other narrow-track vehicles vs. high flotation AWD wheeled vehicles, etc., etc. I'd just rather see a more engineering-sensible solution than the very simplified one that was implemented twenty years ago, in which 50 psi 2WD trucks have greater cross country mobility than either 9 psi tracks or 14 psi 6x6 trucks.
  22. We'd all love to have every customer happy. That was the point of the "zoned weather" suggestion....hardly an original one, it's been out there since maybe Week Three.
  23. Think before engaging keyboard. Ummmm...yes, good analysis. They want what they want, i.e. weather that benefits them. Yes. Ground players want weather that allows them to have their infantry fights and tank duels, without being subject to air attack. Heh. Oh, yeah, the idiocy of a design decision that pleases a majority of customers...so dumb. 8^) But zoned weather, in which players could go on the map wherever their needs are met...now there's a radical idea. 8^)
  24. Trouble is, a majority of customers play ground...and they don't want the weather beautiful all the time for ground attack and strat bombing. Solution: finally figure out zoned weather.