Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Scotsman last won the day on November 17 2019

Scotsman had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

544 Hero


About Scotsman

  • Rank
    CRS Volunteer
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. So you were ok with a spawn list imbalance of 40% in favor of one nation at the expense of the others? if you are on the side which the bias favored.. I imagine you wouldn't want it changed. We either correct bad data or we don't...
  2. M-66 HEAT would struggle vs a Tiger as it doesn't have sufficient post penetration to do much, even assuming it struck at perpendicular. Marine shermans fired M66 but ETO crews generally preferred KE even though the Sherman could fire the M66. All the ammo was done for the 17pdr to include APDS. The stowage diagram for the VC firefly would seem to differ with your statement with regards to APC. I have no problem using APCBC on firefly. Hopefully get a better HEAT model in this year as the current model is not up to par.
  3. Not long on firefly as it was an existing gun and chassis so that is a poor example imho.....there are lots of to do lists that are worked in parallel to each other. New platform work/art does not stop or wait on anything else. As for 64 bit status xoom is the guy you need to ask. I keep to my little modeling and ballistics lane... In that regard though I'm trying to get a build environment up on my alternate machine so I can go ahead and begin coding (the new armor protection model and new penetration mechanics (to include FHA for the germans finally)) and debugging, but none of that has anything to do with 64 bit port per say. Other guys doing that. As a guy with a comp sci degree I agree that moving to 64 bit can fix -some- ills of the current client...more memory can fix many it needs to be done. I would like to remind you (as I frequently remind Xoom!) that we are stuck with the ills and sins of the past. As a long time player I found the lack of progress hard to stomach over the years (before I volunteered and got stuck in) The team has gone from literally being able to do little/nothing to expansion in a great number of things from a standing start. Things will continue to pick up speed on least for vehicular platforms to include naval...but there is no doubt 64 bit needs to happen.
  4. All I can do is promise to ask for it to get on the list and work background on some things (as I do with many things not directly in my lane) I known how to do it...I can lay out a path to do it...but if everyone waits for me to do it/code it personally they will likely be disappointed. I'm a single guy...ultimately xoom makes all calls on what we are focused on....and that includes weather. My priority is getting the new aircraft damage models done....then building a code environment for compiling the full game at home....and then bug stomping (several in my sights). After all that is done there is new armor and armor penetration code, plus other stuff. Weather would become just another thing on the list. I want to do it...the question will be when. In the meantime back to damage models....every post I do here is less time one that. I/we do listen guys...carefully...some times I am more active here than I should be given what needs to be done. It's because its important for everyone to know we are in fact here, and listen.
  5. A minute ago you said it needs to be in...that ground guys should have to deal with weather as pilots do if it was going to be in the game...and in this post you say it needs to be toggled on/off. We don't allow visibility toggles or toggles for physics in other parts of the game. Does that mean you want clouds toggled for AA ground purposes? If weather is redone (and redone right) it should apply as appropriate to everyone. There was a reason the battle of bulge happened when it did. I wouldn't be in favor of any partial implementation...which has kind of been the point of your complaints about weather from the get go.
  6. Got it... and I don't know how fast it would be to fix to be completely honest. I can pull real world METAR easily so that a given terrain grid mirrors current live conditions...wind would have to be added for everything to include smoke effects which would not be trivial (staged implementation?) Clouds would require something along the lines of what you have discussed....which means engine integration and code work.
  7. Agree - just saying that aircraft performance goes well beyond the direct measurable and was using that was an example...and were tests on both sides biased in some cases? Yes. BTW - yes I want to put proper 'speed made good' in on the vehicles...which will mean they will slow considerably in wet conditions and in some cases will not be able to climb grades etc. I have the data and code to do all of that...what I lack is the time to do it all myself. If you are familiar with standardmoblib light in the US Army I am leaning to something like that as the calculations are very quick.
  8. Complaining about weather is like complaining about reduced lift with altitude. You either want an accurate portrayal of the environment or not. Sometimes the community speaks out of both sides of its mouth on real and fun don't necessarily mix well. We understand that.. The trick is to find a balance. There is not doubt the current weather can be a downer if you want to fly...I'm going to try and fix that
  9. Agree - and its a shame that the deep logistics and such in the original game design were not fully implemented and completed...
  10. I think we are on the trail of the issue with the cannons proper performance. Certainly their effects will be better portrayed in the new model as they deliver a lot more combined joules. The 109 comments are 'interesting'. Are you aware that human effects testing in the 109 showed the average 109 pilot was only able to exert about 40% of the stick force exerted by pilots in other aircraft because of the layout and limitations of the cockpit? Measurables like horsepower and lift are not the entire story. The same could be said for the 109 landing characteristics as its gross weight grew....which was a problem with all WWII aircraft really. (but having been designed as a light weight fighter it affected the 109 more than most) Anyway...all for doing what we can to get weather done properly. We really need more C++ hands than we have to do that. Licensing engines is easy but they still must be integrated into the client. Anyone that's good with C++ give me a shout via pm.
  11. And given the unrealistic performance of bombs AND OTHER MUNITIONS....there was a good reason for the whine. I will remind you that you have also flown with completely unrealistic (as measured by live fire tests) generic damage models on aircraft for years. The number of light single engine fighters on either side that can keep flying after a hit by a single bofors round is exactly ZERO. All that will change shortly...or as soon as Hatch and I can finish the new damage models, which are air frame specific and backed by live fire testing, rather than the generic ones the game has always had. A 109 will be easier to shoot down than a 190, and a 190 will be easier to shoot down than a P-47- because they were... The game will ALWAYS be a work in progress, and what aids one population will inevitably tick off another. The trick is a balance...which in a game is hard to achieve....especially if the player population wants 'fun' first and foremost. There is always an opposing view or side. How many players over the years were lost by airquake, ineffective/inaccurate portrayal of AA or bombs, etc? It's wasn't zero...IMHO the number of mistakes made over the years has been huge... All we can do is our level best to correct things and take them in the direction the player base wants them to go. That doesn't mean CRS will always agree with what is proposed. I'm going to look hard at a proper weather implementation after I'm done with my immediate to to-do list which is huge. If I can get to it quicker I will. That will include proper cloud portrayal. I DO have statistical weather data for all of the ETO. As a real world pilot and aircraft owner, I have always thought and known weather was just part of the game and part of being a good pilot. Having pushed the weather and visibility envelope once in my life (trying to climb through a cloud deck of unknown height into clear VFR above), I can assure you there are times its just better to stay on the ground, unless you just want to be dead. All we can do is tell you what we are doing, and work as fast as we can to bring new life into the title. What we work on is brought into focus by your comments.
  12. Just a comment from another real life infantryman. If you call that video 'suppression' then I must conclude you don't know what it is in a real life context. What I see in there is not suppression or how any of my soldiers would react when suppressed. So much depends on context as well, and there are certainly differing degrees of suppression. A great deal of difference from hearing angry hornets over your head or seeing green (bad guy) tracer, and being at ground zero when an 8" HE arrives. To correct some misconceptions, the bigger the bangs, the longer you tend to be in that condition. Real soldiers know the rate of fire of artillery by caliber line, and it's easy to tell if you are being engaged by more than one unit. If it's steel rain you stay down...and if it's obvious the MGs you are fighting are top notch...the same. You can tell the difference between good and bad....and whether you have any good options. I have done live testing with units of various training standards with this, and the differences in reaction to threats is also a function of training level. If you want realism in this thats fine...but if you are talking about heavy weapons you will not like what will be imposed on you...or how long it will last. Big difference between those videos and having your buddy get shredded next to you, or hearing a guy after he is hit. If you had sat in a bunker while shelled you would have a bettr idea. So do you want a game or simulation when it comes to this?
  13. Some interesting ideas...
  14. See madrebel' comment - it's a game and that isn't fun - so who is right?
  15. Then you and Moz need to have a guy saying we should have it and another not...which way should crs go?