HATCH

CORNERED RAT
  • Content count

    411
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

HATCH last won the day on September 17

HATCH had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

257 Salty

4 Followers

About HATCH

  • Rank
    Production Lead
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Location
    DFW, Texas
  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Air Force
  • Preferred Unit
    Freighter
  1. Except that it ties in with what I said about target acquisition when in current FOV past what my wartime data typically says you would have range and identification/orientation ability. For instance, if we are in a fight, and your plane is faster than mine whether statistically or because I have taken battle damage, and I am able to make you lose sight of me long enough to get some separation, and increase that separation past 4K, you will not be able to reacquire me by my informational icon and chase me down. You would at that point have to reacquire me by my plane itself, even after figuring out which way I went and keeping me in your FOV. Pushing the informational range icons to 6k gives you 2 more km with which to just figure out which direction I went that you need to focus your FOV on to reacquire me by an artificial neon sign around my plane, to then chase me down, hampering my ability to disengage and limp home.
  2. Whoever updated that manual the last time put the wrong figures in it. The rendering of the circle has not changed in the code for over a decade. Matter of fact, I am not aware of it ever changing since we first set it up, and it was intended to be a ranging tool (for better weapon ranging estimation) as you closed on your target, (or your target closed on you in the case of AA work) not as a halo for pointing you out at max range. It has always been actual object render out to 6-8k, then ranging and ID info available at 4k and closer. And as Sniper has already said, it also has a "focus" algorithm added that makes it more "solid" the longer the "bogie" is kept in your visual field of view (FOV), and begin to fade the longer it isn't. In other words, if you look away from the bogie for too long (lose the bogie outside the the primary FOV) the icon information fades away and requires you to get it back and keep it in your FOV for a few seconds to start getting the range and ID information back. We designed it that way specifically to address the "neon billboard" icon issue most flight sims had at the time where they basically stuck a neon billboard of an icon on you in a binary (on-off) fashion as soon as you were renderable. As hardcore simulation enthusiasts we always hated that effect. Why go through all the trouble? To better simulate bogie informational acquisition AND loss. Air combat is about individual and multiple target acquisition, constantly updated situational awareness, AND maneuvering/gunnery. Anyone that spends any time reading about air combat should be aware of how fast the state of "a sky full of bogies" to being "alone in an empty sky" (or vice versa) happens. How does that happen with icons neon lighting your plane as soon as you come into render range? Sure icons make target acquisition easier, but sure didn't do anything for defensive and evasive maneuvering. So we fixed it. Before, if your opponent was in a faster AC, unless you could kill him, you were at his mercy. Because even if you could outfly him, you could never evade him. If you maneuvered out of his sight, even out to render range, all he had to do was look for your easily noticeable "billboard" icon, point his nose in that direction, and reel you back in. WWIIOL changed all that. For the first time (in at least my online flight simming history dating back to around 1993), you could force a temporary loss of sight, and if wily enough to maintain it long enough, make your opponent lose contact with you all together because you didn't have a brightly visible neon sign highlighting your location the entire time you are in vis/render distance. So that's the reason it works the way it does, and I'm not in favor of changing basic functionality. Specifics are negotiable, but need to be presented with the initial design intent considered. Am I in favor of pushing ranging and ID info (icon render range) out to 6km. No, not really. Is there a way for us to increase the size of the rendered object itself beyond the informational icon ranges a little to help compensate for the compressed FOV of a computer monitor? Probably so, and I wouldn't be opposed to that. My wartime info, though mostly anecdotal, says that instantaneous recognition and orientation (Not detection) was difficult under the best of circumstances past 3500-4000m. It is the primary reason you had specific identification markings on so many of the aircraft of both sides. To help prevent the very real issue of friendly fire fratricide. P-47's being mistaken for FW-190's, P-51B's being mistaken for Me-109's etc... Imho, that is pretty clear confirmation of the real life difficulty that they experienced with detection and identification of both friendly and enemy aircraft at range, and even within firing distance. Now to be open and inclusive, Sniper has pointed out to me a modern study (1998 I think) that used a DC3 as a test bed that shows detection and orientation out to like 23km? IF you are already aware of and scanning the known piece of sky in which the test AC will appear. The same study also says that normal non-predetermined vector detection and orientation of the DC3 test AC was 5-8km under optimal conditions. As nice as the data in that non-wartime study is, there are a couple of unanswered questions warranted imho... Was that DC3 in military, or civilian liverie making it easier to identify? The DC3/C-47 is the one of the largest planes in the game with a bigger wingspan at 99 feet than that of even the He-111, while all fighters, and the majority of AC in the game with the exception of the Bf-110 and P-38, come in at less than half that size, making detection, identification, and orientation that much more difficult... Anyways, I think I've gone on long enough and clarified our initial, and my current thoughts on the matter. We'll continue to follow discussion and consider all perspectives.
  3. This is currently on hold. Markec made several test patches, but in too many instances, the resolution of existing texture maps were too low for the program to efficiently "upgrade" them without a lot of errors involved. Markec was working on running some more textures through the process to "train" the program, but ran out of free time so we had to shelve it for a bit.
  4. @david06I convince them to give it a try and make that happen, you and @major0noobsign back up? JK! I'll see what what they say...
  5. So besides the obvious default of population, what ARE those and how do we implement them? Can it be done with current game mechanics so it doesn't have to wait six months or more? Again, besides defaulting to population (which will take care of itself if we can remedy the other), what is now missing that wasn't before, that can be re-introduced to bring back those ground support ops? I'm sorry, but this is just a ridiculous statement. We are listening, meeting about suggestions, making polls, sharing planned responses, the reasoning behind, posting roadmaps, etc, etc, trying our damnedest to listen and accommodate everyone possible. Seems we just haven't found the right combination yet. Ears are wide open, but it does not really help us simply complaining without providing workable suggestions/options we (and all the other players) can work with. You think we wouldn't snap our fingers and fix it all instantly if we could? Obviously unless some rich benefactor intercedes, were gonna have to continue to work out of the slump ourselves. 1.36, 64 bit, and a new Terrain Editor are getting close to nearing completion. First real terrain expansion in 10 years in QA right now. New bunkers, and buildings, AC damage modelling, along with a huge list of bug fixes right behind, and small arms audit scheduled to follow that... What else can we do short term with the tools at hand while these are nearing completion?
  6. Sorry Major0noob, just me un-hijacking Potthead's thread...
  7. Appreciate that Potthead! Regardless of what some seem to think, we really do try, and will continue to do the best we can with your positive support and appreciated civill vocal involvement.. As for the hi-jack, I think @Minky and I have both made our thoughts clear and there's probably not much else left to say. That being said, I'll be happy to stop and even hide all the non OP conversation to prevent any tailgaters from h-jacking it further... I sorta do feel guilty for not taking it private and messin up your rhythm...
  8. Totally agree with this. Can't change soon enough1
  9. No difference then than now, I mean we did it right up to Steam release. It simply failed. Wishful thinking will not change that fact. Yes there IS a "free play" formula that can work as I suggested above. You figure out how to monetize them somehow so that that "free play" supports itself. Figure out a way we can do that other than the proven fallacy of "make it all free and things will be so awesome that enough will pay to make it great for us all". Simply not true because it goes against human nature. No. Not true. Otherwise why would we have even bothered with it for all those years before at all? YOU guys simply refuse to accept the FACT that the entire time we did it before, the gain in "giving the subs more stuff to shoot at" NEVER offset the incentive to just forgo a sub and play for free. Simple fact driven by human nature and made worse by current entitlement culture.
  10. It's already been tried for years in this game. It failed and cost more subscribers than it brought in. That is fact. While some of my CRS compatriots might have a differing opinion on trying it again, mine is that until there is an alternate way to monetize those unwilling to support a game they obviously enjoy by evidence of their time and presence taking advantage of the company and those that DO support the ongoing effort, there is no logical reason to go down that road again. Ad's, short time unit or "pack" leases, some sort of external marketing "duty" that can be redeemed for free time/equipment, whatever... Something that turns that sucking black hole drain of non-supportive players into something that benefits the project rather than taking advantage of it and those that do siphoning away resources "for free". Figure out how to do that, and we have something to work towards that hasn't already proven to be in-effective in the context of our current game and billing systems.
  11. I thought we killed suicide bombing with the 2 second bomb arming patch. I think just upping the amount of damage it takes would be sufficient and maintain the bomb vs satchel joules difference. Just like it should be able to absorb more than a few bomb hits, just a couple engineers shouldn't be able to affect it either. It should take a pretty substantial demo team.
  12. I loaded z34 destroyer updates but first pass was a mixed bag, Some things looked really good, others not so much, over processed and somewhat jumbled. Will try again after this last pack.
  13. Yup. Consoles aren't just for kids anymore. That's for sure. My nephew is full time Army, in his early 30's, and plays the heck out of his console (can't remember which one). Doesn't even own a PC, only a cell and notebook/tablet. Our demographic is in the console market just as much as any other game playing market. Just hard to know the percentage until you get in there and do it. But just as our long term exposure to the PC market and our short exposure to Steam has shown, to do it right, you really need to have a polished product.