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.

dre21

Ok give me a good reason

Recommended Posts

BMBM
6 minutes ago, stankyus said:

I can see all sorts of issues something like that could possibly cause like what happens to spall if it hits that interior collider or extra protection to crew etc. Unintended consequences.  TBH, all of that is not a huge problem in game anyway.  All in time I am sure.  You could add back is the ability to climb on tanks so they can shooting into the hatches again.  

We didn’t try to create an extra box, what we did was to try to get the engine to acknowledge the actual facings. The complexity of bouncing is just too much for the physics engine - although it does work reasonably in buildings (go figure).

Inf can climb tanks - or rather walk on them - if launched onto them from above. The collider treats footsteps and bullets as if they were one and the same.

Share this post


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

What if instead the roof, made up of multiple polygons connected to the turret upper edges, all meeting at a central vertex, has that vertex moved downward...so that the "roof" is now a polygonal "cone" extending downward into the turret?

We did that. The engine barfed. For now, there’s no practical solution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
N8
On 7/28/2020 at 10:56 AM, Kilemall said:

The right answer against the Matty in early tier is already in your faces- the Pak38 gun.

 

Had a 38 out yesterday morning. No result, no kill, shot it in the back, everywhere.

I eventually killed that Matty with an 3H, from the front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blggles

Jumping on tanks from the veh spawn (easier at the FB) is great sport. You gotta keep running, or you slide off the back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
6 minutes ago, blggles said:

You gotta keep running, or you slide off the back.

Infantrymen can stand, kneel or lay on slopes and not slide.

OTOH, corpses used to slide downhill.

What's the technical difference that causes this, and could vehicles be fixed/modified so that "sliding off the back" doesn't occur?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drkmouse
1 hour ago, N8 said:

Had a 38 out yesterday morning. No result, no kill, shot it in the back, everywhere.

I eventually killed that Matty with an 3H, from the front.

killed matty yesrtday with pak38  ONLy spot tath did dmg was  rear  lower ang plate :P even  10 hit tino gun did nothjing..  but  the alies in thses furums  love that unfair adv..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
16 minutes ago, drkmouse said:

but  the alies in thses furums  love that unfair adv..

If that is true, and should not be true (I know f all about armor), then it should be fixed.

Most of the Allied people you spar with here will likely say the same thing. If it's actually not behaving realistically, fix it. I can't recall anyone arguing otherwise about anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
goreblimey
31 minutes ago, drkmouse said:

killed matty yesrtday with pak38  ONLy spot tath did dmg was  rear  lower ang plate :P even  10 hit tino gun did nothjing..  but  the alies in thses furums  love that unfair adv..

How come I've been killed by a pak 38 frontally at about 400m then. First round killed number 3 and 4. Seems like pak38 is working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
17 minutes ago, goreblimey said:

How come I've been killed by a pak 38 frontally at about 400m then. First round killed number 3 and 4. Seems like pak38 is working.

Pak38 is better then most Axis realize.  I loved killing Shermans with them, but I wasn't confused with the idea that frontal engagements were gonna win.  That's for the Pak40.  Too bad it apparently takes Allied players to explain their kit to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drkmouse
19 minutes ago, goreblimey said:

How come I've been killed by a pak 38 frontally at about 400m then. First round killed number 3 and 4. Seems like pak38 is working.

ypou sure there was not one behind u also?

and have u   reproced that on the trainer erver?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
16 hours ago, drkmouse said:

so anytime a aixs palyers  say wtf it is winning??  ok..........

 

zereo atl  levl shots  both  last times  no incline even

Well if your account is accurate and repeatable, of course it should be looked at, demonstrated and fixed.

2lber CAN do more penetration then I think most Axis appreciate, but it's not a God weapon, nor should it coded to be for anyone's happiness.

I'd be particularly interested in whether the FHA and nose issues with that ammo is modeled.

 

I'd get ahold of whatever official CRS QA tester and do some tests with them watching.  If you won't or can't, find someone you trust to do it.  Help em solve the problem.

Except for some diehards that want every advantage (and both sides have that sort), most Allies are going to always vote model accuracy over happiness.

 

And for CRS, if you DO find a discrepancy between RL and the model, and it impacts certain models not all, then you should be accounting for that in your spawnlist valuation and adjust numbers accordingly.

Edited by Kilemall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drkmouse
37 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

Pak38 is better then most Axis realize.  I loved killing Shermans with them, but I wasn't confused with the idea that frontal engagements were gonna win.  That's for the Pak40.  Too bad it apparently takes Allied players to explain their kit to them.

not at all  when did they make pak 38 push as slwo as the  88?

is it the same for the 6lb?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
6 minutes ago, drkmouse said:

is it the same for the 6lb?

Dunno, the large ones are so slow I rarely use them. Wanna say the 6lber is faster than the bofors, maybe?

Honestly, we need an (on sides deploy) MSP to spawn ATGs and large AAA.

That or some way so that defenders can push as some high speed before an attack (like before the tables go hot, defenders can push ATG at high speed within some distance of town).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
15 minutes ago, drkmouse said:

not at all  when did they make pak 38 push as slwo as the  88?

is it the same for the 6lb?

I'm only about 3-4 campaigns out from being Axis and playing the Pak38, the two were comparable all along.  Can't absolutely say they are that way right this instant, but I've been comparative within a year and I wouldn't characterize the Pak38 as slow as an 88 or slower then a 6lber.  Both are slower then the light stuff, Pak36/25mm/2lber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
leaferz

The theme song to this topic  Tracy Chapman-Give Me One Reason

Great ear worm song.B)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6hQ9HSKlIE

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
goreblimey
3 hours ago, drkmouse said:

ypou sure there was not one behind u also?

and have u   reproced that on the trainer erver?
 

Definitely in front , saw it fire. If you are saying it doesn't happen normally, I'd believe that given who was firing it, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kidd27

im from Toronto. I love the Leafs. I have issues.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jsilec
14 hours ago, Kilemall said:

I'm only about 3-4 campaigns out from being Axis and playing the Pak38, the two were comparable all along.  Can't absolutely say they are that way right this instant, but I've been comparative within a year and I wouldn't characterize the Pak38 as slow as an 88 or slower then a 6lber.  Both are slower then the light stuff, Pak36/25mm/2lber.

Well this guy is convinced that everything axis is inferior to allied gear ingame....i would imagine its hard to actually sort out legit issues when everything is being reported as some allied bias advantage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
warspite
16 hours ago, jwilly said:

Infantrymen can stand, kneel or lay on slopes and not slide.

OTOH, corpses used to slide downhill.

What's the technical difference that causes this, and could vehicles be fixed/modified so that "sliding off the back" doesn't occur?

A corpse uses completely separate code, a living infantryman is using 100% CRS code for its physics, once it becomes a corpse it is being simulated by the ODE (Open Dynamics Engine) ragdoll physics.

The problem with our grenades (which also use ODE) stems from the paper thin walls that our buildings have and the colliders on some vehicles have faces that occupy the same position in 3d space but have normals pointing in opposite directions.

When a physics object such as a grenade collides with another object the physics engine needs to be able to determine which direction to 'push' the grenade to simulate it bouncing off, with paper thin colliders it cant do that, this causes the grenade to 'stick' because the physics engine is pushing it two different directions. CRS added code to stop it from happening but that causes other issues 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
49 minutes ago, warspite said:

a living infantryman is using 100% CRS code for its physics

once it becomes a corpse it is being simulated by the ODE (Open Dynamics Engine) ragdoll physics.

The problem with our grenades (which also use ODE) (...)

Sounds as if we need to re-define grenades as living things.

Quote

(...) stems from the paper thin walls that our buildings have and the colliders on some vehicles have faces that occupy the same position in 3d space but have normals pointing in opposite directions.

So if the two opposite facing zero-thickness planes are separated by a very small distance, that aspect of the problem goes away?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
warspite
13 minutes ago, jwilly said:

Sounds as if we need to re-define grenades as living things.

So if the two opposite facing zero-thickness planes are separated by a very small distance, that aspect of the problem goes away?

Grenades are living things, in that they live in the ODE physics world.

The collision faces need to be far enough apart so that the object cant travel through them in a single physics engine loop. But it requires most of our objects to be completely re-modelled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dre21

Is the roof kit in game nope . 

Also yes I forgot the Laffy 15 that was added too after we got to hear the ohhhh we can't possible put the Pnzjgr1 in cause they be easy pray.

It does not matter if Allies player play them a lot or if it needs a certain player with enough attention to detail.

It's the fact one side gets told one thing and the other side gets exactly 2 of these open concept Tank destroyers  ,  it's a perception thing I think you can understand that right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
2 hours ago, dre21 said:

Is the roof kit in game nope . 

Also yes I forgot the Laffy 15 that was added too after we got to hear the ohhhh we can't possible put the Pnzjgr1 in cause they be easy pray.

It does not matter if Allies player play them a lot or if it needs a certain player with enough attention to detail.

It's the fact one side gets told one thing and the other side gets exactly 2 of these open concept Tank destroyers  ,  it's a perception thing I think you can understand that right.

Allies asked for that thing, I think in large measure as a reaction to the 88. 

Anytime TDs come up, if it isn't a fully roofed Jagdpanther/Jagdtiger/Jagdpanzer IV, it's talked down.  Hetzers are also talked down, but a little more reasonably since they basically only bring cheap small hull ambush to the party, kind of similar to why the Chaffee is not a big must have. 

IIIG is the only one that passed muster in the polls over the years.  I think it's more Rats bowing to side community interest rather then some ebil master plan for Axis suppression.

I don't get it, by almost ANY point/resource system possible open topped TDs are cheap killing tubes, which is why the real armies made them.  More tubes for killing, more options to run around and make armor trouble.  Throwaway TDs for setting ambushes all the way from the FB to target in either attack or defense without the manpower suck of the tow, leaving the hardtops for actual assault work- what's not to love about em?  Plus any of those high tier 75/88 TDs are going to be doing their work at range, infantry isn't going to get a shot at them for quite awhile, TDs got no business in close assault anyway.

 

As for the roof kit I'm good with either there are two models, one with roof and no MG and one without roof but with 50 cal, or no roof effect, and also open-topped TDs on the Axis side that are similarly vulnerable to air and nades.  The direction in the models should always be towards accuracy, not emo.

Edited by Kilemall
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
7 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

The direction in the models should always be towards accuracy, not emo.

+10  S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BMBM

The Pzj I will be added in due time, just like the Marders and possibly the Bison and other open-topped vehicles so that the Axis may also fully enjoy being sniped from above and behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...