Jump to content

Mandoble

Members
  • Content Count

    87
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mandoble

  1. It looks you already know or suspect where the problem is. But in no way it is a niche because Flight Sims are not popular.
  2. If this were the case, that would mean they simply need to sell way more. It seems the current strategy is to keep selling individual planes/secenaries to existing customer base instead of multiplying the numer of people interested, if this strategy doesn't give the expected results as to hire more people to keep growing, might be they should change it.
  3. I said Arma, mission editing and scripting, not triggers alone. But the gold standard are not the tools, but the results, ideally achieved by in-game mechanics. To start with, as said before, to have the mission reacting to my actions in many ways, logical, but as unpreditable by the player as much as possible. Not sure if you already played ArmA, but Adandoned Armies mission was a pretty good example of something that you can play 1000 times, and it will be different every time. Anyway I do agree with you, performance is currently a big issue. Eventually the simulator is running e
  4. Again, you are fighting against the limitations of the game, and this topic is not related to the outstanding work you can do with the limited tools you have to both, create tools and create content. I'm aiming to the game itself. It looks some people here are simply content with what they have, I think much more effort should be put in the game itself than in modeling new planes or tanks. There is a big difference between saying "this is an outstanding model of a particular Spitfire version" and "I had an absolute blast flying a single mission in this sim like I've never had before". If the s
  5. What you are describing is standard in game development since 20 years ago or more. And it is also the only logical aproach to the problem.
  6. I don't get it. If you can use complex conditions to trigger spawns and despawns, where is the performance limitation? The triggers and conditions by themselves will have (or should have if correctly implemented) no impact at all on the CPU, and of course the idea is not to trigger the spawn of full formations. But without scripting, no idea how can you manage the array of planes/vehicles that actually are within an area to trigger a particular condition (more than two planes closer to point A than n Km triggers the next verification 10 seconds later with the current minimum range, 10 seconds
  7. I understand that the problem is in the extremely limited tools provided by the game itself, not in what the community can do with them. Obviously missing a flexible scripting language is by itself almost a show stopper to create a credible, immersive and dynamic battlefied. Normally, a way to spawn and despawn units based on complex conditions is the minimum needed to achieve something like that.
  8. I'll give you an example, many years ago I created many missions and complex scripts for ArmA (not a flight sim, mostly an infantry sim but including also air units). With that, it was as elementary as having a trigger detecting and enumerating units within a circle around a base or several bases, if any of the enumerated units was enemy and the trigger was not yet activated, a pair of friendly attack helicopters were spawn on air aiming in the direction of the intruders. And yes, this code could be killing if you had a Z80 CPU. Operation Flash Point and any Arma mission editors
  9. I don't know which freedom do you have, actually my only experience with mission making is with ArmA, nothing here. As long as there is an smart logic driving the mission, the immersion could be guaranteed and the boredom avoided. But to be honest, what I would expect is to have everything IN the game and not depending on external tools.
  10. Based on what do you think that is not important for people? And based on what do you think it implies even a minimum level of complexity for developpers? Having a pair of flighters loitering the bases that the enemies/friendlies will use in that mission is something you consider complex 🙄
  11. Does it generate flights based on my actions, being spotted, position, etc? I don't think so. I've never seen any reaction of the game to what I do or where I am aside of the basic engagements.
  12. Of at least that what I do in a mission has an effect in the mission itself until I land or get shot down. At least to feel that the mission reacts to my actions. For example, I can pursue a damaged enemy plane until its base, straffe it when it lands, destroy as many parked planes as I want and return uncontested. I would expect many more details, as having some patrols always covering key assets like airfields or friendy/foe interceptors loitering and vectoring to hunt you if you approach some key areas, etc.
  13. I didn't say that. What I said is that the game for me in its current state is simply boring and repetitive, with PWCG is a just bit less boring but way more annoying. There is a ton to do to make this really atractive for people looking for something realistic and fun. It is fine to have some reallistic but terribly boring scenarios to test them from time to time, but in my opinion these should be just like an addon, even optional, and not the kernel of the game as they are now. When you fly your tenth attack mission to the very same spot and against the very same tank column ...
  14. Point is that if people needs PWCG to have any fun, that means that the game itself is lacking the most important feature of any game.
  15. If the removal option will not be included, at least the option to do not load any ammo for external guns should be there.
  16. What I mean is that 190A3 MGFF (M) was using only minengeschoss rounds, and so it could effectively cause more damage than 151/20 AP/HE rounds when hitting.
  17. And wasn't A3 MGFF always the M variant by default? It was my understanding that the mine was the safest projectile to preserve the life of the gun compared with the older heavier shells.
  18. It is my understanding that HE rounds of 151/20 were normally not Mine, the opposite applies to MG-FF were 100% of the rounds were mine shells. So, even with worse ballistics and RoF, actually 190A3 MG-FF could be more lethal than 151/20 when it hits.
  19. All the 190A6s were using C3 with or without extra boost.
  20. For sure it would have had plenty of use in the eastern front but also in the west after Torch and Normady. Lets not forget that one primary role of a fighter is to hunt enemy's ground attack planes at low level which were normally scorted as well. In no way air was was reduced to fight high level bomber formations.
  21. Interesting that the Germans only applied the extra boost above 1.42 to ground attack variants and not for clean fighters.
  22. That document is listing 1.68 and 1.69 ATA?
  23. One thing is clear, all the Focke-Wulf performance charts are showing curves for 1.42, 1.58 and 1.65 ata, not anything in between or above the upper limits.
  24. Actually that was my understanding as well, that the ATA limits were imposed by design, not by physical limitations. But I guess some original source would be needed to confirm (or deny) that.
  25. Note that the OP implies a situation where you are outnumbered by the P51s, not a 1 vs 1. Cannot think on a single advantage of the K4 in that scenery.
×
×
  • Create New...