Jump to content

AbortedMan

Members
  • Content Count

    1049
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AbortedMan

  1. Had a Russian player make it to a German base (Plesiovskiy) and sit on the airfield spawn camping aircraft that spawned in. He said it was "capturing" the airfield, when in reality it was just trolling. There was no objective to be had there, other than spawn killing people that were unaware of what was going on. I get that it's effectively is capturing/occupying an airfield and shutting down enemy operations, but this does not seem intended by the mission creator as it did not give a time limit to how long he and his friends could sit and destroy spawning aircraft. When this happened, the server population immediately died. In order to effectively destroy the T-34s you must go to great lengths...meaning 1000kg or 1800kg bombs, which would destroy the entire base. Either way, it is not a good mechanic for gameplay. People were excited to see tanks roll into the airfield at first, but then about 5 minutes in it got extremely tiresome trying to clear the area of player tanks. We were never successful and the server population simply exited to go play somewhere else.
  2. Different cloud rendering method in RoF than BoS, WT, and ArmA 3. I believe the clouds in RoF are some sort of combination of sprites rather than a volumetric model/mass that are featured in BoS, WT, and ArmA 3
  3. The same low res alpha effects happen in War Thunder and ArmA, so it's not dx9. I reeeeally wish people would get off this whole directx thing and educate themselves before making those types of assumptions.
  4. Maybe you should stop playing BoS since all you do is complain about it on the forums?
  5. Automatically/artificially adding more aircraft to a player's wing just shifts the problem of one side being too strong to the other side. Multiple aircraft is much more of an advantage than just being a single superior aircraft...and what will this fix if the German players get together and start using teamwork (as squadron groups often do)? Nothing. That's what. If you want to feel a sense of achievement while using the "inferior" aircraft, try using them to the degree that the game is actually trying to simulate--complete mission objectives, escort, fly CAP over an area, etc--stop just dogfighting. In the grand scheme of things, when EVERYONE is going out and performing a fighter sweep like EVERYONE does it becomes a uselessly redundant task that means nothing and only puts you (and the opponent team) in a never ending horrible situation. Play the game the way it's meant to be played and the performance disparity won't be an issue at all.
  6. No one wants to dogfight against AI. That's what quick missions are for.
  7. I'd like to see separate fuel tanks act as separate fuel tanks instead of one big linked fuel system (if that's how it was in real life). I'm assuming a leak in the right wing tank in real life wouldn't also leak all the fuel from the left wing and fuselage tanks as it does now...which doesn't make sense.
  8. Well, if people are having issues with the poorly laid out mission objectives on that server they could always ask about whatever icon/map hacks the guys topping the Wings of Liberty kills per minute stat boards are using. There's three or four guys on the leaderboards that seem to have zero trouble regularly getting ~4-6 kills every ten minutes in every sortie they fly.
  9. Mission makers have the ability to prevent vulching. Some examples are spawning more AAA when an aircraft gets shot down near an airfield, making a trigger to spawn AI fighters at altitude to kill anything near the field, or (this one is my favorite, but haven't seen it done yet) create an event trigger that makes the player airfield an air start field for a few minutes after a specific number of aircraft have been shot down at low altitude in proximity to the airfield.
  10. In my experience, no one really knows what exactly they're talking about. A lot of people type buzz words like "dx12", "multithreading", and "optimization" but really don't take into account what they're asking.
  11. All of the resources that are required to make online co-op missions (persistent and otherwise) are already available right now. HyperLobby type features were already made with the BoS launcher program someone made and posted on the forums...but HyperLobby functionality is obsolete because of the infinite mediums in which people can get together and discuss missions, etc...make a Steam group or something. What you ask for in the OP is right in front of everyone, you just need the community (not the devs) to make it.
  12. Also, the terrain blurriness is back (on high settings, haven't tried ultra)
  13. They left the ruts that were next to the taxiways because no pilot was stupid enough to roll off of the taxiway where aircraft shouldn't be. Simple as that. Figure it out and it won't be an issue.
  14. I thought the P-40 was absolutely awful when I first flew it...then I realized I was loading it full of 100% fuel each time I tested it...which is like 4 hours of fuel. If you run at ~50% fuel (can go even less for the average MP sortie...that's 2 hours of flight time at max continuous) the P-40 cleans up extremely nicely in all but climb.
  15. Seconded. To hell with stats...the only way implementing stats would be a good idea is if you absolutely had to land your kills and return your aircraft at the end of your sortie...at the airfield you took off from...if you die you couldn't report your uber ace-in-a-day gunnery skills so you get 0 points for that sortie. Haven't seen that sort of implementation yet, so it breeds a bunch of garbage gameplay habits.
  16. I've been looking to get the TWB server going again but focus on coop missions...I'm really no good at creating a plausible and informed mission style so I'd need some guidance. If you're up to the task of making some scenarios (list locations, aircraft types, roles, objectives, briefings) it'd be great if you send me some content and I can make them into missions quickly. Send me a PM or find me on steam by the same name here.
  17. Been asking the devs for this for awhile. Nothing yet.
  18. I understand where you're coming from FurousMeow, but no amount of radio communication or second hand information from someone that can see an enemy is going to afford the location information that the radar circle gives. The spawning object for tanks is identical to the airfield object so it gives a radar circle...but it may not necessarily be simulating an airfield...it's just a spawning area since the distances to have two established bases that will give a decently short travel time for tanks to actually have fun in the game wouldn't really be plausible. It's more of a "...and we join our heroes on their perilous journey in progress to the combat zone" type deal. I can easily put "AIRFIELD UNDER ATTACK" tags/icons on the map so you'd know the threat is there before you spawn when an enemy gets near. That's easy. All seeing eye radar is a silly addition to a WW2 sim. It kills gameplay for myself and a lot of others I've talked to.
  19. Tanks can be seen on the map too easily. We need an option to turn off the airfield spotting radius!
  20. Just add aircraft that you want to be *possibly* available based on whether they land at that airfield in the planes tables of the airfield object and set the quantity available to "0" (if you can, I haven't tried this) and make sure the renewable box is ticked. When that type of aircraft lands it will resupply. The renewable feature simulates a finite number of aircraft in the game space...not manufacturing aircraft at the airfield, heh. Turn and burn launches would happen regularly, I'm sure...though in reality they would take about 20 minutes to rearm, refuel, and repair (any *very* minor damages).
  21. This was a packet transfer bug briefly present during early MP testing which disappeared and returned earlier this year (very rare). At first glance, this isn't a hack...unless someone has found out how to replicate it consistently.
  22. In my experience, having an AI flight of aircraft is not feasible in a public/ongoing mission due to the server load...so having AI flights spawning and flying to a base won't work (for my uses). This does give me an idea though...since simulating aircraft availability with the command behavior MCU is kinda janky in that it only allows you to refill an entire table of aircraft based on, say a transport aircraft landing at a base, and won't let you simply add a variable of aircraft to the available pool...what about spawning an AI aircraft within the maintenance/"return aircraft" radius on the ground then immediately deactivating it? This would allow you to add specific amounts of aircraft to an airfield rather than just refreshing the entire table depending on what the actual trigger for AI counting as a returned aircraft are. Coconut, do you know what the event for AI returning an aircraft is? Is it despawning (via some special built-in AI command/event when they deem their mission complete) only after landing that counts? Could a deactivate trigger work to renew available aircraft...maybe a force complete while still on the ground some seconds after spawning?
  23. *And still retain the limitations of how quickly trim on an axis can be manipulated.
×
×
  • Create New...