Jump to content

DetCord12B

Members
  • Content Count

    662
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DetCord12B

  1. I own both, but P3D gets my vote with regards to addon development, diversity, complexity and quality. The visuals are better IMHO, as is weather, and of course seasons as it doesn't have them. You're stuck in a perpetual summer in X-Plane. XP still has its advantages in certain areas but P3D outshines them as it stands now. It'll be interesting to see the new MS FS title, how they go about things, and whether or not they rip the genre foothold from both XP and P3D. Some P3D screens.
  2. For all you Hunter fans, the Yukon is the greatest thing since sliced bread as far as DLC goes.
  3. I have access to TitanIM as well as VBS3/4.2. Neither of which simulate armored warfare. They're battalion/brigade/division combined-arms maneuver warfare sims, so focusing on the highly complex nature of armored vehicle warfare just isn't their thing, yet. TitanIM is moving that way, though they're years away given the complexity of simulating ballistics and frag of modern vehicles.
  4. Warthunder is arcade as most of the external sec's are hitpoint based. There are several consumer products out there that are actual tank sims, IL-2 Tank Crew not included. Many of which spent 3-5 years of the development process on damage modeling alone before anything else began. Which means they wrote external programs just to model the ballistic histograms needed for AFV sims. If you're looking for a no s@#t real, actual tank simulator, then be prepared to pay a sum of money for Steel Beasts PE. The Personal Edition is the military license for the civilian version (think VBS3) of this sim that's currently in use by the UK, French, German, Dutch, Danish, US and a whole slew of other NATO members for armored vehicle training. Now, if you want a hardcore and accurate tank sim without breaking the bank, check out Blaze of War on Steam. The War College, the Royal College of Defence Studies, and many others hailed it as the most realistic consumer based armored fighting vehicle simulator ever created. I really wish 1C/777 had partnered with Graviteam for Tank Crew as opposed to this unknown studio that has absolutely no background in sim production, let alone anything even remotely related the AFV's.
  5. WT is overtly simplistic when it comes to damage modeling, ballistics, and kinetic weapon systems. The only real tank sims on the market are Steel Beasts and the super old Steel Fury.
  6. ad nauseam Stop picking and choosing segments of a post to fit your narrative, because that's exactly what you're doing. It's asinine. I never asked that they improved the ballistic modeling. Why? Because you can't improve something that has yet to be demonstrated, period. What I and others have asked is that they provide a demo of their ballistic/kinetics modeling to begin with, which they've yet to show. TC feels like lobbing rounds at other tanks with no discernible act other than to do it and hopefully kill their HP based vehicle before they kill me. Are they hit-point based? No, maybe, a combination, no one knows because they HAVE YET TO DEMONSTRATE THEIR BALLISTIC system. You can not say you have a tank simulation and then not provide the pertinent data and simulation aspects to back it up. Tank sims require some crazy levels of computational mathematics only a few actual sims like Steel Beasts and Kharkov 42 have recreated. So if TC isn't a tank sim then that needs to be added to the product description at the header of the page. Because the real obsessive grognard lunnies of the tank genre are already discussing TC ad-nauseam via social media and they're badmouthing it due to the aforementioned lack of data. But hey, if you don't want these people buying your niche product then by all means, proceed with your current track.
  7. There is a huge difference between creating a flight sim, its subsequent airframes and damage models, and something else entirely to shift to the realm of AFV's with their kinetic weapons systems and highly, overtly complex, ridiculously intricate armor and CAP penetration values. They might be pumping out content, but we've yet to see any sort of ballistic simulation for any of the tanks provided for the tank sim they advertised, and I can guarantee you never will. I haven't logged into IL-2 since mid-May. Probably not.
  8. They'll add those. The armor will feature upgrades that a player can apply like cupola mounted MG positions (for both sides), so they have to nail down the anims for turning out before doing so. The damage model reminds me of this re-the response. Same thing.
  9. Having an absolute blast in it. For me, thus far at least, its far more enjoyable, stable, and optimized than PS ever was or currently is. If your looking to fix the AA issues so its not a pixel hunt like it is in Squad and PS, paste System Settings cfg into Engine.ini file found in C:\Users<USER NAME>\AppData\Local\HLL\Saved\Config\WindowsNoEditor
  10. Love the game. Really looking forward to the PC version. Will rebuy again in a heartbeat. I have the old (same) Carenado TBM for P3D. Had a lot of fun in it.
  11. I just wanna thank you for what you and the other livery artists do for us. Stellar work as always and a very big thank you from me. The stuff you do, it keeps me coming back to the series.
  12. There is just so much monotonous, clicky busy work in UBOAT. Like extreme micromanage nonsensical crap where you, the captain, have to for some reason move food back and forth between lockers and the like. It's such a mess and a complete shame as I really wanted to like it. DCS A-4 liveries completed.
  13. Really? Other than your vague single sentence statement, what exactly has changed? I asked because I read every single DD and have yet to see the myriad of issues associated with TC addressed. Hell, you're an insider here, could you ask that we see the kinetics? TC was advertised as a sim, so lets see the sim aspects. As the only thing that really matters are the kinetics in the long run I think its only fair to see how the developers simulate the ballistics. If you have no idea what I'm talking about then I'd suggest taking a look at actual tank sims like Steel Beasts, F4R, or Kharkov 1943 to see how overtly complicated this can be.
  14. I honestly don't know. The process is an exercise in futility much of the time as over a thousand parts are mapped individually and spread all over the texture sheet. That in turn makes camo scheme recreation overtly difficult for the German side of the house. This is probably why there is little if any community content for TC, and it'll likely remain that way in the foreseeable future. It's just overtly difficult and time consuming due to the way they made it. It also doesn't help that the Viewer isn't supported for TC content as the hull and turret are separate models. I did a series (3) camouflage schemes in a custom template for SCG use, so you could head over and join their group to gain access. However, they're just variations of the existing pattern provided in the default template and the custom version I created I eventually abandoned due to the nature of the way the textures are mapped. I just gave up. I won't spend weeks finding parts via a panel finder. On top of all of that TC is shaping up to be a disappointment, at least for me. The damage modeling is bad (it's abstracted), the terrain is bad, the texture mapping is haphazard, and the ballistic/kinetic modeling nonexistent. As someone that went out of their way to defend this product before and after EA launch I've just no faith that Tank Crew will be anything but a point and click hit-point adventure in a project that probably looked great on paper, but is ultimately hampered by an aging engine, one ill-suited to this type depiction and where the direction of the project seems to be a mash of arcade game-play in the guise of a simulation. Sorry for the long reply. Just felt you and the others that have contacted me regarding TC deserved my unabashed opinion as to why I'm not doing anything for the title. EDIT - This is not to say I won't come back to. Just that it's completely meh.
  15. On the Luftwaffe page in the first post. Just below the Götterdämmerung header. @Everyone I apologize for the lack of updates. I've been working on a complete custom pilot retexture and normal maps that will depict the storied segregated/black pilots of the Red Tails, otherwise known as the Tuskegee Airmen (as BP won't have them). The face I'm working to recreate at present is that of Lee A. Archer Jr., though I can only do so much via textures, and the lack of model alteration ability is a huge headache. This is consuming a lot of time in and of itself, and I've been pretty much concentrated on this sole aspect. Sorry for the lack of additions to the livery gallery. EDIT - I'll be sure to post WIP pics when ready.
  16. Endsieg Pack 1 added. Fw 190 D9 - JG26 Yellow 11 Interesting color usage on this one. Pay special attention to the rust red (repair) markings on the gear, carriage, and port wing. It's unknown how this aircraft was damaged, though the repair sections indicate a bad or series of bad landings as it was late war and few pilots of any skill remained. Features the rare then revised EF nose stripe. Fw 190 D9 - EKG(J)26 Blue 21 As with all the late war color schemes this one also piqued my interest. Nothing particularity distinct on this specific D9, though I liked the color splotching on the top of the fuselage and the red prop-hub. Also features the rare then revised EF nose stripe. Bf 109 K4 - KG(J)6 White 55 Features an odd splinter pattern I've never really seen on a 109. Likely used as a picket aircraft during 262 takeoffs and landings. Just thought it was interesting. Found abandoned in a farmers field near Graz, Austria. Bf 109 K4 - Unknown Unit White 31 Belonging to an unknown unit this K4 was captured by advancing American forces in Northern Germany at an expeditionary airdield. Features an odd color pairing allover and the rust red denotes quite a lot of repairs. This K4 was probably cannibalized and utilized solely as a parts aircraft.
  17. @Boomerang Looks good. UBOAT on Steam in EA is pretty much garbage. A3 texture project.
  18. All of this would be applicable if the crews had separate uniforms. They do not. The uniform is mirrored for every crew member. That means what the driver and loader have is what the TC or vehicle commander has and vice versa. It's universal with regards to the uniforms. Besides, it's highly unlikely I'll be continuing this project. TC is turning out to be the antithesis of what it was subtlety advertised as; that being a tank simulation.
  19. I'll get back to you with that. Many thanks for the help.
  20. Texture work for the upcoming GM DLC for A3.
  21. Small WIP before moving on to the D9's for Bodenplatte.
  22. Were you or anyone else personally targeted or singled out? Oh, nope, not at all? Right. And where exactly are the supposed insults? Please point them out with regards to who was and was not targeted. Moot. For a game/sim component (term loosely given the awful Pen/PvR values) that exists within the confines of the AFV side of the house for TC, everything about this environment is fairly awful. It's a copy/paste of ugly, low-res, low-poly flora and terrain assets meant for the FS side of the house. That works great if you're flying above it, not so much down on the ground. People can easily forgive a haphazard WIP terrain but the terrain isn't WIP anymore, it's done. So instead of rambling on, I'll just paste this comment from Reddit with regards to TC. One I think is spot on.
×
×
  • Create New...