Jump to content

stupor-mundi

Members
  • Content Count

    257
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by stupor-mundi

  1. While the list at the moment shows servers, there is a more subtle problem. Action Tanks and Dogfight is shown as up, but is not connectable and the shown player count and mission have been stuck for days. When a server that's not reachable is shown, that's an obvious error. When a server isn't shown, of course you don't know what the actual status of the server is. The Efront tank server would probably be up/ have been up, but isn't shown. A guess of course. I mentioned those because there is a distinct lack of tank servers at the moment. 😨
  2. same here, no servers showing. oxygen levels are still acceptable, i could last for a few more hours.
  3. A good point about the eaves, and also interesting about the carts, that they disappear when blown up but with regards to the collision model, are still present. The dreaded invincible cart that will f*** up your tank if you run into it. I will add the invisible invincible cart to my list of possible phantom objects. I'm painfully aware of the discrepancies that occur between what you see and the collision model, once buildings are blown up. But my experience when driving through undamged town areas, for instance in Kerch, was quite similar. There are spots where you can't drive between two buildings for instance. But in this thread I was mostly interested in those obstacles which you encounter, where no visible clue exists that might justify them. I'm increasingly convinced by Baeumer's explanation that the mission builder might leave them behind. It seems to me they often occur in groups, and they seem most likely at the edge of the forest, and in clearings in the forest. I've never used the mission builder, so I'm wondering whether placing objects in the forest, and then removing them, leaves clearings behind. If not, maybe the edge of the forest is just an attractive location for someone creating a mission, to maybe place objects, and then change their mind and remove them again? At any rate, I rarely ever bump into invisible obstacles when driving through an open field ...
  4. Drive control subtleties. You can asign joystick axis' to forward/backward, and left/right. I played around with this for a bit and wasn't keen on using an axis for left/right, but found it useful for forward/backward. I asigned a lever, nice for being able to drive slowly when desired. When an axis is asigned, the arrow keys still work, but here is gets a bit subtle. When I start a mission without touching the lever at all, the arrow keys work in the "normal" way, i.e. pressing the forward key will give full throttle forward, letting go will put the engine in idle, and bringing up the map while going forward sticks the throttle to full, until the forward key is pressed again, which will stop the tank. Weird, but "normal" because we got used to it. However, as soon as I use the axis to take control of the throttle, the behaviour of the forward/backward keys is altered. Now, depending on key-press duration, throttle is altered. Now you have analogue control, using the forward/backward keys. Good for cruising at low speed, a bit crap for stopping the tank cold when needed. I gave the axis a wide deadzone, but still you gave to fiddle a bit before coming to a stop. So, both modes have their advantages, and it's clear how to get from the old mode to the ananlogue mode, but I don't know of a quick way to get back, which I'd be keen on. I found that after I'd spent some time poking around in the key settings, it had switched back. Maybe the joystick (a virtual joystick in this case) sets itself to idle after a while of not touching it. Of course that's not very useful, what's needed is a way to achieve this by pressing a key.
  5. The searchlights are fairly new I believe, I wouldn't be too surprised by this. But regarding the AI guns, are you sure? It's always been an annoying ability of theirs to be able to shoot without line of sight, but I was under the impression that the shot itself was collision-checked. I.e. they would shoot at you over a slight hill, if the ballistics allowed for it (the arc).
  6. This would explain a lot about them, like their distribution, which isn't random, but can't easily be linked to topographical traits. Overall I'm happy that the general consensus seems to be that it's a bug of some sort, not a feature. I had this nagging doubt, fearing it might be a feature.
  7. Maybe some light can be shed on the issue of invisible obstacles? A number of candidate explanations spring to mind. When driving around certain types of buildings, such as churches with rounded-off corners, it is as if there is, with regards to the collision model, a larger, cubic church there. When you bump into an invisible obstacle in a very crumpled topography, it's tempting to think it might be a discontinuity, an error in the model, a polygon sticking out. But when the same happens as you drive over perfectly level ground, you begin to wonder whether that's really it. These obstacles aren't just infuriating because immersion wise, they are the equivalent of a huge frameless glass pane that you crash into, jogging. In terms of the virtual physics they are just as damaging to your tank as the next solid object. You may have to respawn due to a broken drivetrain, a killed crew memeber, or your tank having flipped over (yes that happened). If it's the case that those obstacles are terrain errors, is it safe to assume that the much finer grained tank maps will fix the issue? If the cause is something else?
  8. I get the impression that the crashes are, at least mostly, fixed now, by the new update. A new effect that can be seen when tanking, is that planes and tanks undergo a sudden yank, apparently a correction of their position (I saw a lot of that on the Efront server). I'm guessing a multiplayer/latency related position descrepancy between client and server is being corrected there. I've not seen that yet when flying, probably the larger scale makes it hard to perceive. I can't help but wonder whether there is some connection between, fixing the crashes, and this new behaviour. On its own, the new behaviour could hardly be regarded as plus, since it obviously breaks immersion. Maybe before, there was some positional smoothing applied which now has been removed? Since the update, I've pretty much spent only time on one server, so maybe this observation is not representative of the sim in general.
  9. I'd have a feature request, or maybe anti-feature request. The title 'Tank Crew' and the interface direction taken with first tanks that are really part of Tank Crew, as opposed to the earlier Pz3 and T34, where you can't switch as seamlessly between the commander position with the hatch open, and the gunner's position with the eye on the sight, worry me a little. I like playing this in multiplayer, but alone crewing a vehicle, and the new position switching system points in a direction where such a single person usage is handicapped. Restoring the ability to hop conveniently between those positions would be important. If this isnt' done, it will only benefit the more teched out players who will use macros of some kind. While I miss the ability to turn the turret while in the commander position, looking out the hatch, I can kind of understand that this would have been removed for being unrealistic. I'd still love to have it back though. --- Edit: having mulled this over some more, the current implementation, in the new tanks, how the turret moves into the forward position when (as single player) you move from the gunner's position to the commander's, takes away a lot of their tank-ness. So if it's seen as unrealistic that the turret could be moved by a single player while being commander, at least there should be the option to leave it pointing in the direction it was. That way (imagine you're moving forward while aiming the gun 90 deg from that direction) you could quickly hop into the cupola, have a look around, and hop back into gunner's, and still be pointing roughly where you were before.
  10. I think if the bottom line of this bug is: vehicles falling below 0 altitude, we can be sure that this caused only a part of the crashes since 3.005. Plenty of missions far away from any sea have crashed regularly.
  11. Generally you can reliably blow up a tiger from a t34 if you hit it in the gap above the tracks, below the main side armor, with APCR, if the distance is fairly small and the angle is near perpendicular. It's happened to me a few times that this doesn't seem to hold true at VERY close distance. The first time it happened was a situation where the tiger had been damaged somehow and the turret traverse seemed even slower than normal, so I was able to avoid the gun by wheelying around the tiger for a while, sinking 25 APHE and 25 APCR into it, with no effect. Back then I thought the cause would have to be some other bug, such as that the tiger somehow spawned as unkillable. But since, similar failures have occurred a number of times. Right now I can think of 4 possible explanations. * being too close means the gun's slightly higher position causes the angle to be off perpendicular too much, in the vertical * the t34 sight is vertically offset from the gun? (don't think it is) * there is some fuse activation logic which is applied to all ammo, even though for kinetic rounds it shouldn't * something about the collision model that fails is the distance is too small
  12. I want to bring attention to something about the damage model in tanks, hope this is an appropriate place. Generally you can reliably blow up a tiger from a t34 if you hit it in the gap above the tracks, below the main side armor, with APCR, if the distance is fairly small and the angle is near perpendicular. It's happened to me a few times that this doesn't seem to hold true at VERY close distance. The first time it happened was a situation where the tiger had been damaged somehow and the turret traverse seemed even slower than normal, so I was able to avoid the gun by wheelying around the tiger for a while, sinking 25 APHE and 25 APCR into it, with no effect. Back then I thought the cause would have to be some other bug, such as that the tiger somehow spawned as unkillable. But since, similar failures have occurred a number of times. Right now I can think of 4 possible explanations. * being too close means the gun's slightly higher position causes the angle to be off perpendicular too much, in the vertical * the t34 sight is vertically offset from the gun? (don't think it is) * there is some fuse activation logic which is applied to all ammo, even though for kinetic rounds it shouldn't * something about the collision model that fails is the distance is too small
  13. Nope, I don't think that. I also don't think for a second the powers that be would temporarily remove a vehicle that was already launched. But I do think the tiger's advantage in armor and cannon is enormous. The things that soften it are the slow turret traverse speed and that it's as large as a house, and apricot in color. Certainly for SP/offline there's a ton of possibilities to control the difficulty. I'm more concerned with multiplayer/online, where it's harder at least. i guess rationing the uber tanks is possible technically? Assuming yes, it's another question whether a tank server would go ahead to run such missions, and yet another whether players would flock to them.
  14. I'm very exited about the multiplayer stability fixes, and also about the chunk of the tank map that's been announced. With regards to the new tanks that have been announced, it seems that any tank on the allied side that could reestablish some kind of parity is far away. Maybe the best way to regain some balance would be to take away the tiger until something appropriate on the allied side can be deployed. 😁
  15. I'm a big fan of the new mountainous Glendzhik map. Regarding the 5 minute death penalty, under more normal circumstances I would welcome it (or maybe a shorter one). But keeping in mind the current extreme tank imbalance regarding armor and cannon, I think it amplifies it. There is a 30 second wait to finish a mission. You fire a lot of rounds at a tiger before you even make a dent in it. The player has a lot of time to decide to finish the mission and will be able to do so before the tank blows up, and then can spawn straight away. If you're in a T34 and a tiger damages your tracks or engine from extreme range, you end your mission but within 30 seconds the tiger will have blown up your tank and you have to wait 5 minutes. This really drives players away.
  16. The bay of Gelendzhik is a little bit SE of Novorossiysk. For comparison, I just drove a tank straight into a river on the Taman peninsula, which didn't crash the server, and then drove another tank diagonally along the beach at Golubitskaya, which did crash the server. I don't know if the difference has to do with the angle, straight vs diagonal, or with river vs sea (altitude). All the beaches / riverfronts I've encountered in-game have this property: You drive along them in a manner where IRL you would just get wet feet/ wet tracks, i.e. you're basically just touching the water, but on quasi solid ground. Then you fall between two polygons and drown. I think the ball is now in the court of the server admins to try this out. I can only try this at the risk of attracting their wrath, they can try it as much as they like.
  17. While the 'holes' are in the terrain, I don't think the holes are necessarily crucial here, because I found I could just drive into the water and crash the server. The correct, or pre-3.005 normal outcome is of course that the tank sinks and the mission ends. This happens in single player, offline, I've done it many times. But since in single player there is no server that can be crashed, what knowledge could be gained?
  18. After unsuccessfully trying to guess for a while, I have to admit ignorance about what SP means. A server? There is no particular knack to reproducing this I think. Although initially, when I crashed the server, each time I was driving along the beach, and drowned when there was a terrain error, when I tried it later I just drove along the beach, diagonally into the water. I'm pretty sure it would work just as well driving straight into the water. And I would guess a river would be just as good as the sea.
  19. Victory! I just drove along the sea again, Gelendzhik, fell in, and crashed the server. It's thus reproducible. I'm not saying this is THE cause of crashes since 3.005, but it certainly does crash the server.
  20. == Falling between the polygons == Ok here's another crazy hypothesis: When tanking, one encounters two types of annoying terrain discontinuities. The first, frequent one, that you bonk into, and the second, much rarer one, that you fall into. This is not something new. Many times, when driving along the shore at Kerch, did I fall between polygons and drowned. Before 3.005 this only resulted mission end (for the player) by drowning. This happened to me twice Today and a few days ago at Gelendzhik: Right at the moment I fell in, the server crashed. Right at the moment of another crash, another player observed a tank driving into the ground (at an AF, not the beach). In this context I remembered how some days earlier, on a different server, a different map, I had shot a tiger on a bridge, which then collapsed, and the server crashed in that moment. I should add that the frequency of crashes today on the Gelendzhik map was much higher than recently 'normal', and that the landscape there is much more crumpled than on most maps.
  21. Just tried, yes, absolutely! If anything, tabbing offline even without Admin is faster than online with Admin.
  22. Some people in chat complained about people picking unrealistically modern planes (specifically Spit IX) in earlier missions, on the 'normal' mode server. Until then I had always completely ignored the mission statement, and assumed it's fine to pick any plane that's on offer. Just now I had a look, Lapino, Spit IX available, and all the other planes, like 109 G14. But the spec said it's 1942. No doubt that's going to cause some bad feelings if some people think they have to stick with the time given, while others will assume, when a plane is available, that's that, it's available. Judging by the planes I see flying around, I think most people on the server fall into the latter group. Some clarification might help there.
×
×
  • Create New...