Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

delems

88 still worthless

Recommended Posts

Merlin51
23 minutes ago, vasduten1 said:

No, not the end of story if the code is updated and a current engine is used.

so really.

Which has absolutely 0 to do with any of the above, so thank you very much for playing, please drive through and don't forget to collect your door prize on the way out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moe5000
4 hours ago, stankyus said:

 My whole point is that we seem to cherry pick which piece of equipment gets held to a higher standard toward accuracy.

Bingo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
major0noob

the M10 sight was bugged guys...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saronin
4 hours ago, major0noob said:

the M10 sight was bugged guys...

It’s bugged alright. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
14 hours ago, merlin51 said:

No, not same
M10 can get its correct sight back, someone just has to figure out why out of all the sights it does not render right at certain resolutions
Then they can pop it back in.

You say dont cherry pick and yet you are doing just that :(
Tiger turret should be engine driven, but game can't do it. GAME CAN NOT DO IT.
End of story, move on.

No but speed  No but wait but reduce, but half,    accept it and move on
Your turrets do not die in the field due to you not running the engine, you run them at full speed eternally, and you cant do that any more than the tiger can.
You dont even have the annoying sound of the powerpack whining the entire time the turret is on active power
YOU HAVE SAME ADVANTAGE, so until the game can do all the turret dependencies fairly across the board, why handicap just one guy?

And i am sorry but ive no idea what left turn you took with the PZII and PZ38T
They are correct, as correct as the game would allow, commander is either gunning, or he is out top, same guy, he dies you don't shoot.

R35 H39 S35 B1 bis should all be the same way but the game engine had, and i assume still does, a limitation on how many views/cameras/controls any one position may have.
So those units have a phantom crewman (There is no loader up in an apx turret, you could barely fit a sandwich up there)
No axis players are running around saying hey remove the commanders, only 1 man in a french turret

You read what I said but not comprehending.  The reason why I point this out is 2 fold. 

 

1. I was very unhappy to have the Tiger rotation speed doubled.  It was arbitruary and not necessary.  The reason given for it by the horses mouth who made the decision was specific to "not being able to deal with SAPPERS, RPATS and not living up to its historic potential."  You keep glossing over this nearly verbatim reason.  So now in context - my example with the Matty is very much applicable.  That is why you keep failing to understand or comprehend why I use such seemingly crazy examples.  Ill put the arbitrary reasoning in - the Matty cannot deal with the StugB at 1.2k so we are going to up its penetration.  The Tiger is NOT living up to its HISTORIC potential... <--- it does not matter what they did you see, its the context of the reason for the change and that is what you are not getting ITs Historic Potential.  That is a artificial reason.

 

2. The arbitruary reason to make the Tiger artificially live up to its historic potential was in conjunction with requiring the M10 sites to be corrected to the 3x sites.. they happened at the very same time.  That is pure poor bedside manner.

 

Ill add this last part in bullet form.

* I believe the M10 sites should be the 3x sites

* I really do not care that much about the Tigers rotation speed boost - I care about the context in which it was done. I also believe there should have been a compromise in the rotation speed due to the fact we cannot tie it to the engine if they where going to up it.

* The Tiger was not suffering - It still had the very best KD vrs AFVs. The best armor and gun of all the AFVs.. yet the standard became parity with the S76 even after the change. It was not needed to be fair.

* Pointing this issue out is to say to those ppl complaining about the temporary roll back on the M10 is to provide a - "hey our side has its very similar issues to be dealt with also, therefore I'm not going to hang my hat on this because ITS going to be fixed."  One cannot say that about the turret rotation speed...

* I have a idea how you could mimic the requirement for the engine... not a great solution but a temp solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vasduten1
50 minutes ago, stankyus said:

You read what I said but not comprehending.  The reason why I point this out is 2 fold. 

 

1. I was very unhappy to have the Tiger rotation speed doubled.  It was arbitruary and not necessary.  The reason given for it by the horses mouth who made the decision was specific to "not being able to deal with SAPPERS, RPATS and not living up to its historic potential."  You keep glossing over this nearly verbatim reason.  So now in context - my example with the Matty is very much applicable.  That is why you keep failing to understand or comprehend why I use such seemingly crazy examples.  Ill put the arbitrary reasoning in - the Matty cannot deal with the StugB at 1.2k so we are going to up its penetration.  The Tiger is NOT living up to its HISTORIC potential... <--- it does not matter what they did you see, its the context of the reason for the change and that is what you are not getting ITs Historic Potential.  That is a artificial reason.

 

2. The arbitruary reason to make the Tiger artificially live up to its historic potential was in conjunction with requiring the M10 sites to be corrected to the 3x sites.. they happened at the very same time.  That is pure poor bedside manner.

 

Ill add this last part in bullet form.

* I believe the M10 sites should be the 3x sites

* I really do not care that much about the Tigers rotation speed boost - I care about the context in which it was done. I also believe there should have been a compromise in the rotation speed due to the fact we cannot tie it to the engine if they where going to up it.

* The Tiger was not suffering - It still had the very best KD vrs AFVs. The best armor and gun of all the AFVs.. yet the standard became parity with the S76 even after the change. It was not needed to be fair.

* Pointing this issue out is to say to those ppl complaining about the temporary roll back on the M10 is to provide a - "hey our side has its very similar issues to be dealt with also, therefore I'm not going to hang my hat on this because ITS going to be fixed."  One cannot say that about the turret rotation speed...

* I have a idea how you could mimic the requirement for the engine... not a great solution but a temp solution.

Stanky... the Tiger turret speed was increased for the above-mentioned reasons, but also because the S76 turret speed is SO fast you can practically lift off the ground like a helicopter just by spinning it.

 

There's a tank that needed the engine running to pull that off as well, or the batteries would lose power in about ten minutes.

Talk about an unfair advantage.

 

Sure, I would like to see the turrets linked to an idling engine, because that was accurate, but it's pretty clear that the ability to model THAT is not possible. I argue that it's because the mess of code the Rats have inherited is such a bramble patch, but Merlin51 claims otherwise.

"Austin, a lot has happened since you were frozen..."

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
11 minutes ago, vasduten1 said:

Stanky... the Tiger turret speed was increased for the above-mentioned reasons, but also because the S76 turret speed is SO fast you can practically lift off the ground like a helicopter just by spinning it.

 

There's a tank that needed the engine running to pull that off as well, or the batteries would lose power in about ten minutes.

Talk about an unfair advantage.

 

Sure, I would like to see the turrets linked to an idling engine, because that was accurate, but it's pretty clear that the ability to model THAT is not possible. I argue that it's because the mess of code the Rats have inherited is such a bramble patch, but Merlin51 claims otherwise.

"Austin, a lot has happened since you were frozen..."

 

 

 

Vas - you are adding to the reason that was not given. That is your addition, though I find it a much better excuse than the one given.  The thought process in the real reason is a very bad reason that puts in doubt the integrity of the idea of ww2ol.  Not that I don't think he has done a excellent job 90% of the time and we are all guilty of similar reasons from time to time.  However admitting the poor judgement and fixing it or amending it goes a long way.. far more than ignoring it.

 

And yes I know for a fact after talking with DOC privately that the coding was a serious issue previously. The coder who left, left the RATs with a code that had to be deciphered to see what his logic was in the coding.  There are many ways to skin a cat with coding, they just had to find out how he skinned the cat with just having a skinned cat and pelt to work with.

I posted a possible solution in the game ideas section. Read it and tell me what you think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saronin
1 hour ago, stankyus said:

You read what I said but not comprehending.  The reason why I point this out is 2 fold. 

 

1. I was very unhappy to have the Tiger rotation speed doubled.  It was arbitruary and not necessary.  The reason given for it by the horses mouth who made the decision was specific to "not being able to deal with SAPPERS, RPATS and not living up to its historic potential."  You keep glossing over this nearly verbatim reason.  So now in context - my example with the Matty is very much applicable.  That is why you keep failing to understand or comprehend why I use such seemingly crazy examples.  Ill put the arbitrary reasoning in - the Matty cannot deal with the StugB at 1.2k so we are going to up its penetration.  The Tiger is NOT living up to its HISTORIC potential... <--- it does not matter what they did you see, its the context of the reason for the change and that is what you are not getting ITs Historic Potential.  That is a artificial reason.

 

2. The arbitruary reason to make the Tiger artificially live up to its historic potential was in conjunction with requiring the M10 sites to be corrected to the 3x sites.. they happened at the very same time.  That is pure poor bedside manner.

 

Ill add this last part in bullet form.

* I believe the M10 sites should be the 3x sites

* I really do not care that much about the Tigers rotation speed boost - I care about the context in which it was done. I also believe there should have been a compromise in the rotation speed due to the fact we cannot tie it to the engine if they where going to up it.

* The Tiger was not suffering - It still had the very best KD vrs AFVs. The best armor and gun of all the AFVs.. yet the standard became parity with the S76 even after the change. It was not needed to be fair.

* Pointing this issue out is to say to those ppl complaining about the temporary roll back on the M10 is to provide a - "hey our side has its very similar issues to be dealt with also, therefore I'm not going to hang my hat on this because ITS going to be fixed."  One cannot say that about the turret rotation speed...

* I have a idea how you could mimic the requirement for the engine... not a great solution but a temp solution.

What is laughable about your argument here stankyus is that the whole thing is actually a two way street.  After all, one could argue that the Axis were screwed for over a decade in game by CRS because the turret would only operate a half speed with the engine on.  A bug that presents a clear disadvantage in the way the 109 flop created a disadvantage for over 10 years. How many times over 10 years did I have the engine running in a Tiger where the turret operated at half speed? Meanwhile the Sherman turrets operate a full capacity regardless of how long the engine has been off since the battery packs are not modeled.  A situation that is a clear advantage.  I don't see you mentioning the need to model the Sherman battery packs.

The M10 too is a bug that is an advantage.  The M71 telescopic sight didn't exist in the M10 tank destroyer.  It is now a complete fantasy unit.  CRS had a choice to fix it to its historical specs but chose to go into the fantasy realm.  If one were keeping track, it appears that the Allied bugs are advantages and the Axis bugs were disadvantages.  The clear difference is that the M10 sight is not hamstrung by the game engine and can be fixed.  Every other sight in game is modeled correctly so far as I know.  There is no excuse for not modeling it correctly.  Especially considering it's been in game for 12 years.

All I have ever asked for is that the units be modeled historically.  That's all I have ever asked for with respect to the Tiger turret.  Xoom, Scottsman, and Hatch have all mentioned some commitment to historical modeling then turn around a throw us a fantasy unit.  The!y are the old team 2.0 right now in my eyes.  The game is COD with Sh!tty graphics once again.

Edited by saronin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vasduten1

I read it. Good ideas.

It'd be best to just enable the "e" key in the gunner's position and let the engines idle, but I'm afraid that's not even possible.

 

My problem with this idea, and many others here is that time and resources get diverted to this and 2.0 doesn't happen. 

Code that requires a cryptographer, a team of archaeologists and a handful of antiquities professors, guides, servants to carry provisions and gobs of time that can't be used by the devs is just not going to cut it here, and everyone knows it. Most everything people have suggested be done require a herculean effort, and for what? To replace the code eventually any way?

 

The kicker here is that the new engines and updated code with 64bit capabilities make it so much easier to manage, even for a small dev team, probably more so. It's like asking your racing team to compete with 2018 models in a 1955 Ferrari.

Sure, that old Ferarri is awfully slick, but it's gonna have it's doors blown off at the first turn. Best to relegate it to Jay Leno's garage for preservation.

 

I simply cannot defend staying the course with anything other than 2.0 just to make the small handful of subscribers happy temporarily, no matter how much they whinge like children, (myself included,).

Even I came to my senses on this topic, and that says a lot. I'm pretty stubborn.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
3 minutes ago, saronin said:

What is laughable about your argument here stankyus is that the whole thing is actually a two way street.  After all, one could argue that the Axis were screwed for over a decade in game by CRS because the turret would only operate a half speed with the engine on.  A bug that presents a clear disadvantage in the way the 109 flop created a disadvantage for over 10 years. How many times over 10 years did I have the engine running in a Tiger where the turret operated at half speed? Meanwhile the Sherman turrets operate a full capacity regardless of how long the engine has been off since the battery packs are not modeled.  A situation that is a clear advantage.  I don't see you mentioning the need to model the Sherman battery packs.

The M10 too is a bug that is an advantage.  The M71 telescopic sight didn't exist in the M10 tank destroyer.  It is now a complete fantasy unit.  CRS had a choice to fix it to its historical specs but chose to go into the fantasy realm.  If one were keeping track, it appears that the Allied bugs are advantages and the Axis bugs were disadvantages.  The clear difference is that the M10 sight is not hamstrung by the game engine and can be fixed.  Every other sight in game is modeled correctly so far as I know.  There is no excuse for not modeling it correctly.  Especially considering it's been in game for 12 years.

All I have ever asked for is that the units be modeled historically.  That's all I have ever asked for with respect to the Tiger turret.  Xoom, Scottsman, and Hatch have all mentioned some commitment to historical modeling then turn around a throw us a fantasy unit.  The!y are the old team 2.0 right now in my eyes.  The game is COD with Sh!tty graphics once again.

Did I just no address all of this? Its like I said nothing.

1. I said compromise the turret rotation speed.. so you get faster rotation with the engines off but slower when they are on.  The middle ground.  Its not like the Tiger had any problems... outside of not regularly getting a 8.0kd but instead a regular 5.kd vrs AFVs. I don't see why we cannot compromise on the Sherman turret speed also - yes?  I'm not talking about this purely one sided. Do I really have to spell it out like this? You also completely missed the point which I will address next.

2. If you think the reason for turret rotation speed is laughable from a reason perspective its very telling to me how far you are to side of being bias than whats good for the game as a whole.

3. I addressed the M10 sites, CRS addressed the M10 sites, many others have tried to spell it out for you and the reason for the roll back. You talk as if they are unaware its the incorrect site still and as if they are not working on a solution to get the correct sites back in and functional.

4. The luxury of having the correct sites has been on the attention to detail specifically on the Axis side with the exception of the pak36 zoom issues.. all the incorrect sites through out the history of this game has been on the allied side as if the allied equipment was an after thought and not that exciting to put the effort into the details. Like the US range finder being in meters when the gun is in yards. That even includes the allied planes getting the wrong instrument panel details. So you think that was a bonus but over the history of detail, its not been that rosy.

5. I did something you did not, I actually thought about a solution and posted it in another thread.. you on the other hand are resorting to denigrating the efforts by CRS 2.0.  Have you really balanced your complaint about the M10 sites with how much and how far they have gotten in such a short period of time?  COD? really? Calm down, you are better than this. 

22 minutes ago, vasduten1 said:

I read it. Good ideas.

It'd be best to just enable the "e" key in the gunner's position and let the engines idle, but I'm afraid that's not even possible.

 

My problem with this idea, and many others here is that time and resources get diverted to this and 2.0 doesn't happen. 

Code that requires a cryptographer, a team of archaeologists and a handful of antiquities professors, guides, servants to carry provisions and gobs of time that can't be used by the devs is just not going to cut it here, and everyone knows it. Most everything people have suggested be done require a herculean effort, and for what? To replace the code eventually any way?

 

The kicker here is that the new engines and updated code with 64bit capabilities make it so much easier to manage, even for a small dev team, probably more so. It's like asking your racing team to compete with 2018 models in a 1955 Ferrari.

Sure, that old Ferarri is awfully slick, but it's gonna have it's doors blown off at the first turn. Best to relegate it to Jay Leno's garage for preservation.

 

I simply cannot defend staying the course with anything other than 2.0 just to make the small handful of subscribers happy temporarily, no matter how much they whinge like children, (myself included,).

Even I came to my senses on this topic, and that says a lot. I'm pretty stubborn.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well I would agree - the idea sits on the lower half of my list of priorities if I where king.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saronin
3 minutes ago, stankyus said:

Did I just no address all of this? Its like I said nothing.

1. I said compromise the turret rotation speed.. so you get faster rotation with the engines off but slower when they are on.  The middle ground.  Its not like the Tiger had any problems... outside of not regularly getting a 8.0kd but instead a regular 5.kd vrs AFVs. I don't see why we cannot compromise on the Sherman turret speed also - yes?  I'm not talking about this purely one sided. Do I really have to spell it out like this? You also completely missed the point which I will address next.

2. If you think the reason for turret rotation speed is laughable from a reason perspective its very telling to me how far you are to side of being bias than whats good for the game as a whole.

3. I addressed the M10 sites, CRS addressed the M10 sites, many others have tried to spell it out for you and the reason for the roll back. You talk as if they are unaware its the incorrect site still and as if they are not working on a solution to get the correct sites back in and functional.

4. The luxury of having the correct sites has been on the attention to detail specifically on the Axis side with the exception of the pak36 zoom issues.. all the incorrect sites through out the history of this game has been on the allied side as if the allied equipment was an after thought and not that exciting to put the effort into the details. Like the US range finder being in meters when the gun is in yards. That even includes the allied planes getting the wrong instrument panel details. So you think that was a bonus but over the history of detail, its not been that rosy.

5. I did something you did not, I actually thought about a solution and posted it in another thread.. you on the other hand are resorting to denigrating the efforts by CRS 2.0.  Have you really balanced your complaint about the M10 sites with how much and how far they have gotten in such a short period of time?  COD? really? Calm down, you are better than this. 

Well I would agree - the idea sits on the lower half of my list of priorities if I where king.

I have posted a solution many times to the Tiger turret issue over the past few years in the form of a simple engine on or engine off solution. My guess is that CRS simply does not have the capability to alter the game engine to fix it. 

They do however, have the capability to get a gun sight correct and have simply failed to do so. 

As for my side bias, you need not worry about it after January 9th, 2018. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
4 minutes ago, saronin said:

I have posted a solution many times to the Tiger turret issue over the past few years in the form of a simple engine on or engine off solution. My guess is that CRS simply does not have the capability to alter the game engine to fix it. 

They do however, have the capability to get a gun sight correct and have simply failed to do so. 

As for my side bias, you need not worry about it after January 9th, 2018. 

Sheesh - really?  Do you not think its possible that they missed the resolution problem?  Do you not understand that it was THIS CRS team that tried to correct it?  Do you remember what CRS was in the middle of doing when they addressed the site? Seems to me with all that was going on, this would have been low priority but they did it. I would think that they might have not been able to test it as rigorously as they could have without the massive undertaking they where involved in.

You understand what type of side bias I mean right?  Not the bias as being bias toward your side.. I am bias toward my side, Vas is to his, etc... I am talking about the type of bias that clouds your ability to see past how changes only effect your gameplay.  That's the bias I am talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saronin
1 hour ago, vasduten1 said:

I read it. Good ideas.

It'd be best to just enable the "e" key in the gunner's position and let the engines idle, but I'm afraid that's not even possible.

 

My problem with this idea, and many others here is that time and resources get diverted to this and 2.0 doesn't happen. 

Code that requires a cryptographer, a team of archaeologists and a handful of antiquities professors, guides, servants to carry provisions and gobs of time that can't be used by the devs is just not going to cut it here, and everyone knows it. Most everything people have suggested be done require a herculean effort, and for what? To replace the code eventually any way?

 

The kicker here is that the new engines and updated code with 64bit capabilities make it so much easier to manage, even for a small dev team, probably more so. It's like asking your racing team to compete with 2018 models in a 1955 Ferrari.

Sure, that old Ferarri is awfully slick, but it's gonna have it's doors blown off at the first turn. Best to relegate it to Jay Leno's garage for preservation.

 

I simply cannot defend staying the course with anything other than 2.0 just to make the small handful of subscribers happy temporarily, no matter how much they whinge like children, (myself included,).

Even I came to my senses on this topic, and that says a lot. I'm pretty stubborn.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What really matters is if we can temporarily find another backpack.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
major0noob

you guys are nit-picking too much... historical accuracy will never be achieved 100%

35 minutes ago, saronin said:

My guess is that CRS simply does not have the capability to alter the game engine to fix it. 

^^^^^^^^^^^ this right here, they were very clear if a unit works they don't want to touch it too. same with the neon-stug, it works so they're not changing it, the 88 works so they're not changing it

they won't fix the riflemen cause they work and they're in the game, the riflemen get much more use than any sides tank yet they still won't touch them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
major0noob

on the other hand, the M10 worked then they changed it then it didn't.

"don't fix something that ain't broke"

Edited by major0noob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XOOM

All munitions will soon be performing to their accurate historical properties. The significant effort that has occurred behind the scenes is just that, significant. The timeline to implementation has gone a little longer than some of you wanted but this is because we have to get it right. EVERY SINGLE munition (explosive and non) will be historical. We have a munitions expert who has been on our team for awhile that has helped guide us through this process.

It's right around the corner, just a little tiny bit longer. Hang on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
major0noob
1 minute ago, XOOM said:

All munitions will soon be performing to their accurate historical properties. The significant effort that has occurred behind the scenes is just that, significant. The timeline to implementation has gone a little longer than some of you wanted but this is because we have to get it right. EVERY SINGLE munition (explosive and non) will be historical. We have a munitions expert who has been on our team for awhile that has helped guide us through this process.

It's right around the corner, just a little tiny bit longer. Hang on.

don't think this has anything to do with anything in the thread man

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmw
5 minutes ago, major0noob said:

don't think this has anything to do with anything in the thread man

lol

BUT.........the fact is we get some inside info as to the status from the man himself.  To me that more important than the OP considering that the topic is nothing new. 

Edited by bmw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dre21
1 hour ago, stankyus said:

the exception of the pak36 zoom issues.

I gladly take a downwatered sight on the pak36. The super zoom also brought on an ugly arc to the round ,that is not natural. The pak36 was a high velocity gun ,the round should fly strait and true not this arc BS we have in game ( new team has nothing to do with it just want to state that right here)

Yes the effective range won't change vs Tanks, but max range was over 5000meters . It make a damn fine sniper rifle if the round would fly like it should.

Also it make hitting ur target a whole hell of a lot easier then now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
major0noob
19 minutes ago, bmw said:

BUT.........the fact is we get some inside info as to the status from the man himself.  To me that more important than the OP considering that the topic is nothing new. 

there are bigger fish to fry after the audit, if we kept a list the tiger rotation would be at the bottom of a very long list with much bigger issues

do the rats have a list? maybe we should make one

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merlin51
1 hour ago, saronin said:

They do however, have the capability to get a gun sight correct and have simply failed to do so.

They did get it correct, it was correct, 100%
Problem is only some of us could see the gunsight.

I could see it fine on everything i own.
I would have tested it and said yep looks good guys, chances are you may have tested it and said yep thats it
simply cause you and i dont have the right graphics/resolution/monitor combo to show up the flaw.

I saw this below.  This is not at all what Stankyus or others saw, and yes that IS the gunsight in question that does not render right for a large amount of people
I am pretty sure you would have stamped APPROVED on the below also? Yes?

bVkwpMD.png
Yes that is a tiger at 2100m

Now if maybe stankyus has a screenie handy for compare?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
3 minutes ago, major0noob said:

don't think this has anything to do with anything in the thread man

lol

Not what it turned into but the point about the accuracy of the 88 (among others) was pointed out previously... I think that's what he is addressing.  The 88, 3", 76mm, 17pdr are looking at 100% or close to 100% dead to site accuracy @ 1k hopefully.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saronin
7 minutes ago, merlin51 said:

They did get it correct, it was correct, 100%
Problem is only some of us could see the gunsight.

I could see it fine on everything i own.
I would have tested it and said yep looks good guys, chances are you may have tested it and said yep thats it
simply cause you and i dont have the right graphics/resolution/monitor combo to show up the flaw.

I saw this below.  This is not at all what Stankyus or others saw, and yes that IS the gunsight in question that does not render right for a large amount of people
I am pretty sure you would have stamped APPROVED on the below also? Yes?

bVkwpMD.png

Call me when it's right.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stankyus
5 minutes ago, merlin51 said:

They did get it correct, it was correct, 100%
Problem is only some of us could see the gunsight.

I could see it fine on everything i own.
I would have tested it and said yep looks good guys, chances are you may have tested it and said yep thats it
simply cause you and i dont have the right graphics/resolution/monitor combo to show up the flaw.

I saw this below.  This is not at all what Stankyus or others saw, and yes that IS the gunsight in question that does not render right for a large amount of people
I am pretty sure you would have stamped APPROVED on the below also? Yes?

bVkwpMD.png

For me the second to bottom line would be very difficult on the green grass. I could see the verticle, hard on the horizontal.  My solution was to raise the gun into the sky and locate the aimpoint then focus on it when I brought it back down. Most of the time I would lose it in the ground clutter and have to locate it. This is better than what I got, but I did not have it as bad as others.  At night I was always trying to locate my reticle by moving it around to notice it and at times I just lined up the verticle lines I could see against the sky and shot to adjust range. I'm not to bad at it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merlin51
20 minutes ago, dre21 said:

The pak36 was a high velocity gun ,the round should fly strait and true not this arc BS we have in game

The arc is an illusion somehow created by the optics, the more mag the more arc it appears to have
If you run the game up in offline mode and grab a pak36, sight it in on a target, you see giant arc.
Now go to external rubberband mode 2 and move the camera out to the target and watch the round itself, you will see that there is no discernable arc.

3 minutes ago, saronin said:

Call me when it's right.

cop out non answer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...