Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

383 Excellent


About 19//Moach

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Langley, near Vancouver BC

Recent Profile Visitors

952 profile views
  1. That would never happen. There's a world of difference between hacking into a game for one's own personal use, or doing so in order to go out ruining the fun for a bunch of people online. Hell, even I have used countless cheats in games myself, in single player.(never had much patience with fixing a proper budget on SimCity) - But that's the thing that separates harmless fun from potential crime: The harm is not using cheats in games, but in doing it against other real players without their consent. (there are even hack-v-hack multiplayer games, though I've never really had any interest in that - but anyways, as long as all are on the same page, this should be perfectly ok) But anyone who's had the misfortune of playing against a suspected cheater knows just how massively it ruins the entire experience. The effects vary with the severity of the unfair handicap imposed on the victims, but it easily goes as far as to turn an awesome game into an entirely unpleasurable activity. If not easily avoided, such as by switching to a better kept server, this usually ends with players looking for something else to play. That is a serious problem which costs billions of dollars to the gaming industry every year. The matter is is not that there is cheating in general, But that some choose to do it against a server full of people. Analogously, one might reverse-engineer his own car to learn how it works, and this would be perfectly fine. Now, go and reverse-engineer your neighbor's car without asking him first. See how he likes it. Point is: It's wrong when it's done to other people.
  2. If I'm not mistaken, I recall Japan and S. Korea have had people jailed for use of cheating software in online games. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_in_online_games#Legal_measures Wikipedia specifically mentions S. Korea. I don't recall where I read that Japan has also started taking the problem just as seriously, But I do remember it making the news some time ago. In the end, I reckon it is but a matter of time for this to become more and more common throughout the world. A person ruining the game you paid for by acting in ways completely against the terms agreed upon before playing is no different than that person coming to your lawn and breaking your windows with a bat. Either case is one of destruction of property with lots of added damages for the grief inflicted with the offense itself. Online cheating has the aggravating factors that the cheaters are breaking more than one person's windows. And most grievously, developers themselves suffer more than anyone for it, since online games are known to live or die by the quality of their player communities. Indie companies have everything to lose over this, and often have little to no resources at hand for effectively combating the plague on their own. To claim that developers should be responsible for policing and deterring such offenses is to place the burden of crime-fighting (with no help from the law) upon the most suffering of its victims. It's a fallacy not unlike that of blaming women/children for being abused instead of going straight after the abuser. The developer has a much more serious claim against these villains for obstruction of business. Their grievances are similar to those of a restaurant owner who's had a person come into his business, pull down his pants, and piddle onto a table right in front of everyone during dinner. A person who does this will most certainly be put away by local police. Charges will then surely follow, for this person has caused the irreparable damage to the establishment's reputation, easily enough to cause it going bankrupt. A cheater in an online game causes basically the same harm. Once a MP game becomes known as a "haven for hackers", it's reputation is forever tainted. So why is it that the pantless diner gets put away by the fuzz, while the equally harmful online cheater gets chalked off as "oh, this stuff happens, the devs should just ban these ppl"? The only reason I can think of, is that persons in charge of making up laws are still a generation removed from the gaming scene. As soon as the first few gamer congressmen arrive in office, cheating in MP games will most certainly become a very serious crime.
  3. Actually, I did mean that as to imply "at sea level" - It feels like planes struggle far more than they should.... But that's really it, a "feeling". Just a general sensation of precariousness in flight, too subjective to quantify or measure. Yet it affects flying enough to detract seriously from combat performance.
  4. Well, there goes that theory then... At least as far as pressure counts. Yet there is still a noticeable difference in flight characteristics between summer and winter flying in the game. Assuming pressure remains constant, the temperature is then the only factor affecting atmospheric density. It still feels like planes were "tuned" as if a standard day was of -50ºC, and anything hotter detracts from their performance. At least some planes feel that way, sometimes.... This is a very elusive issue. It might even be tied up with the Infamous Wobbles. My Programmer-Sense tingles a bit here... But that might be just any programmer's natural tendency to search for the "Grand Unifying Bug", that which when isolated and fixed, shall finally cause all problems in life to disappear. We'll get it, one of these days....
  5. I do find the trails are a bit on the "too thick" side - This is a cosmetic/graphics related issue, however. I have no meaningful criticism on the technical implementation of the effect as it stands. Two things that bother me regarding how the effect looks: Thing 1: The smoke is too thick - It is not transparent enough, alpha channel is too white, call it what you will. Needs to be made perhaps 50% less opaque to look perfect. Thing 2: The smoke comes off in two neat trails right off the exhaust stacks, and remain separated so for the duration. Regardless of massive propwash spiraling and churning up the air which should actually mix it all up into one homogeneous blob as soon as no fuselage remains in the middle. - This breaks the illusion of the propeller being there and actually doing its thing. Thing 2 is much less relevant for the Me262, for obvious reasons.
  6. One major factor it seems the videos don't consider, is that of density altitude. I have noticed that in BoX, there is a major difference in aircraft performance (all models) depending on the mission season. This is a natural phenomenon, caused by temperature and pressure affecting air density, and is one which RL pilots take greatly into account before taking to the wild blue yonder. I have also noticed that most non-winter scenarios in BoX seem to feature somewhat lower-than-standard atmospheric density conditions. This results in aircraft under-performing, as they normally should in such situations. Yet this is not accounted for in the comparison videos. I do not recall any mention of trying to replicate the flying environment itself with the same attention paid to matching up aircraft-related parameters. Which then again, just makes us wonder: Why is atmospheric pressure always so low in IL2? Most mission briefings note hpa's in the 7~800 range. (22.15"hg, roughly) This is quite low, considering the ISA (International Standard Atmosphere) pressure is 1013.25 hpa. (29.92"hg) That kind of weather is more commonly associated with birds hopping near the ground and people carrying umbrellas while looking warily towards a blackening sky. With summer temps thinning the air even further, there's little wonder planes often feel to fly like bags full of bricks. There's just not enough air. In the winter, however, it is quite noticeable that one can get away with maneuvers that would leave the exact same airplane dangling precariously off the edge of stalling in hotter days. This, obviously, affects all airplanes. Yet many people doing comparisons seem to neglect this rather major factor in their experiments. I'm not saying there's nothing amiss with the FMs themselves either. One thing does not necessarily imply another. The fact that the experiment is a bit flawed does not mean it can't still stumble onto something quite revealing. It just means the experiment might benefit from being redone in more controlled conditions, in order to get a more precise set of facts to draw more accurate conclusions upon. It actually raises an even more alarming possibility: Have all airplanes in the BoX fleet been "tuned" to specs under the exact same atmospheric conditions? This would seem too obvious to have possibly been missed out. Yet it is the kind of thing that programmers do sometimes forget. (I know, I'm a programmer too, and I've learned the weirdest and most elusive bugs usually result from the stupidest reasons) In a project as complex as this, there is just too much information to keep in mind. So even the best minds may sometimes skip something that when pointed out after weeks of troubleshooting causes everyone in earshot to go "D'oh! Of Course!" Nothing can be safely ruled out as "nobody would neglect THAT" - For that is often the very reason why someone has.
  7. It might be very useful to learn what your average ping is towards the server(s) where you play. That would help determine whether or not latency is somehow connected to the severity of the issue.
  8. I do not believe the stuttering is directly bound to the new spotting system. The reason for this conclusion is that in SP, there is little to no stuttering at all. (none that I can notice, at least) It is to me clearly self-evident that stuttering is a problem which affects only multiplayer games. It therefore cannot be logically concluded that reverting to the old spotting system would have any effect whatsoever on the issue at hand. It is my opinion that the spotting changes and the onset of MP stuttering are more coincidental than in any direct cause/effect relationship. That is to say: Having come about more or less at the same time does not imply one is somehow a factor in causing the other.
  9. 19// Moach + BoBP May The Force be with you
  10. This is actually an important tactic, and it works on any plane. (though some rely on it more exclusively than others) The concept is very simple, and is usually summarized thusly: Airspeed = Life; I find this a bit misleading however, as it somewhat implies that airspeed is a case of "the more the merrier", which it is not. Anyone who's found himself missing an aileron or flirting with the effects of compressibility knows it well for a lie. Fact is: Too much speed = Death; Also, coming up too fast gives you very little room to maneuver your guns onto your victim. The faster you come in, the smaller the chance of getting a decent shot, especially if the target sees you and jinks away at the last moment. What you really wanna do is not to go as fast as you can, but as fast as it is needed to ensure your adversary cannot possibly catch up. I have found (with an LA5, on BoS) that it is actually possible to conduct a near fully horizontal BnZ attack pattern. Just build up a decent turn of speed, take a shot at your new friend, then carry on without changing your direction until you're sure he cannot keep up and return you the favor. This is a good tactic for any engagement, and is especially effective when you come up on an ongoing furball. Just whatever you do - never allow yourself to "get greedy" and slow down to match your enemy's own speed - If that happens: Should his plane be best at turns, he'll turn around and kill you dead. Or if his plane is a boomer-zoomer, he can then blast away and turn the speed game against you. So regardless of what kind of plane you're flying, the rule is generally: More Speed Than Your Target Can Gain While You're Still In Range = Life; That said, it's worth pointing out that two planes in close cooperative communication are as effective as at least four (sometimes more) of the usual "I'm my own wingman" online pilot. The one thing you can always rely on being able to do alone in combat, is die.
  11. Many such games are plagued by rampant (yet never admitted) use of aimbot software and similar unsportsmanlike setups... This is already considered illegal in some countries, and people have been jailed for it, yet until this becomes the norm more or less everywhere, all we can do is know how to choose the right games and (more importantly) the right servers to play in. RO2 for one, has recently had serious problems with epidemic aimbotting - This I gathered, was due to some fault of Steam VAC which allowed these villains to go unpunished. The result was that only servers protected (up until then redundantly) by PunkBuster were capable of offering anything like a decent playing experience. Some server which had been similar to our own WoL in popularity actually became abandoned to the point of shutting down entirely, presumably after players began to realize that in other servers, they simply didn't appear to get constantly pwn3d so bad. Eventually, players migrated into the PB-enabled servers. That is the major reason I prefer COOP sessions on shooter games. One also tends to encounter a generally more noble cast of players in such non-directly-opposing competitive environments. I keep finding that direct confrontation tends to bring out the worse in many gamers. (leading to a phenomenon I call "Competitive Reduction of Gameplay")
  12. I would argue in favor of a DCS-like neck motion implementation, especially because I am using TrackIR. It gets strangely uncomfortable after a while when your brain keeps arguing with your neck muscles, about how the position your eyes are reporting should not be physically attainable at your current posture. The near-natural interaction of TrackIR is such that the mind can make that muscle-memory shortcut which bypasses having to think about what movements cause what results. View control by head motion thus quickly becomes second nature. (users often report instinctively moving their heads trying to look around while watching videos of gameplay, to obviously unprofitable results.) But with unnatural head positions being so easily reached, within just a couple of hours this sub-conscious eye-to-muscle shortcut starts to cause a bit of neck strain. The brain seems to find an "almost there" point, somewhere in Uncanny Valley, where virtual reality comes so close to the real thing that the mind allows itself falling back to instinct. Yet coming up just short of the instinctively expected result, this backfires and causes a subtle but cumulative muscle tensioning response. A more natural head motion implementation would allow the more immersion-minded of us to relax a bit, without that sub-logical nagging about how "Your head can't possibly be doing that!" forcing your muscle to second-guess themselves into knots; Because eyes continually insist that what they see contradicts the mentally hardwired geometric constrains imposed by having bones.
  13. You might have the mixture set wrong - It should remain at 66% for auto-rich operation. You'll find that it then remains perfectly cool (even with half-shut radiators) in most situations up until the engine decides to abruptly rend itself apart, when its educational timer expires. (A Pavlovian reaction training device, no doubt) Mind also, the '39 has separate shutters for the oil coolers and water radiator. (unlike the P40, which has them all packed together in its jaw) - Make sure both are open before placing the engine at the mercy of its integrated "death clock" (aka: throttling up a bit) Another thing; This goes for most US-built planes of that era: A Combat fuel load is typically 50% capacity. This is because most of those planes were built for hauls far longer than we normally bother with in this game. The P40 specifically, has a third fuel tank behind the pilot seat which doubles the fuel capacity of the wing tanks when full. It also puts CoG so far back that the plane becomes awkwardly unstable, killing its "mojo" in a way that definitely impairs its fighting spirit. I can't recall just off my head if the '39 also had such a tank. It certainly didn't have it behind the pilot, since that's where I found the engine, last I checked... Anyways, the P40 handles better with no fuel on the tail tank. (which you rarely need, since most targets we get are just over there past the river a bit) - It doesn't really help, since it can hardly maneuver properly anyhow unless given enough power to void the Infamously Vindictive Allison Warranty (from some alternate universe where aero engines are built of wet sand)
  14. WT and all it's Free-to-Play (aka: Pay-to-Win) ilk can be fully categorized and described by a handy acronym I came up with: C.A.N.C.E.R. That is: Comercially Abusive Novelty Coin Exchange Routine It describes the design premise of (flirting with illegality) establishing a local monopoly in which the publisher/developer places itself in a position to fully govern a captive market and it's internal conditions for both supply and demand. In other words, those companies decide how much you need their little gold coins and what for, while also deciding what they should cost. Then it's down to casino attraction design and drug-dealer tactics (the first taste of cocaine is always free) to hook in children with their parent's credit cards down the path of gambling addiction. I might one day write a book about the evil that is "freemium" - though South Park has done a better job than many so far of explaining it: The whole concept goes against the very basis of capitalism. It creates a null-value market which is effectively void of any competition inside each of those games. Therein they exploit the racket of an infinitely-repeatable zero-value purchase system*. The atrocity is compounded by deliberate misuse of medical research meant originally to better understand the behavioral patterns and thus help those suffering from gambling compulsions. (Exposed documents from Zinga (concerning FarmVille, IIRC) have confirmed this blatantly evil application of the scientific method) A gambling addict in a casino at least has a small chance of winning some of his money back. * This is a perversion of the previously existing, perfectly valid, DLC business model; where distinct items in a game are offered as optional purchases. (i.e: collector planes) The difference between this and C.A.N.C.E.R. is, despite common misrepresentation, truly massive: Whereas DLCs represent discrete items of known value, which are purchased once and enjoyed indefinitely; (think "expansion packs") The modern "freemium" model is centered on the sale of "coin packs", intended to be purchased again and again. The need for these is determined by the profiting party alone. As is their real-world money cost. There is no competition, as their ideal target audience is projected for individuals** who exhibit behavioral responses which may be cultivated into symptoms of severe gambling addiction. ** While less than 1% of the audience, these victims are planned to, and do indeed, pay for all the rest of the rapidly-circulating majority, whom often play "against the machine" only as far as it remains fun to do without putting down a penny. No matter, this is expected of the 99%; They were never the intended target. If you've ever felt like WT devs seem to "not care", well, this is why. So here the house not only "always wins", but also gets to take home the jackpot. I reckon the whole system is not yet outright illegal (completely, that is, for many countries have already banned some of the more abusive titles) only because those who are currently in a position to propose and vote in laws are still mostly one or two generations removed from the gaming scene. It is but a matter of time, one can only hope. And hope that such a time will come before these abominable methods have done any more thorough a job than they have already at destroying the videogame industry. On the other hand, this trend has done Indie developers such as myself, something of a big favor, by getting players so frustrated with the general state of big-budget gaming that many once mainstream players have been turned to migrate more and more towards more specialized, less greedy developers. Those being the only ones still making games designed around the premise that they should be fun to play, rather than prioritizing features that offer a larger potential for (achk!) monetization... Well, those are my opinions for now... I can (and often do) go on and on about it. But that's a very, very long dissertation I have yet to write.
  15. Prepared, that's the key word here, isn't it? Tolerance to G forces has lots to do with being ready for when they come, as to properly resist them. Yet, in a simulator, how on earth ever can you do that? Even if there were a "push to squirm" key binding, it'd be no trivial thing to get it implemented in any way that didn't feel off in one or many ways. A sim has to balance out the unbridgeable gaps between Virtual and Reality somehow... And once again one must remember: This is a historical sim. Pilots did not get G tolerance training back then like they do today. In some parts of the war pilot training was little more than "Is airplane, flies. Is propeller, makes go forward. Is gun, point enemy, pull trigger, win war. Avoid ground. Congrats: Is pilot now."
  • Create New...