• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      Hells Gate   03/24/2019

      Break through the lines, and enter Hells Gate!!! This will be the next CRS organized event.  Lead by the High command from each side.
      Free Premium Access for the event
      Date: 3/30/19 Time: 11:00 AM Server time/ 12:00pm EST/ 1600 GMT
montyuno

Jumping the gun..... TOEs, armour, shields n such..

181 posts in this topic

I dislike the rain in game , cause I can't hear or better said pinpoint incoming tanks, I do wear headphones and it's still harder to do so.

But do I hate it that much that I wish it away NO I do not . It adds a something new to the game and I'm all about new stuff.

I even look forward to the snow map we get. It's different . 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, madrebel said:

TOEs and absolute reliance on HC is being removed - because the old team put it in and it damn near killed the game.

Weather was put in by the old team - it largely killed the airwar. Roll it back, then move forward with more players. Keeping it in is all vets need to know to remain unsubbed.

ground players lead the calls for weather to end air quake. I’ll keep reminding them of that as they simultaneously whine about population problems.

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


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

Lol their most recent isnt a ww2 game, and its barely double RO2. Still niche. Meaning, barely any market aka nobody likes ultra fake realism.

Vehicle simulation on the other hand has significant upside, as evidenced by warthunders numbers.

War thunder has numbers because it's free and available on nearly all platforms (along with the vast amount of vehicles it has). Also most of the war thunder population plays arcade.  I wouldnt use it as an example to prove that vehicle simulation is more popular than infantry simulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, madrebel said:

The 109 was castrated years before weather came and the cannons have sucked since the clip bug was rightfully fixed. scotsman’s munitions audit followed by the damage model audits likely resolve the cannons not working and the 109 while still not ‘right’ (needs to be more tail heavy, likely needs a control forces at speed pass too) it’s significantly better than it was.

The 109 castration did chase some out of the game but we had significant numbers still on both sides. Weather absolutely gutted the number of pilots.

i hear often “i like weather, it breaks things up”. Those break ups you like happen to coincide at times with squad nights - shafting a group of players at the same time. That leads to heard mentality with a negative frame of reference. You don’t design that stuff into a game and then wonder why people leave.

the reason weather needs to be removed is there is no ability to move forward until such time as we get a significant overhaul with the client renderer. The ‘clouds’ we have aren’t clouds its just a thick layer of crap. What we need is a proper volumetric cloud system, like the one I linked, AND - proper lighting so we also have a sun that blinds when looked at and is also the primary source of lighting for the entire world. This sun then needs to properly diffuse through the new volumetric clouds.

we can’t just work towards that like we can with hybrid supply which utilizes some of the old with some of the new. 

Weather + fishbowl need to be rolled back. Get players back in game, paying and playing, then use the financial resources after 1.36/64bit to update our client and integrate truSKY. Do that along with the texture work that is look very positive in the ESRGAN thread and you’ll grow the game’s population a lot more than you will bickering about which super realistic suppression or some other hokey fake realism effect will be the next cool thing for infantry. 

bring back the pilot and tanker numbers and infantry numbers increase with them. 

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, scotsman said:

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.

What needs to happen is a recognition of how and where battles are fought in the game and how aircraft are required to approach those battles due to the dynamics of the game. The game’s limited capture mechanisms and limited air targets dictate that the game is played a certain way for aircraft. For that matter the game caters to a certain type of aircraft due to those dynamics. The only real way to address the “airquake” problem is to give both sides the ability to compete in the air space that matters in game. Anything else is just [censored] poor game design. 

Edited by minky

Share this post


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

What needs to happen is a recognition of how and where battles are fought in the game and how aircraft are required to approach those battles do to the dynamics of the game. The game’s limited capture mechanisms and limited air targets dictate that the game is played a certain way for aircraft. For that matter the game caters to a certain type of aircraft due to those dynamics. The only real way to address the “airquake” problem is to give both sides the ability to compete in the air space that matters in game. Anything else is just [censored] poor game design. 

Agree - and its a shame that the deep logistics and such in the original game design were not fully implemented and completed...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, scotsman said:

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.

Agree 100%. It’s good to hear that the DMs are making progress, that will help a lot. As far as weather is concerned, I’m all for it and I don’t buy the weather killed the air game argument. Ideally, using the model you suggested we can improve the weather ingame to be much more realistic and dynamic. Weather is a major part of aviation, as those who work it in know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, scotsman said:

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.

On the 40% number, I am aware of that test and its a biased test. why? because pilots have two hands.  further, the spitfire required 66lbs of force to attain the same aileron deflection that iirc 48lbs of single arm force required in the 109. How much deflection then could a 109 pilot attain with both hands? the brits didn't bother testing that - so what is our assumption going to be? further and this is super important - your wording is the average 109 pilot. that is NOT true, the RAF 'test pilot' could only exert 48lbs of force. a 109 pilot, who trains and flies 109s all day long, will have muscles acclimated to the forces. I've never seen a german test with german pilots showing what forces they were capable of - i would LOVE to read one if you have it.

fwiw the germans also tested the spitfire, their opinion - also biased - essentially read the exact opposite of the allied tests.

allies thought the 109 controls were too heavy, specifically in the elevator. german test pilots felt the spitfire was WAY to light, specifically in the evlevator. truth then is in the middle.

one thing is for certain, and i'll happily provide the RAE memo - the spitfires extremely light 10lbs elevator forces were extremely dangerous as speeds increased. further having 66lbs of force for ailerons and only 10lbs for elevator at high speeds makes it extremely easy to over load your wings by pulling to hard. having controls be that unbalanced isn't good. heavy controls on the 109 prevented pilots from over loading the airframe. there is a report I've read of a finnish pilot who was apparently a beast of a human. as i recall from the report he nose darted after pulling too hard in a steep dive - total wing failure. there are RLM memos telling pilots to use rudder instead of aileron during pull outs, there are also memos instructing pilots to trim nose high and push/hold the nose into a dive to make pulling out easier on both the pilot and the plane. contrary to this, there are RAE memos telling pilots to not trim nose high in a spit, but if they do, dont pull on the control column and wait for the trim to bring the plane out of the dive, else you'll buckle your wings.

 

im 100% for that level of detail, and volumetric clouds, and wind, and all that. what we have in game is NOT that. its hideous, not 'realistic', and just penalizes pilots.

seriously make mud affect ground speeds. I'll tell you exactly what ground players will say once the first large squad's squad night is negatively impacted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

2 people like this

Share this post


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

On the 40% number, I am aware of that test and its a biased test. why? because pilots have two hands.  further, the spitfire required 66lbs of force to attain the same aileron deflection that iirc 48lbs of single arm force required in the 109. How much deflection then could a 109 pilot attain with both hands? the brits didn't bother testing that - so what is our assumption going to be?

fwiw the germans also tested the spitfire, their opinion - also biased - essentially read the exact opposite of the allied tests.

allies thought the 109 controls were too heavy, specifically in the elevator. german test pilots felt the spitfire was WAY to light, specifically in the evlevator. truth then is in the middle.

one thing is for certain, and i'll happily provide the RAE memo - the spitfires extremely light 10lbs elevator forces were extremely dangerous as speeds increased. further having 66lbs of force for ailerons and only 10lbs for elevator at high speeds makes it extremely easy to over load your wings by pulling to hard. having controls be that unbalanced isn't good. heavy controls on the 109 prevented pilots from over loading the airframe. there is a report I've read of a finnish pilot who was apparently a beast of a human. as i recall from the report he nose darted after pulling too hard in a steep dive - total wing failure. there are RLM memos telling pilots to use rudder instead of aileron during pull outs, there are also memos instructing pilots to trim nose high and push/hold the nose into a dive to make pulling out easier on both the pilot and the plane. contrary to this, there are RAE memos telling pilots to not trim nose high in a spit, but if they do, dont pull on the control column and wait for the trim to bring the plane out of the dive, else you'll buckle your wings.

 

im 100% for that level of detail, and volumetric clouds, and wind, and all that. what we have in game is NOT that. its hideous, not 'realistic', and just penalizes pilots.

seriously make mud affect ground speeds. I'll tell you exactly what ground players will say once the first large squad's squad night is negatively impacted.

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bmbm said:

TOE is just another word for spawnlist. It's not going away, nor are tiers (cycles). 

People use ToE to mean brigades, its like CP was originally choke points (town) but most people use it for capture point or depot.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

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 weather can be a downer if you want to fly...

what we have is not accurate weather.  not even close. since it can't be fixed 'soon' - why cant it be disabled until such time that it is something that adds to the game instead of detract can be delivered?

you want paying subscribers yes? again, go poll the subscription database for the 12 months following weather. is having ugly unrealistic weather more important than those subs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, scotsman said:

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.

please make sure of one thing when you do this - while designing it make sure its super simple to disable.

the moment you drop this realism bomb into the game world you'll lose a significant portion of the remaining ground players.

Share this post


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

what we have is not accurate weather.  not even close. since it can't be fixed 'soon' - why cant it be disabled until such time that it is something that adds to the game instead of detract can be delivered?

you want paying subscribers yes? again, go poll the subscription database for the 12 months following weather. is having ugly unrealistic weather more important than those subs?

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, scotsman said:

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.

i know - and all that = a long ways off. in the mean time, a more healthy subscriber base would be desirable yes?

also, you'll need some way to display wind and generally relevant conditions through the UI. For planes wind socks at the hangar seem simple but spawning in infantry you need some visualization as we can't lick our fingers and stick them in the air nor do we have constant feedback from our dermis helping to determine wind speed/direction. also what about turbulence inside clouds etc etc.

this may also be best implemented via GPU general purpose routines or at a minimum additional threads. computing wind in real time for all objects won't be easy and sending generic "grass sway this way" messages may not be sufficient if the actual effect is slightly different which would send shots off target if someone were attempting to correct their shot using generic feedback.

 

none of this is simple, yet we're to be saddled with ugly unrealistic 'weather' ... why? i agree with your previous points about bombs being unrealistic - they're not anymore correct? we also have SPAA, with more on the list correct? Those fixes were always the correct answer, not ugly punitive 'weather'.

Share this post


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

please make sure of one thing when you do this - while designing it make sure its super simple to disable.

the moment you drop this realism bomb into the game world you'll lose a significant portion of the remaining ground players.

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.

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

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.

 

 

it needs to be in so the current team feels the pain of player exodus. nobody listens to sensible reason as it pertains to striking a balance between 'realism' and fun. so yes, please, as soon as you can put in 'real' negative weather effects for the ground. they deserve a heaping helping of 'realism' - since so little is applied to them.

 

yes, please - ASAP. again though, make sure it can be turned off dynamically or with a simple server restart. you will lose tons of ground players the moment you actually penalize them with mud, snow, etc - just like you lost pilots.

 

people pay to PLAY the game - anything you add that prevents people from playing - well ... you'll see. or you could just go look at the subscription database pre and post weather. now map those loses to the ground.

 

*edit* by toggle on/off i mean globally - not individually. although if you allowed that and could track percentage of on/off you'd arrive at the same reality i'm talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, madrebel said:

i know - and all that = a long ways off. in the mean time, a more healthy subscriber base would be desirable yes?

also, you'll need some way to display wind and generally relevant conditions through the UI. For planes wind socks at the hangar seem simple but spawning in infantry you need some visualization as we can't lick our fingers and stick them in the air nor do we have constant feedback from our dermis helping to determine wind speed/direction. also what about turbulence inside clouds etc etc.

this may also be best implemented via GPU general purpose routines or at a minimum additional threads. computing wind in real time for all objects won't be easy and sending generic "grass sway this way" messages may not be sufficient if the actual effect is slightly different which would send shots off target if someone were attempting to correct their shot using generic feedback.

 

none of this is simple, yet we're to be saddled with ugly unrealistic 'weather' ... why? i agree with your previous points about bombs being unrealistic - they're not anymore correct? we also have SPAA, with more on the list correct? Those fixes were always the correct answer, not ugly punitive 'weather'.

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.

Share this post


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

 Weather would become just another thing on the list.

I want to do it...the question will be when.

I get you have priority lists. I get that you're fixing more important things, i do. I'm glad the plane DMs are higher priority.

 

Put yourself in the shoes of a dedicated veteran pilot that no longer plays the game. Who's last memories of the game were Weather/fishbowl addition.

The text i quoted essentially reads as "the reason you chose to leave the game isn't important enough to prioritize a much more detailed simulation of weather" the follow on to this reads as "and we're unwilling to just disable the script that changes weather so what you prefer to do most in game isn't penalized". do note - i understand the VALID reasons for priorities here, as will those veteran players (most of them). it doesn't change the fact that a penalty still exists - that specifically hurts them.

 

seriously, you fix the DMs and change the fishbowl back to a cylinder you'll still have this 'weather thing' as a blocker for a LOT of veteran pilots. its a script, that can be disabled. if you can do all 3 and do a welcome back solider you'll get pilots back paying and playing. pilots who also log ground missions, increasing numbers there too.

fixed 109s (and other planes are being audited too yes?)

fixed plane damage models

add stress damage (is on the list now yes?)

fixed fishbowl

but left 'weather' in

... go all the way, bring back the pilots. steal pilots from other games who are looking for the combined arms simulation only ww2ol has. there is upside potential here that i don't think anyone is really weighting properly. again, look at the subscription database - what do the actual numbers say? with that welcome back solider, do a crowd funding to license trueSKY. we'll still have a coder time issue but if we can get it licensed is at least step 1.

Share this post


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

What needs to happen is a recognition of how and where battles are fought in the game and how aircraft are required to approach those battles due to the dynamics of the game. The game’s limited capture mechanisms and limited air targets dictate that the game is played a certain way for aircraft. For that matter the game caters to a certain type of aircraft due to those dynamics. The only real way to address the “airquake” problem is to give both sides the ability to compete in the air space that matters in game. Anything else is just [censored] poor game design. 

even with broken 109s and broken DMs, the luft still managed to clear airspace until TOEs/Flags came in. don't you recall the JG2/JG26 sun blotters? JG53 at times had the numbers as well to just over run airspace. further, 109s have always been able to 100% dictate the fight against spits - its just incredibly difficult to learn and when you're out numbered 2:1 doesnt make it any easier. Once TOEs/Flags crippled BARCAP, since there now was no rear line airfields, the reduced ability to stop the flow of planes via BARCAP along with weather making BARCAP completely impossible while simultaneously giving CAS  the equivalent to "bush tunnels in the sky" luft numbers went from bad to catastrophic. add in the DMs/cannons being impotent and you arrive at where we are now - jg51 having what, 10 on a good night and essentially 95%+ of the total active pilots.

thats the funniest thing, weather was billed as being a relief valve for airquake and ended up protecting CAS. such a terrible design/idea.

1 hour ago, raptor34 said:

Agree 100%. It’s good to hear that the DMs are making progress, that will help a lot. As far as weather is concerned, I’m all for it and I don’t buy the weather killed the air game argument. Ideally, using the model you suggested we can improve the weather ingame to be much more realistic and dynamic. Weather is a major part of aviation, as those who work it in know. 

you weren't around when the air game was many times larger than the combined population we have now. how would you know? what then 'killed the airwar' in your opinion? JG1, JG52, JG54, JG26, JG2, JG53, KGBB, and others im forgetting all lost HUGE numbers or completely died off shortly after weather was added. allied numbers i'm not as familiar with but they fell quickly too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make history come to life or change it completely as WWII Online demonstrates the scale of combined arms warfare in a breathtaking and brutally realistic gaming experience.

That's the first sentence of the wwiionline website. Something tells me if people leave in droves as you say they would madrebel by adding well done realism then they are playing the wrong game anyway. 

Besides, based on your Warthunder comparison you seem to like to use, they have mud and weather/ground effects and you kindly pointed out just how many people play that game, I don't see it being such a negative and done well will be a plus for the game. I agree it needs to be done well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Merlin51 said:

Ball was a bad shape for an air combat simulation, it's ok for ground.

Before that was changed (we do not know why) your view placed you in a giant cylinder.

My recollection of the CRS explanation to some of us at the time is that cylinder required the air client to load all entirely-or-partly-within-cylinder terrain tiles, creating a client speed problem if visibility distance for other aircraft was to be increased. A sphere allowed considerably more airborne horizontal visibility for a given amount of terrain loading.

IMO it's possible that decreasing the ability of air players to spot ground targets at a distance was a further design goal, since the change was made in the context of ground players complaining that the air-ground balance was too tilted toward air. That however was not said by CRS.

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, aleca said:

That's the first sentence of the wwiionline website. Something tells me if people leave in droves as you say they would madrebel by adding well done realism then they are playing the wrong game anyway.

you consider the 'weather' that we have "well done realism"?

I'll link it again - https://simul.co/truesky/

That is what pilots want - coincidentally, its the volumetric cloud engine used in warthunder. We DO NOT have anything even close to trueSKY. what we have is fugly, not realistic, and drove away players.

yet - you like it .. super.

Share this post


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

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.

This is the lack of confidence I was talking about, good features add dynamic, if that dynamic can be disabled as option for an advantage of course people are going to do it. Have you ever heard the quote "given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game?"
Yeah, that's what you're doing when you make key features an "option" in fear of it being too much for the lowly player, incappable of even the minor discomforts of battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey look, trueSKY is now a two-fer - you get a water engine with it now too.

 

 

the hangar would crap themselves for trueSKY. again - WE DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING EVEN CLOSE TO THAT.

yet to some "its realistic" ... how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.