Jump to content

stupor-mundi

Members
  • Content Count

    234
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by stupor-mundi

  1. I won't leave, clearly I'm too addicted to tanking. But I will decide more opportunistically whether to join or not.
  2. I feel like quitting tanking on IL-2 in multiplayer, until the server admins address the issue or at least recognize the issue. I would describe the current situation as follows: Typically either red or blue have a numerical advantage regarding planes. There is a subset of missions (or maps) which are heavily forested where the tankers are not very affected by the planes. But on the majority of maps, the tankers in the team with the smaller number of planes usually get massively pissed of, until most of them quit. Then the ratio becomes even more uneven and the other side wins. Before the attack plane pilots "discovered" the tank servers, this wasn't the case. Most players will embrace the challenge of fighting against heavy odds, even against more powerful tanks. Why? because those are challenges which can be met, by trying to be a better tanker, or a trickier tanker, and so on. But trying to become good enough at shooting down those planes is just unrealistic, especially since the attack by the plane, the small explosions from the MGs, and so on , kill the tanker's fps and make it even harder to get an aimed shot off. Simply put, the tankers are just prey for the attack planes, there is no mutuality. Does fighter cover help? Ultimately no. One side prevails, and that side's attack planes are free to find the tanks, where they KNOW they will be, due to the well known spawn points, and well known routes the tanks must take, and the scale of all that simply being much smaller than it would be in reality. It has been proposed that (very sturdy) AA at the spawns might address the problem, but it will do so only for the defensively minded tankers, not for those keen to go on the offensive. So, right now, the situation is, that you have to hope for your team to have a numerical advantage (in planes), otherwise having a bad time is guaranteed. Those players who tank on both sides therefore have a strong incentive to join the already stronger side. The opposite of what would be desirable. Thus, I will do what I myself dislike, I will look at the numbers, and join when it's favourable for my side, and abstain from tanking when the plane numbers are unfavourable. Which of course leads to bad numeric ratios. But whatever.
  3. the dialogue is always right. it said it's my internet connection. wait, i'm on a forum reading messages. it's so confusing.
  4. same here. had to restart due to sound bug, and now this
  5. Wasn't familiar with the term x-touch editor, googled it... Found editor for windows from musictribe, which you can DL. is that what you're referring to? I've not used that at all. The x-touch, being a a MIDI device, initially gives you that. FreePIE, acting almost as a switchboard between the different protocols and drivers, with a suitable script, can give you vjoy output. I found that SOME of those things are getting bound to applications. For instance, I used MIDI OX initially for diagnosis, but while I had that on, it was basically hogging that midi output. So I had to turn it off when using FreePIE. To see whether the MIDI is incoming, FreePIE itself is suitable, it has a 'Watch' tab at the bottom. To see whether FreePIE is outputting the vjoy, "Monitor Vjoy" (which is part of the vjoy DL i think) is useful. IIRC , "Monitor Vjoy" doesn't get in the way, i.e. you can keep it running. (I could remember this wrong) Vjoy also needs to be set up appropriately, with "Configure Vjoy". In my current FreePIE script, I use vJoy[0], vJoy[1], vJoy[2], i.e. 3 vjoy devices, which means I had to set up (at least) 3. Equally, when you use the various axis' and buttons in the FreePIE script, you have to set up those vjoy devices with enough of those. Meaning, it has to fit. I think when I first ran vjoy, per default it probably had 1 device and only a few buttons. To debug these things, it's important to figure out, diagnostically, where the breakage is happening. i.e. are you not getting MIDI INTO FreePIE, or is that working, but somehow the output isn't getting to vjoy. An important thing to keep in mind, about the naming of those things, when there are multiples of something. Depending on the order in which a thing is loaded, those array indexes are being asigned. I vaguelly remember a situation where I had played around with devices and suddenly my script didn't fit that situation anymore. For example: you might have other MIDI devices connected, etc. I.e. FreePIE doesn't know which device is which, it just sees x of them, and calls them 0,1,2,...
  6. Simple: you're referring to a different mission. I was referring to a mission in a city with a bridge. The city itself is quite wooded. Also, the distances aren't very large. I agree with your other points.
  7. Sure, you could do that. It's more about what people realistically WILL do. Clicking back and forth before choosing a side is probably already beyond what most people do.
  8. I've just run into the first invisible obstacle ("invisible tree") on the Prokhorovka map. It was in a typical location, at the edge of a forest. I won't waste any breath explaining what those are, everyone who drives tank knows about them. I refuse to believe the devs don't know about them. One of more widely believed guesses of the cause of those invisible trees had been that they were artifacts of the low res, not-made-for-tanking maps we were using so far. This is out of the window now. It's time to recognize this as a bug and give it some attention.
  9. To illustrate that point, I was just on a map that was red:blue 8:9 It turned out blue were basically all tanks (tigers), whereas 4 of us 8 were planes. To me, it felt like trying to defend the base alone. The planes were 100% useless in this situation, just as they are in most situations. It was completely pointless and I quit. However, the only people able to see these ratios would be those who just joined the server, hadn't committed to a side yet, and clicked back and forth between red and blue to determine the tanks/planes ratio on each side. I.e. anyone already IN the game can only see the tanks/planes ratio on their own side, since a recent update has taken away the ability of seeing the player count on the opposing side's bases. I understand the thinking behind this, but now something important is missing, in player's ability to assess the situation and choose a side based on that. I realize this only applies to the small portion of players who actually would switch sides, or choose not to join if the numbers were too absurd, but hey. Also it irks me that the blue players in this situation would have come away with the impression that they were winning against an even matched opposition, whereas really they were outnumbering us 2:1
  10. Having done some more tanking experiments on the Prokhorovka map. It appears to me that the higher resolution building models are not just higher resolution visually. The collision seems to also have been higher res'd, so that, when you shoot diagonally around a building with a roof overhang, just at the corner, the round actually travels through that 'air', instead of unduly exploding, as in the past. So, good on that! With regards to the collision model of trees, it appears to be unchanged, in the sense that: * AIs just shoot through the trees with no problem at all. * For individual trees, the collision model isn't exactly where the tree is, and thin, leafy parts of the tree are unrealistic obstacles. * Groups of trees are getting bunched together into larger, simplified collision models, i.e. you attempt to shoot through a large gap between two trees and the round hits this invisible object. These things are pretty big problems when tanking. The thing I was most curious about, I haven't yet been able to find out because I haven't driven around on the map enough: are the invisible trees finally gone? ==== Edit: in the meantime, I did crash into an invisible tree :-(
  11. That could be! Time will tell. There are many opportunities for trying this out. They are just of very short duration each, for obvious reasons, in multiplayer. I've not familiarized myself with the mission designer, so I'll have to rely on multiplayer to get to the bottom of it. My interpretation of what you said would be this: Not, that the player is somehow protected, when leaning "out of body", but that the actual, injur-able body is not exactly where it appears to be visually, i.e. the attacker would aim at the wrong location, and this would explain that the rounds visually go through...
  12. Absolutely, but the game (or sim) has to have functionality to make this possible. Currently, on the server, there are only few players who tank on either side happily. Most players have a strong preference, or will absolutely tank on one side only. And when powerful tanks are available, there are only a noble few (or none, let's face it) who would pick an inferior tank for reasons of historical accuracy.
  13. Regarding limiting heavy tanks, I think the server admins are unfairly getting flak here. The weakness of the Pz3 relative to the T34 is a problem of the game. Since the DM fix the Tiger has become pretty powerful, maybe not as IRL, I don't know, am no expert, but clearly if players were aiming for even numbers, and the blues being nearly all Tigers, something had to be done. Where the problem really lies, considering that IL-2 is trying to be a sim, and not trying to supply power-matched vehicles, is that it's missing an adequate mechanism to control the vehicle numbers in a fine-grained kind of way. With number limits on heavy tanks per base, what unfortunately happens is that the map is skewed in favor of blue until the tigers run out, and then it becomes skewed in favor of red. Really can't blame the server for that.
  14. I have another complaint to add to my list of why the large amount of attack planes is damaging to the multiplayer situation, from the tanker's point of view. This one's more complicated. There's a big difference regarding the effectiveness of the planes, with regards to mission goals, i.e. winning a map, vs. personal k/d ratio. The planes kill a lot of tanks, and their pilots, at least on the red side, score higher than the tanks. However, when it comes to being useful in either defending the flag, or taking one, holding a bridge, etc. , they seem to be worth much less than a tank. When it comes to numbers, we have to add the time it takes them to get to station. So, when I join a map, I look at the tank / plane numbers on both sides before I make up my mind what to do. I usually don't join the blue side if numbers demand it, but I frequently decide not to join, in order not to skew the numbers too much. But for this, I take tank numbers into account, and ignore planes, for the reasons outlined above. I think it's a problem that checking this is only easily possible before joining. For whatever reason, the exessively large number of planes is usually on the red side. Maybe this should please me as a red tanker, but it doesnt. It doesn't feel great to be part of a numerically bigger team, even if the tank numbers are equal. And I think this skewedness has an eroding effect on the overall sportsmanship on the server. Blue players who have been extensively bombed will then think it's fine to pursue a numerical advantage when the opportunity arises, instead of trying to balance out. And this is then a tank:tank skewed ratio, which makes the server completely unplayable in those situations, especially since the recent DM fixes.
  15. hmm. well if this functionality has been implemented, it does make me wonder. I've extensively machinegunned commanders, and visually, it looked as if my shots went right through them without effect. Will try some more.
  16. A bit of an unsavory question here. We all know from experience, pre- visible crew members, that leaving the hatch open exposes the crew to more danger from explosions, but also strafing, than having it shut. Now, with the commander visibly poking out of the cupola of the Tiger and presenting an inviting target, I find visually my machine gun tracers go through him. Does that mean damage happens and is not shown visually? Does it mean no damage happens, and damage from strafing only occurred when shots went downward, through the hatch, into the turret?
  17. I just spent a few minutes online on the Chinese - JG-5 - ... server, which already has a Prokh. map with tank bases up. They have the HUD disabled, which caused me load APCR only, so I wouldnt have to guess... I came upon a a PAK and found I wasn't able to scatter the crew in the usual way with the machine gun, and wasnt able to damage the actual gun with apcr. Not sure if that's a peculiarity of the map that they have set up there, or if it's something to do with the actual Prokh. map. Anyone know? -- I do remember vaguely that on other maps on that server there had been some very hard to blow up guns... --- As a matter of curiosity, is the damage-a-bility of a PAK something that's in the hands of the mission designer? If so, that feels quite wrong to me, I would have hoped those objects react in a repeatable, reliable way...
  18. Oh boy. Oh boyoboyoboy! But what really feels liberating now is running over the cart. The unshiftable cart was really oppressive! 😅
  19. Type of improvement: Multiplayer restart function Explanation of proposals: I've been on IL-2 BoX multiplayer servers for a bit over a year now, flying and tanking. The sound bug is, particularly when tanking, pervasive. Of course, fixing the sound bug itself should have higher priority. However, it's a well known bug, there have been quite a few releases since I joined, so I'm guessing it must be at least challenging, to fix it. I'm not holding breath. Failing a comprehensive fix, I'd like to point our that the sound bug is more disruptive when tanking, than when flying. Often you embark on a mission of over half an hour, and when the sound bug strikes, in a tank, it's a death sentence. In a plane you might still be successful even with screwed-up audio. Thus I propose a feature where a player could initiate a special type of application restart (restarting IL-2 is the only way to fix the sound bug), which would leave his vehicle (tank) sitting on the multiplayer map, motionless. This type of restart would reconnect you with the same multiplayer server, dropping the player back into the tank, where it was left (provided it hasnt been destroyed in the meantime). Benefits: reduce multiplayer player frustration, mainly in TC.
  20. I usually drive a T34, one of the 'first generation' or maybe zero'st generation of tanks in the sim. Now that on multiplayer there's often a lack of blue tankers, certainly because of the current DM, and also I like to believe because they get pissed off at being blown up by AC, I sometimes feel compelled to drive a Tiger. It almost feels like a chore. (it feels the same way driving a KV, which few people ever do) Not so much because of the DM, but a combination of 3 things: A) the way movement/propulsion is modelled B) the slow turret traverse C) the UI A: Sure, the T34 was in reality a faster tank, but beyond that there's something viscerally unpleasant about the sluggishness of getting Tiger (and KV) to go in the direction you desire. Most likely, the way Tiger and KV are modeled is more realistic, and the way the (pre-TC) T34 was modeled will have been, overly generous/optimistic. Nonetheless, the new, assumed-more-realistic way takes away a lot of the fun. The tiger can eventually get somewhat quick, but the vibrations are modeled so excessively that you loose a lot of situational awareness when looking out the cupola. I find this unjustified because the head, and more so the eye, compensate, even if the commander's body is rattled about. B: Is probably realistic. In itself, isn't a problem, but the issue arises in combination with: C : Much of the joy of piloting the T34 (as a single operator) lies in, driving around (for instance through a forest, dodging the trees), looking around as the commander (hatch open), seeing a target, having the turret already pointing in the correct direction, with one button press jumping into the gunner's position, and being able to visually pick up exactly where one was looking at. A number of things screw this up in the Tiger. Closing the hatch is another button press (you could skip that, but is more risky). More stations mean you don't have 1 toggle button to jump between commander and gunner. You have the button for cycling between stations, but frankly I don't give a F*** about the other stations, 99.9% of the time. The turret doesn't follow the 'looking around' (mouse or head-tracking) of the commander. I understand you might not want that all of the time, but being able to toggle this behaviour would be a HUGE plus. The lack of this wouldn't be such a killer if the turret traverse weren't so slow. Missing this ability in the T34 wouldn't hurt you so much because you'd still get the turret pointing where you want fairly quickly... When you jump into the gunner position, even if you had the mouse (neutral) for the position you were looking at (as commander), it's now in some 'off' position as the gunner, and you have to yank the mouse around until you find neutral. Keep in mind, the situation to imagine here is that you're driving through a forest, having the turret pointed sideways in the direction of a potential/suspected target. Every couple of seconds you are jumping between cupola and gunner, so that you keep situational awareness and dont bump into trees. The clunky interface in the Tiger makes, what was fun to do in the T34, difficult and unpleasant in the Tiger. As more new generation tanks are rolled out, no doubt the 0 generation T34 and Pz3 will be retired eventually. If the way the tiger was done is a prototype of what the T34/85 will be, I'm quite afraid tanking in TC might not be very much fun in the future.
  21. I've not figured it out 100%, but it seems to me this behaviour doesn't occur when starting to drive in the 'axis mode', i.e. what seems to bring it out might be the switching from the 'regular' mode to the 'axis mode'.
  22. I've not yet heard something about the invisible objects from devs or testers. Probably those "invisible trees" are an artifact of the terrain, which was made for the flight sim, and not for tanking. And probably this issue will be resolved when the new fine grained terrain for TC will be rolled out. It would help if we could a statement along the lines of, yes, we know about the invisible trees, we know what causes them, and when TC is released they will be gone... (the current situation is extremely frustrating. you could be driving for 10 minutes to your objective, only to have your tank disabled by bumping into those obstacles multiple times)
  23. If the sim allowed me too, I would long ago have taken snips and cut the wires to the blighted radio. yes, but the static remains, which alone can drive a person insane.
  24. Quite confusing how different people get opposite results. For me, setting in-game Fullscreen works best, but, combined with setting Vsync on in Nvidia control panel rather than in-game. I think this is the opposite of the 'official' recommendation. The positive effect of this setting may have something to do with the above. I'm running on a laptop with a higher native solution, and have set it up that the laptop screen is off when I have the 1080p, 60hz screen plugged in. The external monitor goes into an eGPU which may play a role here?
×
×
  • Create New...