aismov

Registered Users
  • Content count

    3,987
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

aismov last won the day on January 16

aismov had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

209 Salty

About aismov

  • Rank
    WWII ONLINE BUILDER [bronze]
  • Birthday
  1. I agree with BMBM. This is common for pilots: you divert to a mission elsewhere. A lot of the other shooters out there can't model true CAS which is why they resort to AI scripts that "simulate" air power. The same could be said about the Navy game. The feeling know that physical players are in the planes makes a huge difference. Plus it's interdictable. And with 1.36 we bring the supply and logistics equation back into the picture who other shooters don't have.
  2. Thankfully it has improved by 99.9%. I was more referring to the two remaining evils of the bombing game: engine-off bombing and supersonic dives. Most of these are rarely if ever seen today, but I think its more because all the old school bomber pilots left and not too many people know about these, ahem, "techniques." But if you have a high value target players are naturally going to try to find every advantage the game engine will allow them. The second FBs become bombable the first thing you would see make a repeat combat debut is the sneak engine-off bombing since that is the easiest way to avoid being detected. And when there is thick fighter cover the next thing players will do is a highspeed dive from 3-4k altitude, wing/airframe stress be damned as you are pushing 800+ km/h in your circa 1935-designed bomber. Both nearly impossible to interdict or defend against. Hence why I think we need to address engine start/stop to prevent this nonsense from returning to the game and also add airframe stress and damage when you exceed the design envelope in both speed and Gs.
  3. Yeah but with average video cards having 4 GB of frame buffer, and system with 8 GB of RAM (and many with 16 GB) I'm pretty sure that we have a lot of headroom to work with here. At the end of the day its not really the size of the map per se (at least unless its so big that your coordinate number in the game world exceeds you bit size), but the number of unique textures and models that are inside of it. For example I have a Win10 system with 16 GB RAM and a GTX 1070ti with 8 GB of memory. Admittedly this is on the higher end of the spectrum but nothing outrageous. At idle with a Firefox window open I use 2.8 GB of RAM and my GPU uses 1.1 GB. At the map screen is use 4.2 GB RAM and on GPU 2.2 GB and ingame 4.4 GB RAM and 2.2 GB on GPU. So WWIIOL really is only using 1 GB of GPU memory and 1.5 GB of system memory.
  4. Yeah the FB ping pong was awful. I would personally leave the HE shells out of it. Its simply too easy to land hits from 2km+ away. Especially now with resupply all you need to do is park a truck by your gun and you have infinite ammo. I would guess this is exactly how many players would do it.
  5. My understanding was that texture quality affected VRAM usage far more than FPS. As long as you have enough space to load the texture into your frame buffer the effects on performance are pretty minimal. A lot of FPS hogging things are the post-processing effects that are done to the textures. Here is a link from nvidia where they ran several tests: https://www.geforce.com/whats-new/guides/tom-clancys-rainbow-six-siege-graphics-and-performance-guide Examples of Low vs. Very High Quality: https://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/images/tom-clancys-rainbow-six-siege/tom-clancys-rainbow-six-siege-texture-quality-002-low.png https://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/images/tom-clancys-rainbow-six-siege/tom-clancys-rainbow-six-siege-texture-quality-002-very-high.png
  6. Agree: http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/420905-monetizing-f2p-auto-side-balancing-spawn-delayside-delay-and-ads/ But you still need other monetization options out there as well. But fundamentally I think this may be the way to go.
  7. Honestly the real issue with the game is its huge barrier to entry: graphics. We've been saying it since 2001. Many players take a look at it and walk away because of the graphics.
  8. Hmm... that is a great question. Honestly I don't know. Probably need @HATCH or someone with experience on the coding end to let us know. But the more I think about it, it doesn't sound like it would be a bad idea of properly implemented: 1) 50% damage cap on the FB from bombs (rest of the way you need to use engineers) 2) Drastically increase number of bombs needed to take down FB 3) Hit needs to be direct hit 4) Adjust airplane engine on/off model to put the final nail in the coffin of engine-off bombing (this in my book is an absolute MUST if we are going to do this) 5) Maintain current bomb-arming timer to prevent deck bombing (again a must) 6) Wing/airframe stress model to prevent trans-sonic kamikaze dive bombing (Hatch said he wanted to look at airframe stress overall combined with the damage model) Without these it will just become a farce of gamey suicide bombing runs that are impossible to defend against or interdict outside of vulching the bomber airfields.
  9. The psychology of that damn thing going off and an endless wave of DB7s made even veteran players start losing their nerve. The psychology of that thing is something else. If you haven't seen full stacks of bombs falling every 30-60 seconds on an AB about to go belly up you haven't seen a real war in this game.
  10. Not to poor cold water on this idea but you can't discriminate between types of damage. Everything in this game works on the "joules energy applied" system. It doesn't look to see what type of weapon was doing the joules (as long as it is an allowed weapon type). So for example you can say that "bombs can damage FB" but you can't say "bombs will only do 50% of their normal damage when they hit the FB." So your only real option is to increase the FB damage levels to make it harder for bombs to destroy it, in which case you have to compensate by increase the explosive power of satchel charges which creates a whole host of cascading downstream effects when a engineer runs up and places the equivalent of a 100kg bomb onto a tank that he pulled out of his side pocket. And BTW FBs in the early game were destroyable from the air. This feature was removed because it only took a single 50 kg bomb to destroy it (see reason above) and it was impossible to defend against it (not to mention we didn't have any AA guns back then). I'm a bomber pilot. I love to bomb. The more bombs the merrier! But I have to give this idea a thumbs down since it is simply too overpowering. It is too easy for a lone bomber on a kamikaze run to slip through a fighter screen and take down even a well defended FB with multiple AA guns set up. Engine off bombing. Hugging terrain to mask red circle and dropping 15 feet off the deck. Suicide dives from 4k alt. I've seen it all and its very gamey and immersion breaking. It sounds great in theory but the unintended consequences is that it would wreck the ground game. Now if there was a way to increase the threshold where you really do need 20+ bombs then I would maybe consider it, but I still have my reservations. I like Forrest's idea to limit and cap it at 50% damage tops, maybe combine the two?
  11. Again great example of why we have to be careful of the unintended consequences of F2P. Without true ingame monetization as it stands now it is unworkable.
  12. This is true. I've been saying this since 2001. It's not the triangles. It's texture quality (and now lighting/shadows). When ppl talk about good graphics they are referring to how detailed the textures are and not how many triangles the models have. Unfortunately the old CRS was completely stubborn in this regard and now we have a huge backlog of what needs to be updated. Hoping that this can help with minimal developer time!
  13. I just want to say that I appreciate all the work BMBM puts into this game. We are lucky we have him and should be thankful of the work he does for essentially nothing in return and most important with the best intentions for the ENTIRE playerbase in mind.
  14. Hate to say it Knucks since you actually have good ideas. But you would be more effective in communicating your points if you cut out all the snide remarks which insinuate that other members don't know what they are taking about. You turn off a lot if ppl by the way you post. Just saying.