Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by stupor-mundi

  1. I'm quite happy with the opentrack behaviour resulting from the settings detailed above. There's one more, non-naturalistic, thing I'd like to achieve I think: The 'pitch' tab of the 'mapping properties' window has a 'max output' select which can be either 90 or 190 degrees. I.e. when you look up as far as possible, you hit a hard limit, in many planes before an obstacle such as a headrest would obstruct the view. I thought I was hitting an input limit to do with the geometry of my camera setup, but it was actually this output limit. I tried playing around with that in the config file, where under '[opentrack-mappings]' there is the 'pitch-max-output-value'. When the Select in the GUI is set to 180, this is, in the file, -180. I tried editing this, set it to -210. Once edited like this, and opentrack is restarted, it's not possible to edit the curves anymore. Putting it back to -180 restores that functionality. Somehow though I don't seem to see much effect from this, so maybe * there might be an internal limit at 180 * some interaction, maybe with the spline, prevents it from kicking in Or maybe I'm wrong and it really does work? Has anyone else tried playing around with this in the config file?
  2. At close range, you can aim at the cupola. Thus your chances, at very close range, of making the round go off right on top are pretty good.
  3. I belatedly realized something quite simple, embarassing really. When setting up a plane, with headtracking not running, it makes sense to move the pilot head position forward quite a bit, and then 'center head position for snap view' , i.e. establish the base position for head tracking as a leaning-forward position. Then, when head tracking is on, center the tracking when leaning, and slumping, forward/downward quite a bit. This makes looking back from a forward position much easier, and produces a very high head position (in the cockpit), when leaning back IRL.
  4. Oooh yes, @sniperton it does! I hadn't experimented with that setting enough, because I wanted it purely for its intended purpose (as I understood it, the distance between the neck pivot and where the eyes are on the head, i.e. I had it set to 4 or 5 cm). When I have 'relative translation' disabled, large *negative* values for this setting, such as -20cm , achieve what I wanted. This comes at the price of counter-intuitivity, when, looking forward, you slightly move the head to aquire center in the sight, and so on. Maybe this negative effect is unavoidable, maybe not. I'll experiment a bit. Thanks for the tip!
  5. I'm going to try and explain my point again. And please keep in mind, that the context of my o.p. was, exclusively, multiplayer. Of course the concept of combined arms is sound. *in actual warfare*. As much as people here in the forums go on about sim vs game, what we have here is a multiplayer application, whether you call it sim or game, it has to attract players. The relation between attack planes and tanks is purely one-sided, predatory. For example, I just managed to shoot down a Stuka. This involved stopping my tank thus making myself more vulnerable. My engine was damaged. This is an unusually good outcome from a tank point of view. Shooting down planes from a tank is extremely hard and usually not worth the effort. Hence, asymetry. A thought experiment: if you tried to create a popular online multiplayer application (call it game or sim) where people can log on either as bomber (or drone) pilots, or as civilians, who get bombed, the business concept would fail because players would only log on as bomber pilots. Noone enjoys the passive role of staring at the sky and trying to run away occasionally. No doubt, once TC becomes a bigger thing, with more players, market forces will simply sort this out. When there are enough tankers, and various servers available, tankers will simply avoid the ones that have too many ground attack planes on them. That's my prediction. For pilots who may not be aware of the details, let me list some ways in which planes are annoying to tanks, beyond just the bombing and strafing. * experienced tankers turn their engine off and listen for tank sounds. the plane engines are a distraction * we like to have the hatch open for situational awareness. when a plane engine approaches from behind, you have to close the hatch even though the plane may turn out to be friendly. Thus even friendly planes are a minus, not a plus. * it seems on some missions the planes make the radio messages more frequent. The radio is supremely annoying. * pilots will spam the chat with w**ky pilot chatter which is also distracting Those points of course pale in comparison with the frustration of randomly getting bombed. You can call this application a Sim all day long. When it comes to the necessity of attracting players, it's a game.
  6. Hi Rivaldo as for the distance. I'm not sure if it's even practical to move the airfields so far as to impede the effectiveness of attack planes. If you had a map with the kind of distances that for example KOTA have, and then the tank bases somewhere in the middle, close together; that might look pretty weird, I don't know. As for limiting the plane numbers, I guess the difficulty is with the varying numbers of players (tanks). If there are only, let's say, 2 vs 2 tanks online, then even 2 attack planes can feel a lot. I don't know enough about the mechanics that are possible in mission design, whether there are options to check the number of tanks, or to check number of opposing fighter planes, and allow attack planes dependent on that. If not, maybe that's the kind of thing that would need to be provided API wise, to deal with the issue. I found when I respond to the attack planes by getting into a fighter, it's often in vain. It appears some just check the map, and if it looks as if opposing fighters have taken off, they 'finish mission' or even just 'leave server'. Then when you land they come back. I guess if the AI fighters weren't so dumb, you could maybe spawn some of those as soon as attack planes are in the air ... but with the state of AI it's probably not worth bothering. Not sure if they changed this since I bought TC, but it used to be, without purchasing TC, you could spawn as one of the 'old' tanks, i.e. T34 and Pz3, just not the 'new' ones.
  7. Of course. None of the tankers with any self respect play on servers with icons. I like flying on EU Official (normal) (because I'm not very good at spotting), but tanking there is a complete waste of effort. When I mentioned tank servers earlier, I was referring purely to those without icons. I just tried to tank again, for a few minutes. Got killed by no tank, nor PAK, but bombed three times. It's frankly ridiculous. We were 3, they 4, and they had one bomber. When there are few players online (i.e. can't spare anyone to get into a fighter), a 'determined' pilot can get into a bomber, take off from only a few kilometers away, which IRL-terms, is ridiculous, fly to the scene within a minute or two, unload a stupid amount of bombs on a single tank, 'finish mission' to save the time of even flying back and landing, and repeat. It just ruins the game for tankers. Only once you get a larger number of players per side, and some fighters in the air, does it become somewhat less absurd. My point is, playing this kind of thing, the attraction of it, is something distinct from the attraction that some people see in a game of chance, and from a tank point of view, the planes just add that. A possibility of being killed that's largely down to chance. Nothing you can really get good at avoiding.
  8. Hi Thad, there is no danger that I might lose faith. And I'm aware that TC isn't finished and will have features we're not aware of currently. But flagging up such an issue, I hope, provides the devs with feedback. How much tankers will appreciate the positives of planes, well, we're going to find out. Whether player controlled AA change this, I am a little sceptical. Whilst the current AI bots are deficient in the 'I' part of AI, they do aim well. Will players enjoy assuming a role that the AIs are inherently good at? We'll see. I think, a few planes add color to the overall situation, but being bombed is never fun, and being coaxed into jumping into an AA tank seems to me very similar to being coaxed into flying a fighter. I'll probably have more fun in a fighter. My point about controlling the ratio has to do with how the mission maps tend to be. Things are close together, which is a necessity, to provide tankers who have, let's say, an hour to spare, with a resonable game experience. That makes the tanks far easier to find, for the planes, than they would be IRL. Consequently you get far greater numbers of kills (of tanks, by planes) than you got historically.
  9. It would probably make sense if I could post this on the russian language forum, but I don't speak russian, so it's here. Some remarks about the situation: On multiplayer, there aren't a lot of servers with missions well suited for tanks. But more importantly, since there are so few tankers currently, all the tankers sensibly converge on one server. Sometime earlier this was Action Tanks... and currently is EFront. Which server that is doesn't matter for my argument, but it matters that those servers can't handle a whole lot of players, something 30-ish. The last couple of weeks, sometimes, all of a sudden a lot of players show up *on one side*, and fly. For instance, we just had red:blue 12:2, but nearly all of those red, were flying. I don't know what suddenly attracts all those virtual pilots to the tank server, but I see it as having negative effects. Getting bombed is no fun, because in a tank, you can't do much about it. It discourages people, and since there are so few tankers, this is a problem. You either decide to fly yourself, in a fighter, to shoot down attack planes. So you have a situation where people who wanted to tank, are driven to fly. Or you just log off. What just happened. There were initially some blues, and they gave up. Players used to have *some* concern for keeping numbers balanced. This appears to have evaporated? Why? What is the sudden interest of people wanting to fly on the tank server all about? There is an overabundance of underused servers in Dogfight that people could fly on... I see this as a problem that should be addressed. Not sure whether by the game devs or the mission designers. Or it could be that the mission designers would address it if the tools allowed them to do it, such as enforce a ratio of tanks vs planes. With the situation as it is right now, I can see it leading to a runaway effect. Once there are too many attack planes, nobody wants to tank anymore.
  10. My desire for such features is not just lazyness. Maybe I sit closer to the screen than most people, in order to fill as wide an angle of view as possible with the monitor. Consequently, wide X head movement quickly becomes untrackable. Even more so when moving Y, towards the screen and the camera. Thus, with my setup, PS eye and delanclip, perfoming the corkscrew head movement and having it tracked, just doesn't work. Except maybe if I were to set up opentrack extra sensitive in the X direction, which I don't want because then you struggle to find the head position where you're aiming properly through the sight. Seems, if there were different software available that could do what opentrack can't, I could either switch to that, or I could stick with opentrack but ditch the camera/clip tracking method, and get something that allows for freeer head movement.
  11. I tried out Thad's 'Tank Firing Range' mission yesterday. Fired, as a Tiger, a lot of HE at T34's and KVs. Interesting because you won't encounter a lot of KVs in multiplayer. The kill message, of the KVs, appeared usually after the 2nd or 3rd hit with HE. So I'd like to point out that the off-ness in the DM, is there with regards to HE vs proper anti tank rounds, but it goes in both directions, red vs blue wise. I think the larger caliber Tiger HE rounds are even more effective than the other tank's HE rounds. Certainly when you shoot HE at a tiger currently, you would not *on average* take it out with 2 or 3 hits.
  12. I'd have a question regarding the DM. Here, with a plane focus, there is at least a sizable fraction who like the current DM. Whereas in Tank Crew, the DM is currently widely regarded as quite broken, since the last update. So, is this a unified DM, or are there different DMs for planes and tanks. I don't have an opinion on the DM plane-wise at the moment, but do have one tank-wise. So I wonder whether I should vote on that poll.
  13. I think it's due to the extremely unequal wealth distribution of our current time.
  14. Yes, the effect of HE on the Tiger is clearly unrealistic and thus a bug. But I have to wonder about what those players who never drive any other type of tank, and who complain constantly about HE, what they imagine gameplay *should* be like... Those same players complain most vocally in chat when the red side has a numerical advantage. Since IL-2 Great Battles, and probably, Tank Crew, aims to be historical, and thus, not balanced (artifically), with regards to the vehicles... and since, this HE ammo bug, is one of the factors that contributes to currently making the Tiger not AS superior as it correctly would be ... Once the HE bug is fixed, how do they imagine this SHOULD play out? They'd be playing in their invicible Tigers against a numerical parity of T34 paper tanks? and thus, always win, without utilizing any sort of tactics, caution, trickery, or skill? Quite obviously, in order to attract anyone to still play the other side, the mission designers would then have to impose numerical limits on Tigers, or even ratio limits on blue players, to ensure a strong numerical advantage of red tanks. Maybe a mechanism would have to be introduced, where a player would have to do 3 missions in a Panzer 3 for 1 mission in a Tiger. 😃 Somehow I'm sure this outcome would not be welcomed by those who now lament their Tigers as too fragile. For a sense of perspective, I'd suggest to the self declared Tiger pilots to play the other side occasionally.
  15. Yeah, in the meantime I've seen more of those messages, they seem quite common in the new version. Probably a waste of time wondering how exactly the message should be interpreted.
  16. I was (in a tank) attacked, repeatedly, by a player controlled 110 or duck. I shot it twice from v close distance with APCR. From my point of view (multiplayer, latency wise), I saw the rounds hit the fuselage, but without the big kaboom expected. It was more of a subtle thing, as if the rounds bounced off, which seemed ridiculous. Shortly afterwards there was a message " outdated data received [the player's name] , 5.1 seconds or something like that. Is anyone familiar with the message, what it means? I'm trying to work out whether this had to do with multiplayer networking things, lag, or whether something about the damage model, APCR vs planes, is now off.
  17. The Delanclip has the default clip dimensions. Maybe I haven't been clear. My combo is working fine, it does everything it says on the tin, as far as I can tell from the docs. It's just I want it to do something, which on the one hand seems to go beyond the standard Opentrack functionality, OTOH I get the impression from watching various videos that others *may* have that functionality. I just don't know if that is within the bounds of what Opentrack can do, or if it's necessary to switch to different software to achieve that.
  18. I use the combo: clip (Delanclip), Ps-eye camera, Opentrack. With the ps-eye on top of my (single,27inch) monitor, I've set up yaw at max input of 30 deg. I also have a small max input for x,y,z. On the one hand, I'm not keen on having to move my head a lot, on the other hand the tight angle and position of the camera would make that impossible anyways. Even if the input system allowed for more head movement, with a single monitor that wouldn't work out very well. I'm trying to achieve a mapping where I can check 6, with the pilot head moved forwards, and ideally upwards, and sidewards, without actually performing those motions. The base Z position is of course fixed so that I can aim through the sight. So essentially I want to achieve a kind of corkscrew motion with the pilot head, when IRL I just turn my head sidewards a little. Sure, this may not be very immersive, but I care more about being able to check 6. At the moment, this only works for me in AC like the Yak, having only glass behind the pilot. In AC with an armor headrest I have to fall back to using the joystick hat with snap views. I get the impression, from watching the various IL-2 videos on youtube, that those people have successfully set up their headtracking in such a way. i.e. they smoothly look back, in one motion, around the headrest, with a high head position. But I don't know if they use Opentrack ... So I wonder if anyone using opentrack has achieved such a setting? I'm aware Opentrack has a "relative translation" ability, which initially I thought might do the job, but I've been playing around with those settings, with no good outcome.
  19. In addition to player controllable AA, a tank/plane ratio that the mission designer can set, would be useful. I've not tried to make any missions so I'm not familiar with the detail, but am aware that limits can be set for particular aircraft. The problem there is that currently the tank server(s) don't hold a lot of people, so that even very low limits for plane types add up to too many planes when you only have 5-10 people per side. A constraint that's defined as a ratio would work at even very low player counts.
  20. I've listened to the interview posted a while ago about Tank Crew, so I understand there won't be any alterable (malleable) landscape (i.e. digging, dozing, etc.). That said, immersion-wise, there would be much benefit if the impulse exchange between objects (one of them typically being a tank) were taken into account somehow. The current implementation, where crashing a 10, 20+ ton tank into a skinny young tree, or into the flimsy dreaded cart, results in the tank recoiling, in exactly the same way, as if it had bumped into a granite outcrop, feels a bit unrealistic. So yes, I realise we can't have objects displaced as a result of the collision, but it would be nice if the result of the collision on the tank would take into account the relative stiffness and mass of the colliders (the tank being stiff and heavy). It feels unjust to end up with a crippled tank (usually the drivetrain screwed, or crew members injured) when crashing into the cart.
  21. The effects of HE are I believe considered unrealistic because a) you would expect almost no effect, from the front, and b) because you stand a better chance damaging the tiger from the front, than you would, with AP or APHE. But it isn't the case that you would expect your first shot, or even the first handful, to take it out. Since the mechanism of why HE works at all isn't known, we also don't know a lot about why one spot would be better than another. I get the impression that the cupola is a weak spot, but there is a lot of variance.
  22. I agree with Chuter's sentiment, but also with the notion that the Tiger, as featured, isn't as op as it would normally be. Some factors the level the situation a bit: * the tiger and the KV, being the newer tanks in game, having the new UI, are more cumbersome to operate by a single player, it takes more clicks to jump between commander, with the open hatch, and gunner. * the excessive damage that the HE rounds inflict on the tiger from the front, which must be unrealistic. Yeah it's no fun fighting tigers on an open plain, the more folds in the terrain, the more interesting it becomes.
  23. When flying, I found the radio messages annoying, but not enough to really look into it. I found some threads about disabling the radio messages by renaming a folder, which gets rid of the messages as such, but the static, which is very loud, remains. When tanking, listening for engines and building a mental map of locations and vectors is a core activity. Even without the messages, the static is hugely annoying. An entry for this in the config file would help, if it's considered too minor to clutter the UI.
  24. In the Tank Crew forum I started a thread about what the cause of mystery transparent obstacles might be. These may not be much known to those who mainly fly, but are quite the annoyance when driving tanks. @J5_Baeumer suggested they may be objects left behind by the mission builder, which I find a very appealing explanation, since those transparent obstacles tend to sit in locations that look like clearings in the forest, or at the edge of the forest. Since I've never used the mission builder and want to avoid spending a lot of time learning it, just to validate or reject this, the question: Is this maybe a known effect when mission building? Is placing objects and then removing them a known technique to take control of the amount of forest? I could well imagine that the desired effect of removing trees is known, while unknowingly causing the undesired effect of placing invisible, tank killing obstacles in the landscape.
  25. I get the impression solidity of trees with regards to pushing them over has been coded independently from how they act as obstacles for shots. It seems to me that aspect can be at least partially controlled by the mission designer. At least it feels as if the trees in some missions are near impossible to push, whereas in others it's easy.
  • Create New...