Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by stupor-mundi

  1. I think/hope this is a joke rather than a serious suggestion. There must be tens of thousands of invisible trees in the various maps. A task for a purpose built detection tool...
  2. I never quite understood the rationale here, since the mission builder is also part of the whole IL-2 BoX package, thus this would be a bug for the devs either way. At any rate, to put this question to rest, I created an offline single player mission based on the virgin Kuban map, untainted by any previous editing. I know because one of the missions on the EFront server is in Seversk, that the East waterfront of the river there is full of invisible trees. I placed a tank next to the waterfront, started the mission, drove along the river for a couple hundred meters and, bonk, bumped into an invisible tree. Case closed, the invible trees are part of the base-map. The devs should look into this.
  3. yes, to different degrees depending on the tank. However, if you try it out, you'll see that you often have to aim faaaar next to a trunk to get past it.
  4. This keeps happening to when flying. However I don't record tracks or take videos, and there's always the possibility that I didn't see the plane, it was on my low six and thus hidden, and so on. So I usually don't press the point. However when tanking on a few occasions I have seen * tanks initially incomplete, with a missing (or transparent turret), which appeared later * tanks initially entirely invisible which then appeared, part by part. I want to stress that there is also a completely different thing going on with 'furniture' tanks (or other objects) , where the object is rendered differently and completely disappears as you zoom out. Then you zoom in and it's back. I've seen this effect with an AI stuka which kept disappearing every time I zoomed out and reappeared as I zoomed in. There must be a setting in the mission editor which allows for this, maybe to reduce load? But regarding the missing parts of player controlled vehicles. Would this be an indication that the online multiplayer is implemented in such a way that the actual 3d models of vehicles are sent? This seems hugely inefficient to me (because the client can have all the 3d models) but would maybe explain the struggles with the netcode on today's fast broadband connections when, already at the end of the 90s, I was playing warbirds and there were no such issues. If parts of vehicles are actually transmitted and rendered this would seem rather exploitable to me. In such a case, in the interest of fairness, I would suggest to have an implementation where, if missing parts can somehow be detected, a cube or something, the size of the largest vehicle, is rendered instead of an incomplete vehicle. Or something like that, which would make it easier in an MMO for the players to detect that something is amiss.
  5. Regarding the drawing: When you try to fire around a single tree in a probing manner, you don't always find the collision model of the trunk to be bigger than the trunk, to the left AND right. I can often shoot by the trunk, quite close to it, on one side, whereas on the other side I have to give it a lot of extra space. I.e. the model seems somewhat shifted relative to the trunk. I'm sure the way it's been implemented is NOT that way that each tree has a 3d collision model in that space which is checked. Rather there are optimisations going on which mean that if you're farther away your chances of shooting around the trunk are worse. When two tanks are facing off, and a tree is much closer to one of them, i.e. that tank is sort of half-hiding behind the tree, but able to shoot by the trunk, often the further-way tank is unable to do the same. As soon as multiple trees are in play, I believe there is some collision model simplification going on, which usually boils down to not at all being able to shoot in between the tree trunks. When you're fighting a Pak or an AI tank which is able to freely shoot through entire forests, and you can't reach it although you have a clear line of sight, this is particularly annoying.
  6. Some thoughts regarding the criticism of players using the 'old' T34. First I think it's silly if someone who always tanks blue, tanks red for 1 day or so, and then declares the periscope sight of the 'new' T34 to be perfectly fine. ... and thus implies that those who tank red all the time, and who have been complaining about this periscope, must be making things up or having ulterior motives. The problem with the mouse and the periscope sight is not, that it's impossible to aim or that, when *aiming*, the turret behaves in an erratic way. The problem is that : You have to zoom out quite far to see the black outside the view circle, which gives you visual feedback regarding whether you are moving the mouse too far, left or right. OTOH, when being zoomed out, the mouse response is hypersensitive. I.e. you might want to zoom in just to calm the mouse response down, but then you lose the black rim which tells you if you're pulling too hard into one direction. As Jordan (I think) pointed out, if you do pull too far into one direction, you've now pulled the 'desired' view direction by more than 180deg and you're pulling into the other direction. This is the view behaviour of looking around in space, for instance, looking around inside the tank when not using a sight, and it's inappropriate for sights in my opinion. I think there's no good reason why anyone would desire this directional reversal behaviour, and I regard it as a bug. In contrast with this, the mouse response of the 'old' T34 is smooth, in no way weird, and feels completely natural. Until recently, I was using a razer gaming mouse and now have a steelseries, but the problems I have with new T34 were the same with both mice. An advantage my new mouse has is a button at the top to change DPI. This makes using the new tank's persicope a little less awful. A thing that really annoys me is the assumption that players use the old T34 because of an assumed deficient DM. In most missions there are plenty of tigers. I find it pathetic that blue are trying to cast themselves in the role of the underdog here. Once we have mostly missions without tigers that would be different, but I can already see that blue players just leave when there are no tigers on offer. So as long as I'm fighting tigers, I will take the best tank available to me, and that's the 'old' T34 because a) I can turn the engine off and listen, and still turn my turret with reasonable speed, and b) I can look around with the hatch open, have the turret pointed in the right direction, close the hatch and the turret will still be pointing in the right direction. That the devs chose to make the turrets of the new tanks point to 12:00 whenever you open the hatch is something I complained from day 1 and I think it's a huge mistake.
  7. I'm sure the devs know the details, since the sound bug is so extremely prevalent, especially when tanking. Nonetheless, just in case, some details: The likelyhood of sound bug occurring within a mission goes up just through the passing of time. However, what REALLY increases the chances, is getting hit. So, what you see in multiplayer on the tank server is that a lot of players, every time they got hit, died, and would normally just start a new mission, leave server, restart the game, and then start a new mission. That's how extreme it is. Just now a rare variant of this bug occurred to me, maybe that sheds some light. I was tanking in a summer mission, dry weather, had got hit but survived, drove on for a bit, opened the hatch and shut down the engine. Normally in this situation, when having sound bug, you hear maybe nothing, or a reduced set of the sounds that should be there. I heard rain. Quite clearly. I even took off my headphones to check if it's IRL, but it wasn't.
  8. I'll try this for a bit. I think there a several variants of this UI. The one I have doesn't have a place to enter such values.
  9. I only get the "master server" dialog very rarely. But when I got the "game server" message, when I was in the list, it must have been a misleading dialog, since in that situation there is no connection to individual game servers. It must have been the central server. At any rate, that dialog appearing while being in the server list was unusual, whereas the in-mission discos are extremely frequent now. I have been (in the last weeks) kicked far more frequently than ever before, also when flying, so this appears not to be tank specific. What I've forgotten to mention in the first post is that this occurs on servers where I don't in any way have a slow ping. I checked my multiplayer settings because I wanted to make sure a setting I had once set was still there ... there was a rule you should check your transfer speed on one of the test sites, and then divide that by something, and enter it into the setting for multiplayer transfer, something Mbit... I now saw in the settings that this config has disappeared. Apparently the game attempts to calibrate itself in this regard? Could it be that this change is connected to the issues? Two observations which might have something to with it (I'm suspecting that some bulk data transfer happens which screws up the ping): When tanking, in recent weeks, let's say I drive from A to B at top speed, and suddenly the game freezes for half a second or so. Sometimes, at this point, disco happens, other times, it recovers. This type of freeze is completely new. I used to have multiplayer stutter or microstutter which mostly went away by setting no vsync and 80fps (I set that some months ago), but this is entirely different. When my tank is destroyed, involving fire, it now often happens that I'm already in 'spectate' for a few seconds, i.e. nothing much graphics wise is happening, but then the ping message appears and i get kicked. I suspect that also in this situation a bulk transfer kills the ping.
  10. Apologies for the late response. I tried out a number of things, but am still not clear on the issue. I realized that I usually don't see this message because I leave the device plugged in, and at night I put the machine to sleep. Then I thought that possibly this calibrating occurs when the machine wakes up from sleep, and that that might be a cause of the drift. Clearly I had the wrong idea about set level. I noticed that during set level the dialog says something about keeping it still, but doesn't mention horizontal or level. I used to take the device off my headphones to perform set level, thinking perfect levelness was crucial, and this prevented me from doing set level often enough. Now I just clamp the headphones on an armrest of my couch, as level as I can get it, thus I can do it quickly whenever there even might be a need. Much better.
  11. Bump! outdated data received... my 2 cents on this: * the numbers, for instance, 8 seconds, don't seem to make any sense. In a context where an ok ping might be 80ms and a too-long ping might be 300ms. * the messages are usually .... from player A to player B, where I am neither of those (let's say player C). Why do I see this? Is someone expecting me to take some action based on it? Of course it occludes useful messages in the chat, sometimes vital messages. If this was done for a group of beta testers which were given instructions to act on those messages, fine, but it should have been activated by some special config, so that those who are not beta testers don't get their game screwed up. OTOH, if it was for everyone, why no instructions what to do when this occurs? Why should I care about outdated data between player A and player B?
  12. Since recently, maybe about 2 weeks or so, I get waaayyy more frequently than before, "Game server connection lost". This is usually while tanking, but I spend way more time tanking than flying, so it's probably not significant. I don't think this began with the last small update, I think it's more recent. I also think the error message is misleading, because it also happens when I'm in the multiplayer list which shows the different game servers. I.e. the connection that's lost is really the one to the central server. I commented on this in chat and other players had it as well.
  13. I've had an EDTracker for over a month now but not flown a lot. Flown a little, then a multi-day gap, and so on. And some gaps due to having to replace its USB cable and so on. I.e. some gaps that involved a substantial change (new USB cable, switched the cable direction on the headset, fixed it to the headset with different materials), and other gaps with no change I can think off. When I get back to a session of flying, the physical layout, i.e. where I sit, the direction I'm facing, where the monitor is, are roughly the same, but there can be minor variations. Initially when I had calibrated and set level the E.T. it had minimal drift. Then a gap where I changed the cable. More drift. Then a gap where I turned the E.T. 180 deg, but I assumed this might have to involve possibly recalibration, but at least a new 'set level'. Then much more drift. When the drift was much more than expected, sometimes I would 'set level' again, without much change. I also recalibrated again without much improvement. Then a gap, some days. I flew again. To my suprise, no drift. Then a gap, some days. I flew again. Suddenly lots of drift again. I don't have a thorough understanding of the sensor (magnetometer I believe). Any EdTracker users out there with experience in this kind of thing? Is it to be expected that the magnetic situation in a flat might change over the course of some days, explaining these changes in drift? Or are there specific things which are known to upset the sensor and which shouldn't be in the vicinity of the headset? How often do people 'set level'? Hardly ever? Before each flying session? Et cetera...
  14. It was a static flakvierling on a winter Moscow area map, in a blue base just south of the little town which has the central flag. Other occasions were earlier (don't remember the details), so maybe have been changed already.
  15. On some maps, I've encountered some AI objects (for example Flakvierling) which were incredibly hard to kill. I imagine the reason for this will be that the game doesn't have actual armored positions like pillboxes, so these objects are kind of a stand-in for those? Or maybe their damage level is randomized? Of course, from a player's point of view, it's a bit of a problem because you visually identify an object and shape your tactics around what you think you're dealing with. So when you encounter such a flakvierling and it ends up wrecking your tank, it leaves a bad feeling behind, so to speak.
  16. A pity. My hopes for a somewhat balanced situation online will have to rest on the Pz4 then. My own estimation is very close to that. But I very predominantly play red. The problem I see currently on the tank server (s), I put down to, that with this kind of situation regarding the vehicles, and the expectation/necessity of solving it via the red/blue player numbers, just doesn't chime with the mindset of the players. There are a number of asymetries which get in the way of people switching sides. I for instance, don't like taking a tiger, because I don't like the role of the uber tank that's hard to conceal. Of course you have many players who will just play one side, no matter what. Now you have the situation that, depending on terrain and numbers, red can't hold their own without attack plane support. And getting bombed constantly hugely pisses off the tankers to the point where they quit. With an unequal player number being a necessity for banlance, the two sides certainly won't agree what kind of ratio constitutes a fair fight. I've been in many maps where you had equal numbers of T34s and Tigers and the blue side clearly thought that was a fair fight. What currently happens on most days is, a new map comes up, often a ratio skewed towards red is there, sometimes one I would consider fair, but as the mission goes on, blue players drop off and the ratio becomes more skewed. No doubt because the blues feel hard done by, fighting such large numbers. Once this mechanism has begun, you see blue players connecting to the server, and then exiting again. Certainly because it's very daunting to join at that point. On the rarer occasions that blue manage to put up an equal number or more, it goes the other way, usually quicker. Nobody likes to join when the prospect is to get battered by numerically superior tigers. The situation thus is highly undesirable. Either you become part of a superior force and it's a boring turkey shoot, or you're getting wiped out. Another asymetry we get with the terrain. There's a prokhorovka map in rotation which the blues usually don't join, because they dislike exactly those features (deep ravines) which the reds (basically t34s) prefer. So you frequently get a situation where some blues hang out on one tank server which at that moment sports flat terrain with little cover, waiting for reds to show up, and they won't. At the same time the reds hang out on the other server, which has some more cover, and wait for blues to show up. Also an undesirable situation from my point of view. And all this being the case where, after having familiarized themselves with the new t34, many red players have reverted to using the old (if now, somewhat crippled) t34, at least in hairy situations. I can only imagine the old t34 will eventually be taken away, or at least further crippled until it's entirely unattractive compared with the new one. === Somewhat off topic, but I'll drop it in anyway. When you're driving the more vulnerable tank which is faster, what's good tactics is often, taking the long way around, often through or along the forest. Along the forest edge is good because you can dive into the forest when under fire, and out of it, to see and to fire. However, that's exactly where the invisible trees are which will break your engine, at least, and sometimes worse. What's part of the attractivity of the T34, is doing this, at high speed, and then the invisible trees will fully wreck your tank. Then you approach an area with enemy artillery, paks, and AI tanks, and they shoot you through the trees (through entire forests). This really should be fixed in order to make the job of the less armored tank a bit realistic and less bloody frustrating.
  17. Having spent some more time with the new T-34, I can add some detail. * The mouse sensitivity when in perscope sight. I noticed I had in-game set a low mouse sensitivity, so I checked what would happen if I bumped it up there and lowered the sensitivity in my mouse software. Suspecting that maybe one of the sight positions was affected by the setting and the other not. But not so. Nothing changed. I understand the reason why the direction reversal happens when in the periscope sight, the mouse being excessively sensitive, and lacking the visual feedback that the regular sight gives. I see no reason why the interface should be like this. Fine, when NOT having the eyes on a sight, it's nice to be able to look around more than 180 deg. , but when ON a sight, why even have that at all? Why have that big black globe of useless blackness (of visual angles), in which there is a tiny useful view pyramid? Sights don't work like that. Even when using the normal gunsight, this is a stupid unnecessary problem for a single player who's had his turret *unnecessarily* move to 12 oclock, jumps back onto the sight, and now has to hunt in the black globe for the useful view-part. None of that difficulty is "simulating" anything. * On a related note, what add's to this is that now the vertical gun movement is quite slow. I got killed a gazillion times trying to get the gun adjusted vertically and have it reverse direction multiple times before being able to calm the bloody thing down. I.e. the exact same issue that happens in the horizontal, but aggravated because the vertical gun movement is slower. * A point I forgot to mention I think, with the 'old' , ahistorical, T-34, you had the fast turret movement with the engine off. Now of course with the engine off it's suuuper slow, which I guess makes sense. This has a huge impact on how we are able to fight in an environment with lots of cover, where you wait behind something and ambush the tiger, relying on being able to get it perpendicularly from the side, at very close range. Now we have to turn the engine on for this, quite often. Gives your position away and the tiger hears you, turns towards you, you're dead. Like all the non-UI points I've made, I'm not criticising this change (assuming it reflects reality), I'm criticising the lineup. There are so many aspects of the situation that aren't historical, the exagerrated importance of anti tank aircraft, the ludicrous "repair" system (which is fun admittedly), AI shooting through forests, stalinium saplings, carts, wells and buckets, that all kill your engine when you bump into them, yada yada yada. But the tank lineup has to be Kursk. And because of that blue get the turreted super tanks, and red get un-turret large caliber tanks? Yet blue are missing their less-capable un-turreted tanks... It would have been nice if a less strictly historical approach were taken, where red gets let's say T-34-85, so that mission designers, if they so choose, can put together an "ahistorical", but more balanced, mission, where red don't have to rely on either larger numbers, or aircraft.
  18. I think I understand what happens. Now, in the new tanks, in the new version, when heavy damage occurs, this is modeled and animated, INSIDE the tank. For instance flames. So the effect from that is quite similar, and more extreme, to the graphics FPS drop when being strafed. The good news is that when getting kicked under those conditions, the tank is basically useless anyways, and many people restart the application when their tank was blown up, since the chances of sound bug are high in that situation.
  19. Hello, WorM! Yes, it was Thanks for having a look. I don't expect my ping will usually be near the limit, that's why I pointed out the connection with being under fire, or, having been shot. In the list of dogfight servers, from my perspective, at the moment EFront is listed with a ping of 82 ms (green).
  20. Formally speaking, this should probably be in the general multiplayer section, and not in tanks, however, on a practical level it's an issue I never encounter when flying. This is about the specific issue of ping degradation when under fire in a tank, with the result of "player kicked due to bad ping". I.e. not about players kicked who actually have bad ping, but a multitasking issue that is I believe graphics related. This used to happen to me, sometimes, when being strafed, and specifically looking at those many little explosions. It was often possible I believe to rescue this almost-kicked situation by looking away from the explosions, for instance by looking through the sight and being zoomed in. It pretty much never happened when being under fire by tank rounds. On my hardware (laptop with external gpu, 1070) CPU never managed to get near being bottlenecked, it was always the GPU that was limiting. I really have no idea how graphics overload can cause bad ping when there is plenty of CPU capacity left, but being strafed and getting kicked due to ping were clearly linked. I reduced the occurrence of this hugely by setting a dynamic resolution factor of 0.8. Now with the new version, everything else being equal (same tank server, same broadband, same hardware), there have been radically more kicks due to bad ping. Each time it was when I got shot, but now, a few times, when I got shot by a tank, which never happened before. I've set my d.r.f. now to 0.7, so far it hasn't helped. When this happens, when getting shot by a tank, my graphics-based explanation which had neatly worked when this only happened when getting strafed, doesn't make as much sense anymore. Does anyone have an idea of the mechanism at work here, and what to do about it?
  21. 1) Fix the invisible trees 2) Fix the invisible trees 3) Fix the invisible trees ... 10) Fix the frantic mouse in periscope sight in the T34
  22. In light of the revelations (to me anyway) on the nature of the commander of the T34, vs the loader, I won't insist that it would be appropriate to be able to instantly jump into the loader's open hatch position. I admit that would be silly. However, regarding the slow movement between the open hatch position of the gunner, and the on-sight position, I think that, even though the switch feels slow, opening or closing a heavy hatch will take that time, but it would be very helpful to have the option to more quickly jump inside, to the sight, without closing the hatch. Regarding the lethal mouse overreactiveness when in the periscope sight position, I've played around with that position in the KV a bit now, and it's much more manageble. It appears as if the new functionality was developed/optimized for the KV and some parameters just haven't been adapted/dialled in for the T34. It would be nice if that could get fixed. Since I've begun trying out the new T34 this mouse issue has been my #1 cause of death.
  23. Yup. If the overworkedness of the commander/loader has to be modeled by giving the T-34 a slow reload time, fair enough. But, the way I see it, when I pilot a tank as a single player, I'm all of the stations and should be able to jump between them instantly. Why does it have to be the gunner who opens the hatch? Sure, the new visor is nice, but I regard the crippling of the station jumping as unjustified. Now that I've played around more with jumping between the 2 sight-types... the exagerrated mouse sensitivity when using the periscope sight is really what turns the new tank into a death trap. No 'realism' argument works for this UI failure. The new gear limiter functionality is nice, and recovers some steerability, but involves being noisy. The old ability to steer at a medium speed, say in a forest, at low rpm, i.e. stealthily, is certainly gone. What I forgot to mention in my original post is how the engines are now even more prone to breaking, when bumping into invisible trees at low speed. Basically glass engines. Since ages I've been harping on about how they should fix the invisible trees, and instead we get even more easily broken engines. A feature I brought up months ago, having 'soft' collisions with objects such as trees, would also help making the interaction with organic objects like trees, more realistic, more, let's say, tank like. OTOH, a feature some new players have only very recently been asking for, in-mission repairs (no doubt originating from other tank games), has been implemented, and isn't remotely realistic. The in-sim time is meant to be real time, not accellerated time like in some strategy games. Thus, a 1 or 2 minute track repair, or 5 minute engine repair, is a joke. The irony is that we break our unrealistic glass engines when we bump into unrealistic invisible trees, and then we are thankful for an unrealistic 5 minute engine repair.
  24. [the context of everything that follows is multiplayer] I've critized in another thread, when the tiger came out, the design decisions regarding the 'new' UI, compared with the 'original' T34 and Pz3, which don't allow a single player to keep the turret pointing in a desired direction while jumping between gunner and commander (with the open hatch). Now that the new T34 has come out, it's evident that this is now the UI approach for all tanks. I understand (don't like, but understand) the crappyfication of the abilities of the T34 which are rooted in the real tank's actual abilities, or lack thereof. The steering is now crap, and I can only assume that this is based on research. IL-2 wants to be a simulation, so I can't argue with that. By making the turret turn towards 12:00 as soon as the player jumps into the commander position, the turreted tanks are effectively being turned into stugs. I can only guess that this might be done to favor players who get together to man a tank. As someone who has no intention of doing this, I resent that intent. There's a big problem for the mission designers (server admins) though: among the tankers are some which will play both sides (which I applaud), some which consider themselves blue, or red tankers. But among the blue tankers is a majority which consider themselves tiger tankers, and won't touch a Pz3 with a long stick. Thus, any missions which feature very limited or no tigers on some bases, remain devoid of blue tankers (almost), until bases with plenty of tigers come into play, and then the tiger heroes all pile in. I.e. the main instrument of mission designers to even out the situation doesn't really work in practice. The main reason why the red tankers were able to hold off the tiger hordes was the (maybe ahistorical) agility of the modeled T34. Now we have a weakly armored, weakly armed, un-agile tank. To add to all this, the gun control on the new T34 intermittently behaves in erratic ways, veering off in the wrong direction and so on. I thought I had identified a bug, until I read in another thread that this may be a 'simulation' to approximate the overworkedness of the commander, who is also loader. If this is really the case (not a bug but a feature), then I'm horrified. There are aspects of a vehicle you can and should simulate, and those which you can't reasonably do, and you shouldn't try. Who asked for this? It's widely known that for instance the driver's position in the T34 was very unergonomic, but I really don't want that simulated, or attempted. There was a thread some time ago, 'why the tiger', or similar. At the time I thought that the early introduction of the tiger on the roadmap was questionable, but not such a huge problem practically, because of the agility of the modeled T34. Now this situation has changed, and the tank selection is immensely skewed. If all this sounds a bit negative, it's because the update makes me doubt whether I should be spending any time on tanking at all. It's as if someone shoots you in the knee and says, here's your update.
  25. Thanks for pointing those things out, it's good to have an expectation of what will happen. So, if I understand correctly, the civilian buildings of a village are considered friendly, i.e. you should avoid collateral damage...
  • Create New...