Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

319 Excellent


About 19//Moach

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Langley, near Vancouver BC

Recent Profile Visitors

647 profile views
  1. Funny thing, last few times I was in an airplane, I tested this out and discovered two things very relevant to this discussion: 1: It is indeed very hard to FIND an aircraft flying by itself at any range larger than 10km. I experimented by searching the sky as if for enemies from a 737-800 passenger window. This is not an ideal observation platform, despite my very sharp (fighter pilot grade) eyesight. The lighting difference between inside and outside an airliner window is too great, and this greatly reduces spotting proficiency. 2: Once you do find and airplane, it is almost impossible to lose track of it again. More than one time, having located a plane I then tracked it visually as far as I could possibly make out any clue of its position. I estimated distances based on our known altitude of 35k feet, which roughly means any object on the ground at a 45 degree angle from the plane is some 15km away. From this relationship, and the known size of the other aircraft (which I could clearly identify as it passed close) I could then continue to observe and easily locate the "enemy" even at ranges in excess of 30km. Knowing where to look made all the difference, and then finding the plane a second time there was very easy. I had deliberately interrupted my tracking at times, looking back inside the cabin and trying to find the plane again. Yet there it was, every time. This persisted until the aircraft was so small it became physically impossible to distinguish it from the clouds below. I can calculate the range at which it became impossible to see by simple math - the other plane crossed us in the opposite direction, and we can conservatively estimate our ground speed as 800km/h (discounting the lateral component of our not-perfectly-parallel tracks) - times two of course, our relative speed was around 1600km/h. I tracked the airplane for a period of no less than one and a half minutes after our nearest crossing. (1600km/60mins) *1.5mins = 40km Note also that lighting conditions were such that the plane being observed did not at any time "blink" with reflected sunlight. Yet it would have required intentional disregarding on my part if I were to lose track of it once spotted. Once something is seen, it is very difficult to "unsee" Yes, an airliner is much bigger than a fighter plane, of course - Yet that was an a320, which is not much larger than a WW2 bomber. (smaller than some) - I would have expected a figher-sized contact to remain visible for at least half that range however. As the human eye tracks objects, not pixels, and the apparent size of a thing being observed does not have a direct 1:1 relation to its effective visibility This simple experiment served to satisfy me beyond all doubt that spotting in this sim is indeed very greatly impaired. The difficulty in initial location may be excused as logical enough, yes, as it is also a factor in reality. Yet the complete inability to maintain track of a known object at ranges beyond 10km is quite simply absurd.
  2. This is the same I had posted in the Kerbal Space Program boards (where I used to be an admin, long time ago) - I somehow had neglected to mention it here though (d'oh!) So here's the latest child of my curiously unusual career as a game developer: Doctor Tsunami, the game is called. All the artwork in it was made using nothing other than MS Paint; And it was put together with Game Maker Studios (The "Paint" of game engines) to boot. But why? I hear you cry. What ever could have possessed someone to do this? Well... I can't really say. It's art I think. Or maybe its just a way to prove that you don't need modern tools that promise to make it all easy for you; And anyone can make a game if they just put their mind to it. Even without expensive specialized software. As for me, this game is special because well... I was part of the very small team who made it. I got in half-way through development, but then I ended up buffing up most of the code, redoing anything that didn't really work and whatnot (especially whatnot, when the rest of the team is ONE other guy) But mainly, I feel my biggest part in it was writing the original soundtrack. I had been brewing up some of this music for eons, as if waiting for some big project where it would fit. When my friend Rob (the guy who did it all in Paint) asked me for help and I saw the game, I felt this was somewhere I could put down all those ideas, not saving any for "later" as I had done so far. And since he was doing it all in Paint, animation included; (over 4000 individual images, in the end) I had no reservations about the fact that I did not have any of my music equipment ready at hand. And kept with the spirit of the project by scoring all in MIDI by mouse and keyboard. Of course, there are many better ways of doing it... But I think this was the whole point of the exercise, to show that games are not made by the tool, but by the hands and minds that wield it. And recently, the game was finally released on Steam: https://store.steampowered.com/app/8618 ... r_Tsunami/ Needless to say, as a two-man team just breaking in to the gaming industry; We got quite a lot riding on this. Anyways, I hope you like it. Ps: If you find any bugs, let me know. There are over 180 levels in Doctor Tsunami, and you can probably guess that a team of two is by no means sufficient to cover it all thoroughly enough to find them all. We've set up a forum for it here: https://www.doctor-tsunami.com/forum Well, enjoy!
  3. I have noticed the same issue - thought my eyes were going bad, but seems that's not the case... I must say, as far as bugs go, this is absolutely unacceptable - A real game breaker, really. This severely affects spotting enough to ruin tactical gameplay and corrupt the very nature of aerial combat. The game can easily degrade down into a contest of sheer dumb luck under such conditions. No amount of situational awareness can compensate for the handicap of planes vanishing when flying in front of clouds.... Clouds are thus altogether unusable, especially in MP, where fairness is paramount.
  4. you gotta copy the steam "cd keys" into your account on the IL2 website - hit "login" here: https://il2sturmovik.com/, then go in "profile" and select "License Keys" there you'll see the keys you have active, and notice that the ones you got from steam are missing -- open up steam, go in Library. Right Click IL2 BoS and choose to see your CD Keys in the menu that pops up -- copy those keys and paste them into the website that will activate your stuff this isn't really a bug, see. It just works like that
  5. Bumping up again, another vote for this feature! TrackIR in DCS feels a lot more comfortable, as you're not always subconsciously second guessing the position of your neck to avoid unnatural PoVs This has a remarkable effect on the long-term (>1 hour in play) onset of neck muscle strain, which happens whether you realize it or not, as what your brain is seeing contradicts the results expected from proprioception, thus leading to a constant tensioning and consequently to a sore neck hardened stiff. My upper torso muscles highly endorse this feature request!
  6. the difference is: here's a float carburetor, the kind that cuts off when you nose over: now, here's a pressure carburetor which allows inverted flight (for longer, mind you, not indefinitely) as you can see - there's one major difference between the two - that being, the float carburetor relies on gravity to keep fuel level constant. If you start messing with gravity, such as by changing the way it makes things go, then it won't work properly and you'll earn yourself some free glider lessons. Mind that no engine that I'm aware of is actually able to sustain unlimited time in inverted flight - Even the fuel injected DB-605's have a 10 second restriction due to the oil scavenger pump which starts sucking in air if the oil doesn't trickle down into the sump. Some engines are simply capable of holding that kinda attitude longer than others this is why oil flow becomes the limiting factor for negative G, notice the position of the oil sump pick-up
  7. I voted "no" - reminding that the question was if it should be included in BoBP So no, not in BoBP - At a later point, then yes, definitely, I'd sure hope for it - But BoBP is a no-go, not only because the devs already said they weren't adding heavies to that release, I also really think a B-17 is a plane of such legendary repute that it absolutely must be done right, or best left as AI only until that becomes possible. There'd be a riot here if a half-quality compromise Fortress turned up. And such a complex aircraft is no easy thing to make, especially not at the same time as the promised BoPB fleet, which is to almost double the number of options currently available in the game. That's why I agree with the sensible decision by the devs to stay away from heavies at this point in development. That is not to say they shouldn't revisit the concept at a later date. But well, would that be more desirable than carrier action in the Pacific? Who am I to say?
  8. Whoa there, I think my argument has been seriously misread - I had no intention of it sounding like a "threat" as I assure you, I have no intention of doing any hacking or undertaking any such objectionable pursuits in any way here.... I was simply sharing my fear that somebody else might someday decide to do those things. Who knows? It has happened to other games, and I really would not like to see it happen here. The main argument was to propose that an official rule be posted that mod makers must offer THEIR work as open-source. There is no need for the game itself to be any more open than it already is. Yet many aspiring modders (I would very much like to try making a sounds mod, perhaps) would certainly welcome any documentation and such materials as would provide an understanding of how these things can be accomplished. But again, there has not been any threat of hacking intended by myself, or anyone else that I know of at this point, as I suggested this purely hypothetical "worst case scenario". It grieves me to be perceived that way, as I have only the best of intentions in mind. I apologize for any perceived ill-intent.
  9. Worst case scenario: Without an SDK, modders are compelled to seek "creative ways" of doing what could have been achieved by much more secure official means. This is precisely what happened to the 1946 series. Without proper mod support, the game was eventually "forced" into accepting user made stuff, without an official method however, the "hack" became the tool. The result was an almost complete lack of compatibility across different packages. (took several years for the community to finally work it out, to some extent) And worst of all, with no official SDK, there is no way of stopping or even detecting harmful modding (like MP cheats, for instance) once it inevitably takes hold. On a related story, known from personal experience (my twin brother was the lead dev. back then) -- During the early months of public alpha for the Kerbal Space Program, there was one user who figured out a method to force the game to load a .NET DLL, that is: To inject whatever code into the game and have his way with it. This fellow was one of the good guys though, so instead of leaking it straight off to the interblags, he contacted my brother and shared his findings. They hired him. And so it was that they gladly produced an official SDK. Which made for a stable, dependable and most importantly: SAFE modding platform for all to enjoy. Thus, fostering what has since grown to be one of the most prolific modding communities out there. Another piece of wisdom stolen inspired by the KSP modding community: A key part of the terms of agreement for publishing user-made stuff is that: All mods MUST be open-source. Otherwise it is not authorized for release... And then, well, I don't know what happens if someone insists on not complying, 'cause I don't recall it having ever happened. Modders are usually very generous with sharing their work. (they are doing it for free) Another major benefit of the open-source rule, is that it became very easy for aspiring modders itching with "ideas" to look at how someone else did something kinda like what they're thinking of. The effortless ease of reverse-engineering other modders work set the stage for a glorious wealth of extremely capable, high-quality mods. KSP has one of the most comprehensive selection of mods in all of the gaming industry. So many people have done so much with (and to) that game, it's most wonderful to behold. So my advice would be: Release an official SDK as soon as practical, preferably before someone manages to do without. - And make it a rule that all mods need to have their source code made available beside any download links.
  10. Very nice one! She's running smooth as silk now! Even got to up my graphics settings a bit too! Effects on HIGH no longer causes FPS drops like it used to. Haven't seen any rubberbanding either, very good stuff
  11. What I usually do, is treat the 109 like an incoming missile. Much like dodging a guided missile in a modern day jet, the technique to evade a BnZ attack is quite simple once understood, but not entirely obvious until pointed out. So, you look behind, yellow! That's the wrong color nose! Gotta do something quick or your flight might get very unpleasant. The obvious thing to do is: Break. Sure enough, but how does one break most effectively? Well, that's the non-obvious part: The best evasive move is performed by turning your aircraft perpendicular to the attacker. Then break determinedly towards the ground (hopefully you got enough altitude as to not break into it) The idea is to make your aircraft trace a circle flat against the plane of his gunsight. If done correctly, it is all but impossible for him to get anything besides a lucky one-bullet hit. By breaking into a loop perpendicular to the enemy's line of fire, you're making yourself the most uncooperative target imaginable, since your path will be seen as the maximum apparent motion from his perspective. As for direction, right or left, doesn't really matter. The important thing is to break in the direction least convenient for your 'guest' to follow. It often proves worthwhile to try and duck "under his nose" - Those yellow things are fairly large, and it's easy to lose someone behind them if he makes a rapid change of direction that way. Another thing to consider, avoid stalling as you break - This same maneuver can be executed in a calm and deliberate fashion without even getting pre-stall buffeting much. There's a Jedi-like knack to finding a 109 on your tail muzzles aflash and somehow not totally panic. If you manage to keep your cool and maneuver only as hard as you need to turn into his cross-plane and change direction only just enough for him to overshoot, you'll preserve precious energy which you can use to turn the fight around on your new friend. Anyways, In general, "Down" is a very good direction to break. Not only because you can blind-spot yourself under his nose, but mostly because then you can easily follow your (ideally unstalled) breakaway with a high-speed dive. So once the attacker is away in the wrong direction, you're nose-down with everything under your left hand pushed all the way forward. By the time your foe turns back around to find you again, you'll be miles away. Even if the 109 is a better diver, there's basically no way he can catch up if you break down and continue on with your dive before he ever gets a chance to start his. Once you're on your way downhill fast, that's the part where you call for help. Get in TeamSpeak, it really helps get the point across when others can hear you in the high sopranos of extreme urgency. Now... On a head on pass, it's mostly all about luck. The tricky thing is to be certain that it's an enemy approaching you and not a friendly. If you're sure it's Fritz, (or Tommy, if you're Fritz yourself) then you can do the only thing which one can possibly recommend on such a situation, having failed in getting across the vastly more productive advice of "don't go head-on": Shoot First! It's really all you can do at that point in this desperate turn of fate you've conjured for yourself. And make sure you dodge in a direction he's unlikely to choose as well. If both dodge the same way, none do. And don't wait to see if your bullets make pretty sparks when/if they hit him, your rounds will reach him only a few milliseconds before your engine with you and plane in tow gets there too. Moreover, It's best to always assume the other guy means to run through you and/or has no plans for doing any dodging today. So just fire and forget. Miss and miss, you live to shoot again. Hit and hit... Oh well. Another thing to keep in mind: Check your ping. If you're flying with a 200ms-ish delay, that's roughly the amount of time your enemy will have you for a stationary target even as you break away in what to you seemed like perfect timing. Remember, any other player sees everything you do after a delay of at least half your ping plus half his own. That is the mathematical fatalism of net latency. And since ballistics are computed client-side and the server "takes your word for it", a high latency invariably favours the attacker, giving him that extra time for a head start. This is not a bug, it is but the "least worst solution" to an impossible technical problem faced by all online games. This is particularly important on head-on passes, it is also why so often one player explodes and another doesn't in a way that's almost always hideously unfair. To one player there may have been a collision, but not for the other. And who knows what the server understood of these two disparate versions of that same event.... There's no right answer to this mess, so the server helpfully serves us a wrong one instead. So rule of thumb is: Break/Dodge as early as your ping is high. Fly safe out there.
  12. 1: Planes are incredibly detailed, graphically very pleasing (metal looks superb) and systems modelling is superior even to BoX series. Engines are realistically implemented such that all gauges in the cockpit play their duly important roles. Damage models are equally intricate, with many fantastic ways in which one can get shot down. 2: The community is small, and server population does vary heavily depending on time of day. This can be troublesome for those close to the pacific time zones, due to a phenomena known as the "Pacific Gap". Otherwise, especially during weekends, ATAG is usually full with 50~100 players. The individuals you'll meet there are top-notch, friendly and welcoming beyond the best of any other gaming community anywhere. Best MP crowd in the internet, hands down. 3: Nothing has as much in terms of 'sheer bulk' as the original 1946 game. Except perhaps that "other game which isn't really a simulator and does not merit attention". CloD has fewer types than BoX, but there are many variations of those types. And each is detailed in such depth as to make up for any lack of "breadth" to the fleet. Still, given it's BoB focus, you'll find all the major types present in that battle are featured. Others are available as AI assets. 4: Updates are now finally returned to the CloD scene. With the release of TF4.5, there have been a couple of minor updates already and a larger patch is currently under testing to work out the assorted "teething issues" which inevitably came with such a large update. TF had since asked for the opinions of players and it was largely agreed upon that smaller, more frequent updates would be preferable to a new delay as long as the one leading to 4.5 Nevertheless, TF has committed itself to prioritizing fixing issues with 4.5 before any new major steps are undertaken. In short, CloD is quite easily the best multiplayer experience you'll find in any flight simulator series today (and for the foreseeable future) - An unusually high ratio of proverbial 'bang for your buck'
  13. These things happen more often than one would think. And it's most unfortunate when they do, enough to massively detract from the MP experience in this series.
  14. A very valid point. Yes, streak counting alone cannot keep you from abusing and returning to base if you're committed to always respawning anyways. It is always possible that to some players, the mental triggers which subconsciously invalidate their perception of success when going through the respawn cycle are not as effective. That is: These players would not feel the same frustration that others do at having to respawn no matter what happens, and something else is needed in order to encourage them. This is not an easy question, I'm sure we all understand. But it is clear to me at least, that some progress has been made, as players would now have to indeed RETURN to base in order to preserve their streaks. At present time, there is no incentive for some to do any more than bomb and bash until empty, then use the plane itself as one last round of ammo. If a streak system can have these guys at least flying home to land, it has accomplished more than half its goal. But yes, it seems that there is another piece of 'encouragement' needed. Which I suppose must be added to this proposal. An "R+R Bonus" of sorts. In ATAG, one has the benefit of public acknowledgement, as every player in the server gets to read the <rr100 command when it is entered into global chat. This has an effect of announcing "There! I made it" for all to hear, be it friend or foe. It is rather satisfying to realize that all will know it when you have not only survived, but actually get to use the plane again after a combat sortie, especially if there's been a heated dogfight. This draws back to another older suggestion I had made, to openly announce safe landings by pilots for all to read over the server events feed. Much like getting a kill, a landing then becomes a point of pride, which pilots receive as public commendations for their success. Much the same, the game could announce "<player> is rearming..." whenever one gets to reservice his aircraft. Yet it would indeed be unfair to have a streak reset while defenseless on the ground. A solution which comes to mind would be: Award the strafer a ground kill, and do not count it as death for the victim if he is landed. This would make it less frustrating to be shot while unable to fight back. Pilots on the ground are therefore 'safe', as far as their scoring is concerned, even if not invulnerable in practice. This would be beneficial both for R+R users as well anyone who simply happened to spawn in the wrong field at the wrong time. Another concept taken straight out of CloD, whenever a kill is made on the ground, the server should announce "<player> has destroyed <victim> while landed". This would greatly lessen the frustration of the victim, as he would be assured that others perceive his fate as "poor luck", rather than a defeat. It would also fairly temper the sense of accomplishment gained from vulching kills, as the shooter would not have any illusions that others are perceiving his kills as results of air-to-air combat. All of which is surely fair. Still, we must also consider the multiplayer-endedness of this proposed solution, which does leave SP in lack of proper features to properly encourage RTB and R+R. A reasonable solution would be, much like in case of emergency landings, impose a small toll on score when a plane is returned with pilot-induced damage. This would be a historically authentic element of the game, as IRL any pilot would get some heat by his superiors after landing if he needlessly trashed his plane. This would perhaps be overridden by any enemy-made damage suffered, so if 50% emergency landing is given, a possible 10% engine abuse penalty would be ignored. Enemy cannon fire is indeed substantially worse to the upkeep of an engine than a few moments of overboost. Unlike MP, this kind of score is more prominently featured over the course of campaigns, making it certainly easier to implement with the existing scoring system alone. Online though, this would work only under the premise of another suggestion I had made some time before, that the game ought to visibly score generic "points", as to allow it rewarding more than the mere act of killing an enemy. (plus, kills are easily "stolen" by an overly eager teammate, or even AAA fire, very frustrating indeed) In a best case scenario, where points are implemented and made top priority on ranking (without need for checking a website, that is), it would be relatively trivial to properly account the demerits of engine abuse with a 10% decrease in score for that sortie, unless combat damage is taken to justify the necessity of the abuse. Then it would be just as straightforward to award an R+R Bonus of a few extra points whenever the system gets used after a sortie (provided a minimum time in flight). Again, it all comes down to scoring and the need for a more comprehensive system, which would allow us to address these frustrating "merit recognition and credit bugs".
  • Create New...