• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by HATCH

  1. 1 hour ago, rommel33 said:

    Detection fades were never commented as a problem, so no need to mention it. I started this discussion purely for static visibility issues.

    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 people like this

  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.


    5 people like this

  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. 8 minutes ago, david06 said:

    10-second FMS build time
    1 min depot capture timers
    30 minute bunker timers
    when you get someone that knows some basic code then have the server kick out a "___ depot is under capture!" text message on the target channel when the enemy starts capturing
    the reasoning for the above changes would be a wall of text and people would argue with me about basic FPS principles, so I won't type it out here

    @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...



    1 person likes this

  5. 1 hour ago, david06 said:

    the game needs hooks

    yeah sure some communities can create their own fun and hooks, but this doesn't happen all the time or consistently and there has got to be something to snowball off of

    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?

    1 hour ago, david06 said:

    for example years ago we actually had a populated Luftwaffe bomber squad, Stg2, and were rolling a dozen or so pilots on squad ops (more dedicated bombers than there are concurrent LW pilots now)

    I remember flying over a town to support an AO with a bunch of 110FBs, but since there were no depot captures and no infantry skirmish, there was no armor spawning, or anything spawning really

    defenders eventually spawned a few AA guns, but ops was a dud and everyone logged after a few missions

    it's easier to create hooks for infantry players than tankers or pilots, and this is a main factor why axis can hold higher numbers as their playerbase is now almost all infantry players

    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?

    1 hour ago, david06 said:

    for whatever reason CRS has been trying its damndest to depress infantry activity now, so even infantry players are getting bored and not participating

    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. 2 hours ago, potthead said:

    Before this thread gets locked .. thank you to serial thread hi-jacker @minky .. 

    I just want to say .. no matter whatever changes etc.. I thank CRS 1.0 and 2.0 for giving me platform to have a great hobby, a social environment to have a great time and spend many many hours full of joy and make many many friends across the world.

    S! to your genius! .. LONG LIVE WWIIONLINE (ALLIED and AXIS) 

    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...  S!

  7. 30 minutes ago, knucks said:

    But it wasn't tried when it really mattered. Point is it has been figured out, the formula is solved, just look at the front page of steam.

    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.    

    29 minutes ago, david06 said:

    No one at CRS ever really understood how a F2P might add value to the game, seems F2P is viewed as "free stuff we're giving away" and how they could minimize it, not as a way to populate their mostly-empty game world without lowering the sub price.


    For instance the blenheim and stuka are practically worthless bombers now, they are also flying bait (outside of maybe a dozen experienced stuka pilots which no longer fly) and letting F2P fly those would just give the subs more stuff targets to shoot at. With less than 10 pilots per side most of the day they should be doing anything to get people in the air. 

    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. 

    3 people like this

  8. 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.

    3 people like this

  9. 53 minutes ago, Merlin51 said:

    I liked back in the day when bombers could hurt FB's, just did not like that 1 single bomb took out the whole works.


    35 minutes ago, aismov said:

    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.

    Me too

  10. 3 hours ago, aismov said:

    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.

    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.


  11. 25 minutes ago, aismov said:

    Great to hear Hatch. I always thought that since WWIIOL runs on Linux it wouldn't have an issue running PS4 since they are both Unix based. But I never thought of the whole Mac angle of things. But I agree that development resources should continue on the 1.36 path, but I wouldn't discount console players at all. You could very easily play the tank/ATG/AA game with a controller. Infantry as well, but you would probably get wrecked by anyone with a keyboard and a mouse. Flying? Well theoretically everything is there with the two joysticks and dual triggers, I'm sure players would learn but I doubt there would be many aces amongst the group.

    And regarding the player demographics that xoom mentioned. I think that the market is deep enough that you would find those players. Hell, they ported Civilization VI to the Nintendo Switch! A Nintendo! The home of Zelda, and Mario, and Pikachu. I pretty much realized that the market for games is wide open when I read about some guy in his 30s crashing his car because he was looking at his phone trying to a hunt a pokemon in Pokemon Go. If you have guys in their 30s running around the park catching pokemon, you will have console players trying, and enjoying WWIIOL.

    Its just a question of judicious use of developer resources.


    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.

  12. 6 hours ago, madrebel said:

    Someone hurry up and win the lottery and finance it all ;-).

    WORD! :lol:

    Bottom line is that with the inclusion of keyboard and mouse making consoles a viable option from a control/input standpoint, this game very well could possibly be ported to run on the latest Xbox One or Sony PS4 with a minimal amount of work. Both Xbox and Sony PS4's basically ARE PC's wrapped in cute little boxes.

    The Xbox One is running a version of Windows 10 as its OS core (initially launched with Windows 8 core). The Xbox One is running an AMD "jaguar" APU consisting of dual x86-64bit puma based quad core CPUs running at 1.75 ghz, an 853MHz AMD GCN based GPU (found in all AMD video cards from the HD 7000 series through at least the RX400/500 series), and the memory controllers, all squished into the same chip and supported by 8 gigs of DDR3 RAM, 3 gig for system, 5 for the games, supported by a 500GB HD.

    Sony PS4 uses Orbis OS which is a branch from FreeBSD Unix. What other PC has always run WWIIOL, and has had a NextSTEP Unix based OS since the OS X "Cheetah" release in 2001? Yup you guessed it, Macintosh.  It also uses an AMD "Jaguar" based APU but was developed with Sony in the mix, so no telling what they changed in the instruction sets. It's two x86-64bit quad core CPU's are clocked at 1.6GHz for PS4 and 2.13GHz for the PS4 Pro, with the AMD GCN GPUs running at 800MHz and 911MHz respectively. It uses 8 gigs of GDDR5 RAM and is also supported by a 500GB HD.

    Speaking of OS'a, I also noticed a fresh post from late November this year stating that for the first time, WWIIOL now runs flawlessly on Linux. WOOT!

    So the only real hardware limitation we might currently face from my understanding of the specs above is that since we are not multi-threaded and rely on a single core, the 1.6-2.13GHz CPU clock speeds could potentially hurt us. My main PC is a 3.5GHz 64bit 8 core, but since WWIIOL is only running in single thread 32bit mode and is leaving 7 of the 8 CPU cores idle, it needs that extra clock speed to keep up with everything. Though with the APU's CPU's puma design being capable of both Out-of-order execution and Speculative execution, it might make up some for the lack of clock speed brute force that most PC's depend on to run the game. As for the rest, being that both units are basically using AMD based PC CPU/GPU/Mem controller architecture, and the rest is common "off the shelf" hardware, the only other unknown limitations would be proprietary stuff they plug into instructions sets for the above mentioned "standard" hardware. Digressing just a little bit, wouldn't even think about it from a spec standpoint until 64 bit and multi-threading was done.

    As for the market viability? I agree with the sentiments of several posted above. I think it could work with existing graphics, but only after the addition of voice comms and substantial work in UI and game play dynamics (team work oriented,). But once we get those sorted out, we should definitely look at making ourselves available for that market. Just my $.02

    (TL:DR Nothing stopping it but full time dedicated programming resources.)

    1 person likes this

  13. Regardless, I'm going to throw some textures together for a couple of models to see if Markec might be interested in passing them through at 4X current res and then post some before after screenies... None of us have had the extra time to get the thing working yet with all the python/VS ,etc. dependencies. But that would tell the tale.

    Markec, you game?

    4 people like this

  14. 9 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

    I got that from people I know who took CRS HQ tours and they were told/shown that.  So, not arguing you aren't right, just that I didn't make it up out of thin air.

    No one said you did  guy. I even guessed that it was in relation to the new Inf models of which I know that to be the case. As far as what I know of that we have available to work with in the repo, it's all pretty low poly and low resolution texture maps. I'll pass it along to Xoom and see if he might know where the models you refer to ended up. S!

  15. 13 hours ago, Kilemall said:

    I was under the impression the bulk of the vehicles were created at extremely gorgeous artwork and were 'dumbed down' to fit the graphics card budget.

    So wouldn't you start with the already top end source and just create a higher fidelity version as higher qualities are desired?

    I could see common other textures benefiting from this if they weren't done to the higher standards originally.

    Not even close.

    I don't even remember what the top of the line video card was when we started this, but we had a very limited poly budget at the time. A few vehicles and terrain objects have been reworked over the years, but with the exception of a few newer models that do have higher resolution texture maps, nothing has happened to the bulk of the texture maps over the years besides being converted from bmp to dds.

    As an example, the last terrain build Doc did was 2012, and it didn't make it into the game till just this last year with Merlin, Sniper, and Frisbone's dogged determination to figure out how to make it happen. So that's a good timeline with nothing being done terrain wise in all that time. That means the majority of the textures covering all the octets making up a supercell on the ground are likely 256X256. The airfields, the entire airfield square 256X256. ALL the objects on the terrain probably the same (not counting new bunkers and barracks). Vehicles? The same as well except for the latest few, Bmbm would probably have a better idea.

    I think what you might be thinking of is the new infantry and small arms models. Those are incredibly high poly and "baked down" enough not to bring the client to its knees, and that goes for the new crewmen on the towed guns that have been replaced as well. If you want another good example vehicle wise, go look at any of the ships in external view, or at any of the crewmen or pilots in the vehicles. Most of that is original artwork.

    So yeah. This could be an amazing gain for the game for a little amount of work. Score! :)

  16. knucks, you siimply don't get it...

    Let me cut to the chase. EVERY SINGLE F2P GAME OUT THERE has a way to monetize those free players be it ad impressions, skins, or p2win items like super XP, super speed, super armor, super ammo, etc. It's simply a law of economics. Nothing is really for free, and if there is not a way to monetize those f2p users, f2p would cease to exist.

    WE do not have a simple way to monetize our current f2p base, be it lack of power-ups and "fluff" content or the resources needed to generate it and/or the billing system integration for such commodities.

    1) We do not have ANY artificial buffs that would allow one player, paying or f2p, to have an advantage over another player with the same class vehicle. Even if we wanted to go that route, at present, there just isn't anyone "extra" to develop that type of content and still make progress with moving the actual "playing" parts of the game forward.

    2) We don't have the resources to generate tons of purchasable cosmetics, nor the extra bandwidth available in the communication packets to share the extra bits required regarding "who's wearing what" across the bit stream so that anyone else but you could see it. Who knows how much dev time required for such implementations, that also increases overall packet size and bandwith required to move it.

    3) We don't devote 10% or more of your screen to banner ads the entire time you play, although, in the short term, this would probably be the easiest way to monetize you (as all the others are doing whether you choose to believe it or not) to make f2p more neconomically worthwhile for us in light of no other easily available f2p monetizing options.

    That's the bottom line. Most of us here hate #1, true p2w (rather than p2play such as our current subscription and DLC models) and would rather not waste the dev resources we do have on #2 churning out useless things that only appeal to vanity and offer no other benefit to gameplay such as global game improvements and new vehicles while at the same time increasing the bandwidth necessary for it all.

    As for #3, most of us here hate the thought of banner ads constantly flashing around somewhere on your screen, on every spawn screen and every pop-up available to ad real estate while you play. Talk about an immersion killer... But I gotta tell you, If that would allow f2p users access to the rest of the equipment so that they could no longer complain or otherwise constantly attack us in reviews or elsewhere in regards to our need to support the ongoing operation/maintenance of the game by "real world means" with a subscription for access, or some kind of payments for the equipment that they use, I'm honestly warming to the idea. It might be the easiest route forward for us to make f2p an asset rather than the current strain on public relations, and the constant drain on revenue and morale that it is at this time. That would give you what you really want, and hopefully equal or exceed what we need to monetize f2p enough to support it's continuance and possible expansion. It's certainly the easiest way to begin the monetization of the f2p demographic, they can't complain about having to pay for anything if they're not, and it could prove to be lucrative enough to support itself. Maybe we both can win.

    2 people like this

  17. 8 hours ago, aismov said:

    One option would've to charge something less than a AAA title upfront (say 49.99) and say you have 1 year of premium play included. Then after the year is up you have to pay for the subscription service (or be more limited via the DLC route).

    I like this idea!

  18. indexed-1034.jpg

    Mike Jones's UH-1 022 after being hit by 2.75 rocket accidentally fired by another UH-1 gunship. From gunship's perspective.

    UH-1 022 after being hit by 2.75 rocket accidentally fired by another UH-1 gunship.



    Mike Jones's UH-1 022 after being hit by 2.75 rocket accidentally fired by another UH-1



    Tail rotor of Mike Jones's UH-1 022 after being hit by 2.75 rocket from another gunship. Gunship that fired rocket in distance.

    OOPS!!! Wrong War!!! :P