• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by HATCH

  1. 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...
  2. Thanks Scotsman. Outstanding work! And David01, Except for hip fired LMG's are going the way of the dodo bird as soon as possible.
  3. 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!
  4. 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.
  5. 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!
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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...
  9. I actually think we're talking at least partially about the same thing here. I agree 100% with having garrison supply in ALL the towns that can be used just like they could be when we first kicked this thing off. If you can get the manpower following you, you pull stuff from as far back as you can and take off. But if you have enough "pull" to do that on a consistent basis night after night, why ARENT you the brigade CO/XO moving the flags or the division CO/XO placing the AO's? Simply put, if that sort of coordination, leadership, and commitment in "gameplay" isn't being rewarded by the game, I agree, we are falling miserably short. So lets fix it. But restructure the HC program so that it builds from the "field" as it did before, and leave the TOE's with their supply lines in so that we can build on that for more interdict-able supply and logistics targets behind the lines for both sides. The rest is primarily just adjusting "garrison levels", movement and supply speeds, and timer details is it not?
  10. HC's were never supposed to be experienced as "a job", but instead, as privilege and honor that the folks around you thought enough of your leadership skills to want you to be their coordinator with the other brigade/divisions on the map in the smaller regional TOE areas. Never one guy trying to manage the entire map nor carrying the burden of doing so on his own. How the heck it has morphed into what it has become in the last 10 years is beyond me. That said, the "local garrisons" I mentioned in the above post in every CP would have ensured the game could roll on regardless of the HC's or not. If you wanted to do your own thing, you just went to different CP and start your own skirmish. If you wanted to participate in something more epic, you aligned yourself with the HC and fought in the coordinated battles, but in the original TOE inclusion, the HC's were never to be the only way into a fight. Says who? IMHO that seems to be a rather short sighted and one sided perspective that I guess we'll simply have to agree to disagree on. The FPS should be able to enjoy themselves fighting alongside the "official" brigades, or on their own between them using the local garrisons... We just need to be able to direct new players into "missions" or "action" where they are not standing around listening to the birds chirping and wondering where everyone is at said empty garrisons... It also seems people have completely forgotten exactly WHY the ORBATS were created and maintained in the first place. Both sides needed to have some sort of game supported player maintained command and communication structure. Without it, there was pretty much equal chaos on both sides until one side created the first unofficial orbat of their own and began cleaning the other sides clocks. We waited as long as we could for the losing side to start organizing on their own to balance things out, but aside from lots of excuses, apparently it was easier to log or go join the other side, further compounding the issue. Hard to fight at all when everyone ends up on the same side... First of all, the HC' positions above division shouldn't even be worried about the TOE/brigades in an individual sense. All they should be doing is coordinating weekly battle plans, discussing current objectives and/or tactical retreats with their peers and passing along what everyone else is doing down to their chain of command to the brigade leader so HE can manage his TOE/Brigade the best way to defend his AO or move to support the next TOE/brigade over. Not enough HC on? Lets temporarily forget the HC naming convention and talk about TOE control. If no HC is present for a TOE, shouldn't the players attached to that TOE have the ability to appoint and remove their own active leaders in order to manage that flag? At least until one of the "official" TOE squad leader appointed brigade CO/XO's is present again? Is it that there isn't enough HC leaders on, or is it that at the HC's lowest level, there presently isn't good way for the best battlefield leaders at the moment to be promoted at least temporarily into the "HC's" as needed to keep the TOE's rolling? That was how the best leaders on the field could and should be identified for squad leader nomination as an "official" viable entry level "HC" candidate (brigade leader/TOE manager) in the first place.
  11. I very much remember those glory days. What the hell happened? How could it have been avoided? While I am only one voice on the team, I am hugely in favor of keeping TOE's. Just not relying on them single-handedly, or keeping them managed the way they are now. The entire premise of TOE's was twofold, to give the squad guy's ownership and management of a persistent in-game Brigade HQ "entity" or "home" and an extra supply force beyond that of the "local garrisons" already located in each town, that they could move around to support each other, AND as the end point of an interdict-able supply chain that with a little more work could be represented by something visible in-game and possibly on the map representing those RP's flowing through each CP from factory to front. In other words, a lot more strategic targets on the field for players to go after. In a perfect world, it would have been AI trains, trucks, and barges moving along the roads, railroads, and rivers. Apparently they tried some train stuff but gave it up before being able to make it look right. C'est la vie! That's all water under the bridge at this point with the old guard. But something that could probably be implemented much easier until something better was/is worked out might have been flags, or piles of barrels and boxes, or a few AI trucks parked about in or around AB's or some such at the CP's the RP's are flowing through. You get the idea I hope. TOE's come out, so does direct interdiction other than just indiscriminately beating up on the CP's directly around the places in contention. That in my opinion is a mighty big game play addition to kill just because of a flag management problem... That said, I couldn't agree more with everyone that the current situation is completely untenable. When we first thought about implementing the TOE's I can assure you that the thought never crossed our minds that one or two single people (or even none at all in some cases) would be managing all the flags... No disrespect to HC past or present for their efforts, but it's clear that despite their best efforts, it's simply a bad implementation and the weight of it is proving disastrous to the game and the HC organizations both. So take it back to basics. If we can keep the TOE's, who should be responsible for moving the them? The initial concept was for the Brigades to be responsible for moving their own flags by the Brigade CO and/or XO (lowest HC appointments) appointed by the squad leaders/members attached to that brigade. If those guys couldn't be on, it could have been done by any of the officers in his chain of command above him, BUT ALSO by way of flag movement capability being passed on to someone else attached and fighting in that brigade at any given time if no duly appointed HC was available. It is my hope that we can somehow get back to the original concept where HC officers are promoted from the "ground" up, nominated and supported by their own peers at every level, and that by way of an intuitive UI, flag management can be done quickly and easily buy not only the HC members in that chain of command, but also by the squad leaders and others below if necessary. Point being I think 1.36 is a valid option and I understand that a lot of time and thought has gone into it. But from my perspective, (as an integral figure in the origination of the Orbats, High Commands, and the original concept, reasoning, and future developments to be built off of the TOE systems), the understanding of it being completely yanked out has been a bit hard to swallow, and I can't help feeling like it's one of those "baby with the bathwater" situations. Sort of a sledgehammer on the proverbial thumbtack? So while I wasn't really around for 1.36's initial conception and planning, I not only appreciate Xoom's determination to "address the current problem as fast as possible", but I am also very appreciative of his ability to hear and incorporate other points of view regarding the situation even at this late state in 1.36's development. That, and really thankful that perspectives from both sides of the TOE argument are being heard before it's too late to think about other possibly unconsidered options. The only thing for sure is that we can't stay with what we have, so lets really think about it and figure this $%*@ out! ;-) In the meantime, lots of awesome ideas flowing with regards to the current tools already available to help ease the situation until the longer term solution can be realized.
  12. Gonna be a little while yet. Wrapping up stuka and sdkfz, then still have the crusader MkI AA, P39 and Hurri to complete to release all as a set. Check Community Reports, Facebook, etc for updates.
  13. That is sort of an amalgamation of models that we used because we wanted to get some pics out for the Friday Update. You could call it a D-5 with 37mm gunpods, or a G-2 that someone forgot to take the guns off of. What will probably come out of it to make the game first is the G-1 with the MG's still in the wings because they help with targeting and it will probably need to retain all the defensive armament it can get. Then I would expect later down the road the 20mm's ending up on a D-5 model sans the gun pods.
  14. /\ /\ /\
  15. It will be no more "useless" than what the allies have... And THAT is why running around lone-wolf is not recommended in this game. It's about TEAM play. You should either be in AI range or have other inf watching your ass while you are protecting them from bombs falling on their heads.
  16. I guess we need to work on communication a little better as some folks choose to always assume the worst... Both versions will have minimal shielding. You can expect more shielded rides as later tier productions at some point in the future. This is more representative of we are looking at as far as MAXIMUM shielding for both sides with this initial effort... (This being the British Crusader III MkI AA that will be shared by all allied forces) So even if the mode of locomotion is armored, you take out the gunners on this or the Sdkfz7, you still end the effectiveness of that unit and get the kill.
  17. Damn! Wheres the cliff-notes? Just kidding. Tbh, I didn't have the time to read it all in detail, but parsed the highlights. Some interesting thoughts in there. Some I agree with and some I'm not so sure about... I'll revisit with more neurons in the am. Thanks for the time and effort! Oh, and P.S. You should share this kind of stuff with Tgunr...
  18. Well, I'll keep the issue in mind... But of all the things to get hung up over? If that's the worst we have, I'll consider it a blessing! lol!
  19. I am not 100% sure, but I think we "cheat" a little bit by giving you a lockable tail wheel (that the real plane didn't have) and locking it straight for you upon spawn. That tends to keep you straight until you have enough airflow over the stabs to keep ya in line. Try taxiing around and taking off with it unlocked and see if that is more like what you would expect. "/" key.
  20. I'm a modeller, not a "coder", and adding new functionality to the FM requires code work. I might want something like that really really bad, but until I can get it through the waiting line in relation to all the other code work the game needs, I'm stuck with what I have.
  21. LOL! Well, I didn't post it, but I did the conversion for you... @ 750 Km/h you were going about 466 mph, where Mach 1 would have been around 1225 Km/h or 761mph. So no, not out of the scope of reality at all, and nowhere near Mach 1. If you search my name, you can find all the posts I've pretty much ever made (sans those lost from the old old old forums) concerning modeling and such going back before my departure in Dec 2005. As I think you can probably tell, as passionate as I am about this game and my work within it, I have always been a straight shooter and very open to discussion and constructive criticism as long as it is respectful and fair. But just to lay it out on the table so everyone is aware for future reference, one of my biggest pet peeves is someone taking potshots and giving me grief about my work or about the game when they know it's beyond my/our current control (ex structural damage), or they don't have their facts in order and are coming at me with a bunch of anecdotes or just plain old BS. Not talking about you specifically though the Mach statement thing was treading pretty close, just making my position clear. I love talking shop but have little patience for vindictive or unsupported arguments. (read "ignore" button fodder lol!). Actually, since I've been back, I can't say I've had any "bad" discussions to date. Anyways, fun conversation, and thanks again for the support!