dog3

Registered Users
  • Content count

    687
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Green Tag

About dog3

  • Rank
    WWII ONLINE BUILDER [HERO]
  • Birthday
  1. I didn't respond to the poll because I couldn't overcome my vacillation while trying to make a decision.
  2. Ok, game now loads. I don't know what has changed in the interim.
  3. Game won't load for me either.
  4. Rank would be assigned by SYSTEM and not be a burden on the mission leader.
  5. I believe that the Versailles Treaty may have had a major influence on tank design and manufacturing by forcing the Germans to obfuscate their military rearmament and training.
  6. Maybe it's time to revive that discussion.
  7. On a per-mission basis suppose rank indicators could be provided independently of "game" rank. The intent is to separate accumulated game-rank from the in-game situation and provide a more immersive environment. A mission leader would be given a "Sgt" prefix that would be shown with their handle in-game irrespective of their actual accumulated game rank. Subsequent players would be given a "pvt" prefix to their handle. These rank prefixes would be completely independent of their accumulated game-rank although the "HC" indicator would also be shown if the player was a member of HC. For example, if a HC member spawned into a pre-existing mission their tag might be shown as "Pvt Bigwheel (HC)". A mission leader would always be shown with a prefix of "Sgt". The current game-rank icons would not be shown. New player tags would still be shown in "green". Accumulated game-rank would still be used to determine access to equipment. The purpose of this change would be to make "visible" rank indicators more closely related to game-play roles rather than accumulated experience and equipment access.
  8. For defined images such flags, why not just recreate them in a resolution-independent format? The "natural" textures seem to be the appropriate target content for these resolution enhancers.
  9. The content-related performance I suspect depends on how the "discriminator" (the antagonistic network part) was trained. If it was trained on landscapes then it will prefer landscape-like noise to be added to images. If it were trained on "flags" or cartoon-like images then it select enhanced resolution images with distributions that resemble flag or cartoon-like distributions. So if it were trained on "axis" flags and ensigns then it would select enhanced noisy images that most closely "resembled" axis flags. In other words, if you have access to the "training" mode then you should be able to construct an "antagonistic network" tuned to your particular requirements.
  10. spoil sport... so who stole your bone???
  11. From Murmansk via ship along coast of Norway, of course... or Siberia to US and Canada...
  12. Oh, Oh... So the Axis never invade Russia and the Russians send all their idle T-34s to France...
  13. IMO, if the game engine is sound everything else can be fixed. The game engine is the foundation on which all gameplay is built. Are the human resources available to construct a new rendering engine coupled to the current physics engine? It has been my understanding that the current physics and and the current rendering engines are not distinct and orthogonal. Is separating the rendering functions from the physics engine a reasonable possibility? It would be a shame to lose the features provided by a continuous and immense gameworld by shoehorning the game into a set of discontinuous boxes required by something like the Unreal engine. Pretty graphics and a realistic audio environment come with a computing cost. An accurate physics engine also has a computational cost. Personally, I would favor a more accurate physics engine for both ballistics and environmental behavior than pretty graphics. I am willing play with wire figures if the physics engine provides accurate motion and damage models.