• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by HATCH

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. WORD! 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! http://forums.wwiionline.com/forums/topic/420484-for-the-first-time-in-years-the-game-works-flawlessly-in-linux/#comment-6363673 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.)
  4. 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?
  5. 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.
  6. Just to be honest, to me that seems as paramount to the tasks the guys have been working on for months with 64 bit and 1.36... Any other ideas that would take less development time? Like the ads?
  7. 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!
  8. 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.
  9. Very interesting Markec. I and several other team members have shared this with the team leaders to investigate and see if this is a viable option for us with updating some of our legacy textures. Thanks for the heads up!
  10. I like this idea!
  11. 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!!!
  12. Wut?
  13. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. As I said before, we already did that. While it may have increased pop by a little, everything else was the same. Reviews saying nothing they had was good enough, anything worth having locked behind pay wall, yada, yada, yada... We wouldn't have made the f2p changes if the numbers would have shown they were more beneficial the way they were. As it is now, you get the same rifleman everyone else gets and have the ability to kill everything in the game a rifle or a satchel can kill, change the map by capturing facilities, give rides/tows/plant MS, etc. So you can definitely participate on an equal level and see what it's all about. There are special promotions all the time that allow more equipment to experience, not to mention every intermission... Everything you mention can be had indefinitely in a DLC pack for less than a decent meal...
  14. Duck! Or support the game. You support the game, it supports you. Statistics showed that when we gave free players basic everything, the majority chose to remain free players, not supporting the game with even a starter sub. Like the cost of a friggin burger combo or a cup of starbucks... It's like opening up a sandwich shop and offering the basic sub sandwich for free... If most just take advantage of the free sub, yeah, the place might be hopping, look and be popular with all the patronage, but with no revenue because of too many taking advantage of the free stuff and not enough supporting the business by purchasing from the main menu, there simply is no way to pay the bills and keep the place running.
  15. And THAT is sort of the whole point of following a historical timeline with as realistic equipment as possible.
  16. Couldn't have said it any better myself Chimm! Merry Christmas Everybody! God bless you all!
  17. All good thoughts Merlin. Maybe we just have too many HEATs running around at the moment?
  18. Totally agree with this. Like every infantryman is walking around with "SPR sticky bombs" loaded and at the ready. Regular infantry should fear tanks, not proliferate in hunting them solo. We should remove the satchel loadout except for a specific and limited class of trooper. But that's just my personal opinion. Also think tanks should be enlisting some sort of infantry support to protect them from such.
  19. ROFL! You just HAD to do it dintcha? Just couldn't stand it and restrain yourself? I was hoping to listen to this great example of the truck leaving as well, but nooooooo. You just HAD to turn the mic guy into a hood ornament! LOL! JK! Good work! Definitely an improvement.
  20. Interesting. From what I understand, those are the real deal rather than what Corn had managed to scrabble together 20 years ago...
  21. Could be. I couldn't find the image I was looking for which has some crusty old Sgt. doing it full auto in front of a group of new recruits. Lot more shells in the air in that one.
  22. For the record, we WILL be getting back to completing the small arms audit which will include the AR's SMG's and LMG's after the new year. Just have had too many other priorities for awhile to get to finishing it.
  23. Several of us are getting entirely off track with the labels I'm trying to use to differentiate between the weapon classes in code and game. For instance, "automatic rifle", "light machine gun", medium machine gun", etc. The fact of the matter is that they can and have shared a myriad of definitions based on such things as the nationality creating the label, weight, ammo load, rate of fire, operating crew, etc. Other guns like the MG34/MG42 that can and have served in both light and medium "roles", with the passage of time are now classified as a General Purpose Machine Guns or GMPG's. So yes, in the context of this thread, semantics. We are not here to waste time arguing such. Sorry for the confusion. The point of the matter and why we are having this discussion, is that we need to break the automatic weapons from one class into two. From here on out, we will be using the class labels "AUTOMATIC RIFLE" and "LIGHT MACHINE GUN" because those are the classes already available in the code that we will be using to differentiate them based on certain operational capabilities between them. All of the rifle caliber "machine guns" currently available for infantry use in the game except for the MG34 will be in the "AUTOMATIC RIFLE" class. The MG34 will be in the "LIGHT MACHINE GUN" class. I hope this clarifies things for everyone to the point we can keep the focus on the proposed in-game functionality of the weapons in question rather than the labels loosely used previously in the discussion. That's the last I'll be saying on the "label" or "class" bit, so lets talk functionality! Carry on!