• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


HATCH last won the day on July 14

HATCH had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

77 Vet

1 Follower


  • Rank
    Production Lead
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Location
    DFW, Texas
  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
    Air Force
  • Preferred Unit
  1. Just Steam
  2. I'd like to have a dedicated terrain builder. But no extra funds for a contract like that at the moment. We'll see where we are down the road a piece and possibly revisit that offer. :-)
  3. Lol! I didnt call you out because I KNOW how busy you are! Thanks for all you do man!
  4. Well, thanks for considering, and good idea just the same. I had forgotten about how well that program worked for us back then until you jarred my memory. So thanks for that. Hope you get off easy with the computer! Yes, I saw what he started. Very pretty. I meant to drop him a line and say something but been a little hectic around here as you can imagine...
  5. Back when we started that program, I think Snak was the volunteer that mainly managed us for Pyro. Was soooooo long ago, its hard to remember for sure. But I can still remember a lot of the trainers from then, RobinHood, Boa, Hardcase, Worr, Fletchman... Krod and Boa volunteered and helped me build a bonafide training web academy (I was good at flyin and teaching, not so much with html and visual media lol! And we could only dream of the tools available to day like zoom and discord... If there are some folks interested in volunteering a couple of hours a night, fer fun with the newbs, I'll see if we can get the CM team and whatever resources they can muster behind it.
  6. This is one of the best suggestions I have seen lately. Talking from experience in teaching advanced ACM as a volunteer in the WarBirds training program, it WAS a very successful program. Warbirds was considered to have a steep learning curve in its day, and it was only a flight sim. Our learning curve is on steroids compared to that! The WB training program started off only a couple of nights a week with two of us a night, but it was in demand and successful enough to end up running every night a week except for Sundays I think. (Been a looooong time ago). I can remember having up to 10 students a night between the 2 or 3 of us, and some "students" even going on multiple training nights during the week to get specialized training from the guys on board those nights, notorious for their style of combat tactics in the game. Like me for stall fighting, Fletchman for Boom&Zoom, etc... Was all volunteer run and a great retention tool. I'd be happy to step up myself to kick something like this off for WWIIOL if there was someone else that could take my place in production. It was a fun job and great community builder. What about you Jester? Zippy? Merlin51? Delems? (if not already busy volunteering for something else) Interested in helping to get something like this started?
  7. Haven't looked at horsepower and torque recently except with 109's and it is historical as I could get it from prop and electric/hydraulic prop hub measurements and mass data. Wasn't extremely far off from what they are running now, just a bit light. Might still be as I don't have crankshaft or reduction gear torque factored in at present. Its all prop and hub... But ahhh... "invisible flight surfaces"? What you talkin about Willis???? All the planes have the correct flight surface areas and locations for the airfoil components. What "someone" did to make them more stable at some time in the past, was jack up the weight distribution and rotational inertia values, and slow down control surface response time. They didn't add any invisible airfoils. Anyway, I put those values back to "normal" in the 109 series, and will do so with the rest as soon as I can. Same with damage levels... Almost done with ordnance audits, so we can see how they act with current damage models. Will adjust to mach historical data as best we can after that. And YES. I want structural damage on these birds so bad I can barely stand it... Have a couple of ideas to implement it without having to completely code a new system. Like tying it into the overspeed damage application model that the gear, flaps, and cockpits use. But instead of using a speed "qualifier" to begin applying damage, maybe we can just add a "G" qualifier to the component. We'll see...
  8. Thanks Scotsman. Outstanding work! And David01, Except for hip fired LMG's are going the way of the dodo bird as soon as possible.
  9. Just for the record, we DID have a professional soldier consultant working with several different military and LEO alpha and beta guys advising us back when all this was implemented and helping us with data (remember, this was before you could find it all online), and still do to some extent although now its mainly new weap dev and audits. I find it rather interesting that you're opinion differs so widely from theirs. All for now. Time for some yard work!
  10. I would say adding ANY new vehicles to the game after 8 years is a win, but I digress... And it isn't supposed to be another tank... Personally, If it were up to me, I'd lose mobile spawns altogether. I never really liked the "place army here on the back porch" aspect and miss the camaraderie of getting together at the CP or FB before going on the attack... So maybe its a good thing it's not up to me. All subjective points. And you just now got a new Community Manager in KMS along with Badger, both LONG time players as liaison's to openly discuss these kinds of things, making sure they are heard, merits discussed by everyone, and put into production if warranted. Another plus from my perspective. 5-11x worse than what or when? 1) I'd like to see the baseline from which you make your assessment, 2) Didn't I already say that we are actively in the process of auditing all these for correct functionality and historical accuracy? and 3) We didn't make that distinction, YOU, the community did. And it really meant nothing more than several of us had/have pretty extensive experience with firearms, and again, are here with the intent to get us back to as close to historical as possible and let the chips fall where they may. No idea what you're talking about here... Ive only been back in time for one of them. But for breaking so many promises, we sure seem to be awful busy. I can't say either way since I haven't been back a year yet... and I still don't see where anyone here is "praising themselves" and looking at the current state of affairs as success. We are all well aware that any "more" success above "today's" will be after a lot more hard work. That is why all of these volunteers are here to begin with. To share their passion and abilities with the game and community to turn things around and promote something they love. I'm sorry you don't see it the same way.
  11. I would wholeheartedly agree with that! Ok, time for sleep. Long day tomorrow beating myself up while trying to improve Mrnoob's quality of life, along with some yard work and bathroom faucet repair!
  12. Working as fast as we can with the resources available... As for the latter, Seriously? Whatever. Must be at an ebb in your lunar cycle, weevils in your cheerios or something... Geeze.
  13. Yes we did make it so that when you bring a infantry weapon up to aim, it never is in exactly the same place just as in real life. But there are also other things to consider as well, such as breathing and fatigue (the movement you see when aiming for longer periods of time), and the difference in weapon position and viewpoint when weapons are not in the shouldered aimed position (for a "righty", the weapon being a couple feet lower and to the right than the center of screen viewpoint where it would be when not being aimed). The only true consistency is the relation to the "bore" and the sight picture. But each weapon also has a dispersion based on historical data for that weapon. Now I noticed someone mentioning this effect in AA and AT guns as well, and I don't ever remember there being a specific intention for the same effect on those. To the best of my knowledge, other than dispersion, the effects were only in infantry light arms (the difference in holding a firearm and trying to aim, and sitting in/on it looking through a mounted sight). We actually had an demonstrative office field trip to the gun range where Killer some friends and I let all the artists and coders "play" with our firearms so they could see what we were talking about when we were implementing these features (ie: recoil, the wandering of a rifle when aiming it unsupported for long periods, reloading, etc). Some of the weapons there that day were M1A, M1 Garand, SKS, AR-15, AK47, Remington 742, .45 Winchester lever action, .45 Colt 1911, .40 Browning Hi-Power, Colt .45 Single Action Army revolver, and seems like there were a couple of bolt actions and some others there too, but I can't remember what they were... LOL! THAT's pretty funny. Probably why they called us the most heavily armed software development house on the planet back in the beginning! Somewhere on these or the old forums there is a pic of us on a shooting excursion out at Bushman's place with most of the weaps mentioned above in the picture... As far as implementation, I'm real happy with what we came up with and the only thing I could maybe agree with as a possible improvement if it were worth the time and effort, would be making the entire screen or viewpoint move with the rifle instead of just the rifle itself, but can you do that without making all the terrain in the screen move too? IDK... All that said, a lot has happened while I've been away and since Killer, Mo, and Hoof have been gone (realism grognards), and we are well aware that there are a lot of inconsistencies that need to be addressed (dispersions, muzzle flash, recoil effects, bolt cycling, LMG reload times, etc.) that Scotsman and I are currently working to audit and verify that all are as historically as accurate as possible in relation to each other. Time to get back to the hard-core simulation roots.
  14. From what I'm reading here, other than the same complaints there have always been about us-vs.-them being (freelancers vs HC guys), it seem's pretty clear that TOE complaints fall into 3 main categories... 1) Their management by too few and in some extremes an arguably un-trusted HC group, and no management at all in some cases when no HC is on... This is the toughest nut to crack with requirements of an HC overhaul in regards to operations and responsibility as well as better UI tools making it easier and less dangerous to manage themselves and game logistics, and developement (the folks working on the tools) . The HC's were never meant to be some exclusive "old boys club" that ran the map. I am using that term loosely, because of the current us vs them mentality and the clear distrust some have always had about their membership. What confuses me is that THEY, are supposed to be YOU. As mentioned above, it was intended as a semi-historical orbat vehicle for the squads, each working together in their local area, to be able to recognize and promote the best field leaders that they liked fighting with or alongside to have more control over the planning and resources in the game. Noone had to join, but those that did were supposed to be the best the game had to offer by demonstration on the field and support of their peers, and it was initially designed so that there were mandatory CinC term limits that would allow for a slow but constant flow of fresh people from bottom to top. I think if we can get the above back on track, the other part about no HC being on to move things would be largely mitigated. That said, The TOE's should have NEVER been implemented without the ability of SOMEONE in the brigades or Kampfgruppes to be able to move them without having to go to friggin Comp Sci 101 to do so in the event no "official" HC's were on. That IMHO is probably the biggest mistake in their implementation, and one that if we are able to keep them, I hope can be addressed post haste. 2) Stacking them.. I am not so sure about not letting them move within close proximity to each other, But I can definitely agree with not allowing them to all be in the same CP. 3) They seem move too fast and be at strength too quickly after a move. You can't completely negate one TOE coming to the support of another or you end the ability for historical tactical situations like "Patton's rescue of Bastogne", and the Allies response to the "Battle of the Bulge". That said, it should take awhile for that support in moving to get there, and then be another good while before it is at full strength. The latter two seems like things we can work on right now if we could all agree on what those moving times and "full capacity" delays after a move should be...