Scotsman

Registered Users
  • Content count

    6,344
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    29

Everything posted by Scotsman

  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 things...so 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 content...at 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 that...as 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 chat...one guy saying we should have it and another not...which way should crs go?
  16. If you got real suppression, derived from actual troop tests and including HE, you would complain to the ends of time. You would be forced to go to ground duck and cover against your will - frequently. In reality that's exactly what would happen as there is no respawn...you have but one life...but I'm going to play the community's own words back - 'it's a game, I want fun, and I don't want to be constrained in game play.' Im sitting on real world suppression data... If I ever used it the rage would be enormous...and no...I haven't seen a game yet that does suppression that mirrors the actual test data...anywhere.
  17. good points all - probably need a thread on it and try to come to an agreement on a quick solution...
  18. You will get updated airframe specific damage models first shortly based on live fire data against 100s of engines and airframes of all types. Updated FM stuff will likely follow that at some point. Expect QA to check that thoroughly.
  19. I don't recall and I'm not at my computer - hatch did the belting - but I'll check tomorrow and confirm. I believe it may be ball until the armor update and audit was completed (in which the AFV roofs revert to their proper thickness) upon which the belting goes to war standards. AP was updated in the KE audit.
  20. Not at all! I would hope they want it...but I also would expect air players to understand all players will always game the game...and use issues with the FM to get away with unrealistic maneuvers that affect other parts of the player base. That might be fun for an air player..while ticking off the ground players. I want it all to be right for everyone .. that's a personal goal
  21. Probably not if you look at .50 cal ball penetration vs roof armor and impact angle...light AFV maybe...I'd have to look at the data vs range...but harsh looks kill semisoft vehicles. About 8mm at 500 meters for ball. You can compare that to roof armor. Engine covers on Matilda are 20mm before impact angle is applied. Add tip off and it's even less. G limit and other flight model issues are well on the radar...but point taken on players gaming the game.
  22. Sure as long as you are also for a better flight model that will rip your wings off if you exceed G of fly unrealistically
  23. Appreciate it Elfin...I have been a builder all along...If I was rich enough to buy the title outright and redo things right I would. Failing that all I can do is fix things as fast as I can. I have had my share of personal frustrations in things not moving fast enough for my own liking but I am a single guy. Xoom will attest to this...and he has been on the receiving end of some my HEAT rounds with my frustration....some undeserved btw because Im simply frustrated with things not going faster.. We are all volunteers, have families etc. Even if I go faster in doing new code or methods, fixing data, etc, I can only go as fast as the rest of the team in QAing the changes and testing them. To his credit he has eliminated some bottlenecks...so hopefully things will go faster.
  24. Unreal... That was Doc - not me....and you know it. The sins of the past are that...The inheritance is what it is...I can only do so much and work so fast. I am constrained by what I am allowed or not allowed to do to data...and as of yet I am not configured to build test clients...although I am fixing that now. By going ball on aircraft ammo that aren't ground attack we eliminated that as an issue. I haven't even gotten to G limits or a proper improved flight model yet to prevent you from flying in an unrealistic manner...which was one of the issues in the first place in that problem. If the flight model was better that wouldn't have been necessary in the first place. Nor has the armor been audited as we are trying to go to an improved armor model that does projectile tip off, spaced armor and other things to include a new shaped charge model. I suppose you did notice some side skirts recently?? You might check your patch notes. Just what do you expect....you want me to rewrite the entire game and eliminate all prior ills and issues overnight?? Sorry but comments like that are simply uncalled for...if you want it done faster volunteer. More hands are always welcome. By the way...if projectile tip off vs armor thickness and impact angle had been put into the game none of that would have occurred or even been necessary....in spite of the flight modeling. The guys who wrote most of the legacy code didn't understand all the ins and outs of terminal ballistics. If you need further proof of that look what happened with application of proper munitions fragment data to the game human modeling. Because certain constants and code were guessed at (and commented that way in the code!) application of real data in mass and velocity distribution wasn't reflected properly in lethality. Fixing one area revealed improper coding in another.
  25. What a silly thing to say...no offense but it is...if you can't tolerate a day or two turn around with a volunteer staff on a US holiday...well...(Never mind that one responsible person isn't even in the US but in Europe on top of that. )