Jump to content

[_FLAPS_]RogoRogo

Members
  • Content Count

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About [_FLAPS_]RogoRogo

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://robertsspaceindustries.com/orgs/HHOUNDS

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Austria

Recent Profile Visitors

414 profile views
  1. you should contribute in the bugthread that already exists..
  2. External fuel tanks are less "fireball" than one would imagine. In modern times they are often utilized as "sacrificial armor/fuse trigger" even - see fe the soviet BMPs, some BTR variant, the S-tank (Strids 103) when in full combat equipment (heatfence and diesel cans on the side). Even igniting diesel results more in lowyield (but constant and hot temperature) fire than a "fuel bomb explosion". As stated earlier.. things get violent if the ammunition manages to sputter/nebulize diesel into an incendiary atmosphere. And then there is the question how the game is able to represent these chances and conditions. Which may mean that the current ingame translation is not that bad or the best the engine can currently handle.
  3. as far as I know - these "special" drop tanks were a Maltese exclusive....
  4. I have noticed this for some time - and I seemed to remember a "recent" update where a fix for this was mentioned (and it seemed fixed for me) and then it seemed like that line got removed from the patch notes. I might be wrong of course. Or maybe this is a repo-merge error/fail, maybe this is due to an unresolved third-party software issue. The bug itself is very weird, because it is hard to find any sort of reproduceability or categorization when it is likely to happen. I have noticed - and tested with other players as well - the following occurrences: you look at a plane and it just vanishes, not a renderdistance error, you can be at a stable distance or coming nearer (especially bad when you try to dive on a plane) you have a plane rendered, you look away (rotate away your rendercamcone) briefly, rotate your view back on it.. and it is gone (but IL2 works with a renderglobe, not a camcone as far as I know) you are in an area.. and not everything is rendered for everyone, that INCLUDES non-playable assets like AA puffs, AA tracers - and it is seemingly not related to density, it can happen with 2 players or 10 players in the area it is not FPS-related, it can happen at any framerate from low to reasonable to high We are talking about a bug, not an exploit (maybe there is an exploit utilizing the bug but that still is not the issue) - a bug that seemed fixed again within the span of this year. Maybe it is LOD-distance related where detail-exchange in models and skins lead to a non-render that just stays over a certain amount of ticks, maybe it is package related.. or it is even due to low-ping vs high-ping packets "drifting" over the server-refresh for a few cycles. But it seems so arbitrary that it is really difficult to come up with anything to categorize towards a source isolation by elimination. And since this includes NPC-action assets, maybe this is not (just) an old bug coming back but an entirely new one or a related or merged new one. IMHO even a temporary 1-pixel fixed minimum render outside the renderglobe and in all exception catchers within the renderglobe would not fix this - since assets just vanish and pop back in. System: DirectX VersionDirectX 12 Graphic card nameRadeon RX 570 Series Graphic card chip type AMD Radeon Graphics Processor (0x67DF) Graphic driver 19.5.2 Graphic driver version 26.20.11015.5009 Graphic card manufacturer System manufacturer Graphic card memory 8 GB Memory 16 GB Processo rIntel Core i5-2400 CPU @ 3.10GHz (4 CPUs), ~3.1GHz
  5. Well, maps of the era, even the military ones were not that precise to begin with.. but since it just "is" the aerial minimap you access in a tank... who knows... I found scratching my head until I was sure whether I am on the right road or where I actually am in MP (fe on KOTA) quite enhancing (on the other hand - you can always see the glass half full if you try hard enough) Maybe more integration of the proper military markings for mission creators (manually placeable, purely "cosmetic") would help. And looking at old maps, they really were not that precise...
  6. I would like to repeat a few things that already have been typed (by different fellow gamers) in this subforum but need to be typed again: NO.. it is NOT acceptable to have "FPS aim" for tanks, not if you just don't care that much about them, or see them as "just a bomber turret" or "because War Thunder and WoT, CoD, BF whatever do it" Il2:TC is a TankSIM, not an alt-avatar shooter (which WT and WoT are, that even is their internal mission statement) - the desire to control a tank turret with a joystick is a desire for immersion and fidelity (modern tanks control their turrets with yokes, joysticks, and yes, WW2 tanks had wheels... but also buttons when using electric drives) - and a joystick translates the feel of "moving the turret and aiming the gun" better than a mouse. So players would like to experience that, at least in singleplayer, maybe even in MP (if the pacing and gameplay design allows for it) - in native controls, not via feasable, but still "should be optional" workarounds. Steel Beasts mouse centric approach is due to its history (like DCS, its code started for real turret/Zielhang simulators) - and the code was built using the COM/UI protocols, because the Hardstands were using that I/O interface, and so did PC-mouses, and then it never changed. And if you look at SB, you create a (visible) slew-input until you drag the reticle over the target - you do not at all "FPS-aim". It also works very well because it translates nicely fidelitywise in cold war era / modern MBT/AGS/ATGM vehicles, both in feel and looks (although.. in reality, they still use joysticks, trackballs and yokes... even a Dingo with a remote top-MG uses a ministick/screen setup, so does every current RFV/hybrid-autonomous prototype. Also some yoke setups in MBTs are fascinatingly un-intuitive and non-ergonomic, fe the early Challenger.. but then.. just look at British flightsticks from the Spitfire up to the Bucaneer...eyebrow-raising stuff) In IL2:TC on the other hand, you move an invisble cursor and define a xy-enpoint coordinate, and the turret/gun moves to that coordinate, aka pure FPS AIM - you define a pixelprecise aim-endpoint, you do not move the turret/gun to - maybe - hit something by how you moved it while looking through your optics. Even a very basic (and poor) FPS-product like "Post Scriptum" manages to better purvey the clunkyness, weight and non-precision of aiming a WW2 turret/gun (in this case by limiting controls to WASD input... which works.. but should not be remotely considered for TC, well... maybe as a second possible input binding). So even if TC would stick with mouse-only controls (why? we can even fly the planes with a mouse, why is the other way round suddenly a problem) - the approach to mouse controls needs iteration. We need to move and aim the turret/gun in a direct input translation, not aim an FPS style xy-endpoint-coordinate with the turret/gun just "autoslewing" onto that aimpoint (indirect input translation) Of course this could be more accurately described by going into a more technical zero-order/first-order control description.. defining fe jerk as additional sub-factors... but.. the 1C knows all that better than us.. and we among ourselves need not be that pedantic (I hope). So the valid request still stands - please make TC gun controls proper (again), please allow joystick (even dualstick.. as I described in my HOSAS/HOTSAS thread) controls for us to properly enjoy "Tank Crew" to its fullest potential.
  7. @airahusky - just fyi... exactly the same happened to me, flying a dynamically generated mission in a BOK career with an FW-190 - half the parked airplanes were assigned as "friendly", and my pilot got executed on return (with no possibility to roll this day back) - so the bug is still unresolved. The bug happened on a mission to an airfield west of Slavyanskaya. I presume the data\Flightlogs file would be the one you need to solve this (I could not find any other file in the current \data and its subfolder, please advise if you need a different one) - file attached to this post. Additional Info: I flew to the same airfield (directly west adjacent to the City of Slavyanskaya) in a different career - and the same row of airplanes was again marked as friendly (the southern row in the single plane shelters) - so maybe this is not a global dynamic bug but somehow tied to this airfield or airfields using exactly this location template. Maybe this bug can be solved easily. missionReport(2019-05-31_09-52-36).zip
  8. i think you are firmly talking wires-crossed at each other: So better check the basic steps again: did you link your STEAM purchases by MERGING the accounts via the website properly (So your Steam Account ID and you IL2 website ID become one https://il2sturmovik.com/account/login/?next=/account/login/ did you download the IL2 universal launcher (I presume yes) - this launcher launches completely separate from steam https://il2sturmovik.com/download/ did you then open the launcher so it synchs with the IL2 database.. and your Steam content becomes available (you may have to repeat that step maybe twice) did you then make an additional purchase... that correctly shows up - by using the universal launcher (not the Steam product) with the merged account After these steps you do not need Steam at all.. the separate single "Il2 Sturmovik" logo starts the universal launcher, where you press "play".. which loads the "merged install" of all your purchased BoX products and possible add-ons. If that has been fumbled up.. you can still repeat the process (login "via Steam" on the Il2 Website, check if the account is merged, launch the universal launcher aso)
  9. I was speaking in relation to Steel Beasts... so about the general(ized) need to unbutton in "immersive layer" of actual gameplay.. or sort of the "historical relevance" of the commander unbuttoning or intermediate-peeking with regards to TC vs SB, Personal preferences nonwithstanding - everyone has them and should be able to apply them in gameplay as best as possible. I fully underwrite and want to emphasize on your last sentence... in fact most of my few posts are exactly about that. I hope that 1C/777s change from a relative motion gun control (you move and aim the gun with its asset behavior, NOT an aimpoint) to a pixelprecise zero-order motion of an FPS aimpoint with the gun following with a slew rate (and that coupled to the pilot headcam controls) was just an intermediate necessity.. and they go back to the way more "tank sim"-suitable and immersive relative motion aiming (plus that one stick-axis-assignable). Steel Beasts in that regard weirdly is then a bad comparion (for purely techno-historical reasons)
  10. true.. but in Steel Beasts you command modern assets with modern camera systems, peri-17 (et.al.) independent optics aso, yet modern hatches (fe Leopard 1, 2) still replicate the hatch-position (albeit now less relevant) of german late-war commander's cupola hatches (Pzkpfw VI Tiger II H,P, Pzkpw V Panther A,xx). Aka flat - sideswinging instead of hinging, and the ability to either fully unbutton (hatch sideswung open) or lock the hatch in an intermediate position (hatch raised and locked but still covering the cupola opening) where the commander could "peek" or "bino peek" while having some protection against grenades and ballistic trajectory munitions. In fact this "intermediate" position was the most commonly used with experienced commanders, since the mirror periscopes offered limited situational awareness and spotting potential and the commanders rotating persicope had a fixed angle.. and spares became less and less available for all (and they were easily damaged by any incoming fire). Ofc for TC.. nice to have if possible (aka out render, damage model)... if not possible.. surely not the end of the world.
  11. isn't the answer obviously "yes, if it is viable?" Aka if TC is successfull to warrant expanding on the product?
  12. Sound like the entire extent of the gameplay design of that Russian game pretending to (also) be a tank game....
  13. @1) I have.. extensively.. and found nothing. Since communication outside of organically grown channels is not 1Cs strongest suit and you are not providing me a way to access the information you are refering to.... I must remain uninformed. @2) If I have to discuss with a tester about the fundamental difference for the genre-character of TC whether the gun operates via a first order pixelprecise FPS-aimpoint with a slew rate or an asset-based aim via actually aiming and ranging the gun... well.. then why even bother anymore... (and no.. just because SteelBeasts did it a decade+ (two actually) ago does not count.. because they used the serial mouse protokoll (aka COM) for the actual I/O of the then turret simulators, so it happened to become the "game version" control solution as well. @3) communication... communication...
  14. Truly typed OP. Especially "ULQ 2.0" is something that hopefully gets adressed. When a game offers PvA interaction (which included players playing with each other against other players and the enviroment) the mechanics, controls, assets, behavior (especially behavior) and the rules of the playfield have to be sound - ultrasound (pun intended). Lower settings and "deforestation" have to be countered by 2d sprites or other available solutions. Otherwise there is no way to counter "exploitation" by those who favor "the win" over an actual experience (not like there are not enough industry examples for that - especially in products by those twins who almost achieved the demise of Oleg Maddox' "old" 1C). But this product has a certain potential consumer-base - and the engine, the netcode, the absence of levelstreaming already task much of servers and clients while not being able to truly handle "enough" entities for AA, moving assets, combined arms.... (yet?) 1C/777 basically has to play catchup with a workload of almost a decade with limited ressources (I hope for them that they win over the RoF community into FC.. purely for business reasons). But they are trying.. and while immediate "sinking" of destructible enviroment blocks may look outdated.. it shows that they keep on making the most of what they have at the time. So to ring a positive note as well - assorted musings: derailing a train by ramming had really satisfactory asset behavior (you can ram the tenders.. the derailing looks plausible.. you cannot ram the locomotive) surfaces changed tank behavior even more credible different trail animation and dustups on different surfaces windspeed and direction influenced the behavior of the exhaust-cloud.. as did varying engine load (but not the dustcloud animations.. which are still the unified default ones) P.S. Please 1C.. get rid of the FPS-aimpoint decision for TC.. go back to aiming the gun.. not the aimpoint!
  15. That is very nice to read - but unfortunately I was not aware of that... and I WAS looking for any information by 1C/777 about this before typing... not once, not twice.. many times - here, there, everywhere. So maybe you can provide this information (or link to) for me to settle. Because I would like to know whether they adressed the control separation issue.. or also the GAMECHANGING (design intent, genre) issue of changing from an immersion asset driven weapons control to an aimpoint-system (and that was an intentional change). Btw.. the "vehicle tab" only appeared because of community-members speaking out.
×
×
  • Create New...