HATCH

CORNERED RAT
  • Content count

    412
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by HATCH

  1. LOL! Yeah! What he said!
  2. Thank you for taking the extra time to follow up on your last video. I very much appreciate the "two thumbs up", and totally agree with you about needing to model damage from excessive G. Trust me. It's high on my list... Little bit of a different opinion about your "Mach" assessments though... First, though about that that high speed wobble you were talking about? It's the Mcr effects inherent to the airfoil designs used in each planes construction, whatever they might be. For example, a newer laminar design airfoil like that used on the P-51 will naturally allow a higher Mcr before compressing and doing "the wobble" than the older airfoil designs used on the 109. It's not like a number we set, but built into the model base on Mcr of airfoils used. Kinda cool actually! But Mach 1??? Do you know what Mach is on a standard day at sea level? That Km/h gauge you were maxing out runs out of "tics" at 750Km/h IAS and it doesn't "peg out", it rolls on around if you can get past Mcr speed. So my question to you is, do you know how fast you were actually going? Please do me a favor and figure out how fast you were actually going, compare it to something like this, and then let me know what you think... Appreciate your time and effort! Have fun! Oh! And if you like us, subscribe already ya dern freeloader! More subscribers leads to more programming resources which gets us things like that structural damage you were beating us up about that we all want so bad!
  3. Sorry to hear this. Words really don't suffice in times such as these, but thank you "hvy" for being a part of our wwiiol family. Prayers Hastien, for you and the rest of the family,
  4. I'll write up something a little more detailed for the report on Friday. But main things: Researched and re-verified proper weights, dimensions, and placements for all of the components (engine, prop and hub, radiators, armor plate, etc) within the airframe and recalculated x,y,z rotational inertias of each based on those numbers using motioneering inertia calculator. Checked all airfoil components for proper areas, aspect ratios, and drag areas (small issue here with wing drag area and fuselage aspect ratio causing the uncharacteristic speed loss with increased AOA as well as higher yawing effects from slat deployment). Made aileron, elevator, and rudder throws historical again as well as reduced control input response times back to original (pre-1.29). Verified same overall weight, speed, and climb performances as before my edits. Pretty much it. No power, thrust, wing/stabilizer areas, or overall weights were changed, so turning radius (mass vs max Cl) are still the same. Can't speak for the bell. Remember, it has the majority of it's mass (engine) behind the CG and the pilot, where the 109 and all the other planes have it hanging well out front forward of the wings and CG. Its going to be somewhat more unstable by design as it was historically. How much so remains to be seen after the same treatment as the 109's. As mentioned in the road map, after a quick pass with the P38, P39, and 110's, ALL FM's will get a review but on a tier by tier schedule, and as it fits within the rest of the production priorities.
  5. With Mons and Silky on this one. Not at all enthusiastic about behind the front mobile spawns. Defeats everything cool about planning and working together to actually DO para ops. Including the nervous anticipation riding with your buddies in the back of the plane not knowing if your even going to make it to the target or not... JMHO
  6. I'm glad most seem to be appreciative of what I'm trying to do. Apologies for the confusion... I AM talking about the E4. For whatever reason when Mo first built it he named its directory e3. but it definitely is the E4 with the additional pilot armor as you can see when you look behind you and a little extra weight. Maybe I can fix that while I'm in here...
  7. Ahhhh... LOL! I was thinking more along the lines about an actual "Easy Mode" implementation like I mentioned in my first post in this thread. We obviously don't have one here, but we put one in WarBirds that limited your AOA so that you could never stall. You could definitely tell when you got into a turn fight with one of them. A lot like clubbing baby seals I'd imagine. We constantly used to give them all a good natured chiding about flying with training wheels!
  8. Not calling easy mode easy mode because it could be used by someone to pick on them? I don't know either then... I must have missed the joke In any case, there are my thoughts on record about flying easy mode with the big dogs. lol!
  9. Dude, Not sure what you expect from me here... I am the LAST person to stand up for political correctness. The bottom line is that flying is a skill and dogfighting is hard. It isn't for everyone. Doing it online cant help but to invite public scrutiny from within that community. The person that takes the time to get good at ANY skill deserves his chops. Not that he should be an asshole about it to beginners as he was once one too, but how offensive he gets goes to the TOS guidelines, Forum Moderation, and the GM areas. It doesn't really matter what words I choose to use as a descriptor for an "easy mode". No matter what I call it, it's still an artificial substitution for an otherwise acquirable skill and will never hold respect from those that have put forth the effort to acquire it. As far as the ribbing, that just goes with online gaming and the camaraderie and competitiveness it promotes. It's why we login rather than boot up a stand alone game. As part of that, newbies should understand that every person ribbing them was at one time a green behind the ear unskilled pilot just like them, but has taken the time and effort to grow beyond that. They should too... Then they will have earned the same respect. In real life there are no trophies for just showing up.
  10. Weeeeelll! Xoom evidently blew my first big surprise... Dag Nabit!! Anyway... I have been following along and taking notes for when the time would come. A plane audit is HIGH on my "Want To Do List" but currently been a little busy with marketing and promotional things. Couple of things about all the birds in this game and with the 109 as compared to the other fighters in the context of this "control" thread. First off, all of the planes are built in specialized components for each, all the way down to airfoil design type and area, percentage of chord for control surfaces, and degrees of "throw" as per the design blueprints or testing reports from each plane. In other words, I don't tell the model control surface how much force to apply (in particular yaw or elevator control for the 109 rudder in this context) we build the airfoil to spec and add it to the model. Quick visual check on the current control surfaces and watching them make the plane react in the WWIIOL virtual world doesn't indicate anything obviously out of the ordinary as far as the control surfaces in operation go. But there is quite a bit more to it than that. The initial premise of this thread is basically instructions how to "de-tune" the joystick so that when you pull full deflection on the control stick, or rudder pedals, the planes elevator or rudder will not move to its max capable deflection. Another initial part of this thread is teaching pilots to use elevator trim rather than the elevator for changing AOA. Because the 109 has a variable incidence "flying tail" and this is a game with programmable "fly by wire" controls rather than trying to dogfight with the trim wheel as you would be if trying that in real life, the the trim "workaround" does help to pull AOA more slowly and in a far more limited fashion than the elevator can, and "detuning" the stick still lets you move the elevator up or down more quickly than the trim, but in the end, it is still just eliminating the full elevator potential. Bottom line is that both are artificial limitations to keep from accidental over control and the "detuning" specifically writes off some of the fidelity with control capabilities, primarily very close to, or at post departure flight regimes in the model. Better for newbies, limiting for experts... Still this "need" obviously has it's place here or we wouldn't be talking about it. Maybe one day we can figure out some sort of easy mode that does that limiting for you instead of having to do the trim and control thing. Better yet, I have always wanted to figure out what happened to that particular model that makes it behave so badly that people are afraid to push it to its absolute limits in fear of cartwheeling out of the sky... Part of the 109's "control problem" in relation to all of the other fighters that I do not want to change because it IS part of the historical design that makes the 109 the 109, specifically in relation to the spit in this instance, is that it has a higher wing loading than the spit, has operational leading edge slats to help compensate for that higher wing loading and to maintain aileron control at higher AOA than the spit and most all of the other planes, and at the same time, has around twice the rudder and somewhere around 30% more elevator throw control than the spit does... That has two primary consequences that has to do with being able to pull more AOA and yaw than the spit can simply because of the extra control authority in the elevator and rudder. In RL, most pilots would appreciate that because higher AOA can be the difference in a tighter instantaneous turn at the right speed, or even be the difference in the lead needed for a gun solution at the right time. Those attributes are good things, but they come at a cost. Because of the higher wing loading and ability to pull more controllable AOA, it is MUCH easier to push past the "edge" into accelerated stall territory where you pass the lift "sweet spot" and start piling on the drag and burning up your energy, getting worse the slower you go and the more AOA you pull slowing you down even faster and getting ever more detrimental right up to the point of stall and departure from controlled flight. Then to compound that, BANG! one of the slats opens or closes on you in an asymmetrical fashion and now you ALSO have an unexpected yawing moment thrown into the mix, right at the worst possible time when the airflow over your control surfaces might not be adequate to maintain control of the aircraft. All of that is historically accurate in the 109 design and I intend to make sure to keep it that way. That said, there is a LOT more to the flight model that can, and I am sure quite frankly IS making the plane go from a "workable" yawing moment into that crazy vertical flop, and that is where I am going first. The long and short of it is that every single component that makes up the model, and I mean everything, from the engines/superchargers and propeller disk, fuselage, all the wing and airfoil components, the, guns and cannon, right down to the pilot, his armor plate, and the radiators, besides each applying mass or weight at their proper x, y, z, coordinates within each plane model, they also have x, y, and z, axis rotational inertia's based on their size shape and mass that have to be computed and entered into the model by hand and that all come together to determine the rotational inertia totals for the model. I have already run across a few anomalies here, and this is pretty much where I think we'll find the rest of our gremlins. I had always wanted to check into that since I first started building and auditing the planes after Mo. And I was solely responsible for the 109 and the way it flew from that time up until my departure in Dec 2005. Unfortunately I got "cut" before I could get around to fixing it, and as a result, that SoB has bothered me for the last 15 years... (You ended up getting the P38, FW190, and the C47, an Opel audit, a couple of new tanks, and a tank mass, inertia, and suspension audit instead if I remember correctly) Anyway, Xoom gave me the tools I needed to do that awhile back for another project (sorry, "top secret"), but in the need to bolster marketing to take advantage of the new capabilities you are seeing this new team produce, and Badger temporarily having RL override his WWIIOL time, I have been putting all my WWIIOL time into filling in for Badger and helping the new marketing team (friggin subscribe already people and let me get back to building vehicles and planes full time!!!! ;-)). But between that damn bird being a major friggin "itch" I have not been able to scratch for 15 years, and after running across these same old "floppy 109" threads while researching the last two community reports, I couldn't help myself. I was reading this thread and actually started replying to it regarding the 109 characteristics that are different than the other planes in the first part of this post and bam! I had to go look. Guilty as of last night and this morning cross referencing 135.3 109 FM files with the ones I still have on my "homework" hard drives from 2001-2005. I was sorta thinking about fixing it and then turning it in as a "oh, by the way" surprise, but like Xoom mentioned about the marketing meeting on soundcloud, I had the "presenter" screen and sorta got caught with "my hand in the cookie jar" still having a couple of flight model files open on my desktop. So I went ahead and showed/told him a few issues I had already found between last night and this mornings meeting. Fortunately he wasn't too perturbed at me for playin' 109 hooky before my marketing meeting... ;-) So to make a long story short, I am indeed going to get her sorted out and get that "flop" wonkyness fixed. Once I get it sorted out in the E3, because they are all so closely related, it's trivial to apply the same changes to all of the current 109 models. But be warned, I do not intend to be changing ANY historical aspects like control surface throws, wing areas, overall weights or wing loading, climb rates, top speeds, or anything else of that nature. For instance, the spit mk1 will always have a little bit tighter "yank and bank" sustained turn radius than the 109e, but the majority of the "flop" will surely be eliminated, (remember, some of the initiators of unexpected yaw that I spoke of earlier like asymmetrical deployment of the slats, and the ability to pull high angles of AOA will definitely remain). But I have already checked some and will be double checking all the other airfoils, frontal areas, and deployed slat drag, and indications are there that it might hold on to its energy a little better if not too pushed too far for too long beyond that AOA "sweet spot". Merry Christmas!!! HO! HO! HO!
  11. I tend to agree with the visibility aspect of "Alpha" but prefer the WWII "bomber jacket" / vintage "poster art" styling of either "Bravo" or "Delta". Also shows the combined arms aspect of the game and not as common these days as Alpha's font type. Just my .02 cents...
  12. Whaaaat? Surely that would be a bug if you aren't seeing them?
  13. Thoughts and prayers are with you all. Get well soon Playtime!
  14. I don't think I understand this point? What values and what constants? Values of armor thickness? Velocity, penetration data, explosive content and fragmentation mass of a shell? All of that is either in wiki (which I agree can use some filling out and we will be working on that) or otherwise available online. They are historical. Variables? Like random spalling and shrapnel patterns? I cant predict shrapnel pattern for you, but I can tell you that the fragments equal the mass of the shell casing and that the energy behind the fragments is equal to the explosive energy found in the historical explosive filler used in the projectile by weight and type. What exactly are you wanting to see, and If I give it to you in game, will it give away the weapon type and possible position or tactics being used by the player that killed you? Nothing will EVER good enough for us, and as long as we are able, we'll keep updating and progressing, albeit sometimes not as fast as we'd all prefer. Unfortunately, that requires revenue which means a fee. There is no question that it's an ongoing balance for value and suspension of disbelief. In some ways (perpetual map, combined arms including infantry, massive scale-ability, and other arguables), this game still has no rivals. In other areas like environmental physics and graphics, we still have a lot to do. Hopefully even with the need to improve, we can provide enough value in the fun simulation of tactical combined arms gameplay and suspension of disbelief for people to want to play. A lot of that has to do with the player as well. If they focus on historical weapons, teamwork and gameplay, we have a lot to offer. If they choose to focus their attention more on pretty bells, whistles, and pay to win buff packages, maybe not so much. One thing is for certain with us, and that is that everyone with a standard subscription is equal, and no better armed or armored than anybody else within rank limits and historical constraints, regardless of wallet size. Last I checked, crew was able to be damaged by collisions and sudden stops. That's why they die falling off of buildings or crashing in planes. That said, Ill go run some vehicles into a tree and check that there isn't some new bug that we are not aware of. I agree that environmental physics is neat and all, and that we want and will to do it too as our budget and time permits. But when put into a priority list of what will give us best play-ability vs. development time and cost expense, it isn't always at the top of the list. Realistically speaking in the context of our game, it seems much more immersive from a "movie style" third person external view that we do not provide and hopefully never will in online play (Well, at least until we model something more modern where every vehicle has it's own camera drone hovering about). So while neat and all that, is it the best thing we can do for you're game play in the short term with the resources we have available? Poll anyone? My apologies, but I simply can't agree with this. In the film above you see the lengths that we went to to produce accurate weapon ballistics and performances. There is no logical rationale to play favorites as that defeats the entire purpose of the "simulation" we strive to be, killing trust and credibility which will lose more customers over time than anything else we could do. To the best of my knowledge, nothing has been "censored". Now there are places where you can shoot a tank and the 88 can go right through it with little external visible effect, and if no visibly reactive components (radiator, fuel tanks, tracks, ammo storage) are damaged by the resulting impact and/or spall, you might not be aware of the damage that you have already inflicted. Maybe we can figure out a better way to indicate this in the future without getting too far into arcade mode. That said, there is always the human error component meaning something might have been changed inadvertently. If you see and continually experience inconsistencies in weapon performance (or anything else for that matter), please help us out and report it to CS/QA (http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/forum/31-testing-and-bug-reporting/) so we can go check it out and respond to you. With the exception of this thread specifically asking about "problems in game", we need your help testing and reporting this kind of thing in a productive way rather than just letting off that "steam" in-game or on the other forums. I know it's easier to do otherwise while upset and fresh on your mind, but that normally isn't the best way to get these issues on a dev list to be addressed in turn. This production has gone through some rough times and has made an impressive recovery, but we still have a long way to go. Are we going to meet everyone's level of satisfaction all the time, realistically speaking, probably not? We understand that and have come to terms with doing the best we can with what we have. I don't know if we will ever be as polished as some of the big budget console style arcade games, and that's ok. We still have something that they don't in a perpetual live action combined arms combat simulation (including infantry) on a massive scale. It isn't and never has been perfect, but boy can it still provide some breathtaking experiences! That said, we will continue to do everything we can to provide enough fun and value to keep you coming back.
  15. It IS hokey, and someone should walk over there and shoot him in the head! Who let him get set up in there anyway?
  16. Oldie but informative goody... While it would be nice to "crash into stuff" and see it break, and hopefully we will have that capability one day, does that improve tank combat? Is it more fun driving around "crashing into things and damaging them" than shooting and killing them? ;-)