Jump to content

Buzzsaw

Moderators CLOD
  • Content Count

    548
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Buzzsaw

  1. Sorry, it is not cost effective or even possibly for us to change our systems to match those of the GREAT BATTLES series. These games are based on two different Codes... and each have different capabilities.... so the options the player can select do not match.
  2. Game is downloaded from Steam... so yes, you can start/stop Steam any time you want... and it will pick up the download where you had left it.
  3. Yes, projectiles do have a penetrative value which depends on their type, (armor piercing, ball, high explosive, etc.) as well as velocity, (which initially depends on muzzle velocity but decreases the further the projectile is from the barrel) Also obviously the mass of the round is considered when calculating kinetic energy, etc. etc. Bombs included... although obviously bombs have a velocity dependent on their airspeed as calculated from initial velocity or terminal velocity when they reach that. And objects do have different armor values depending on the type of material and the thickness... for example, the game lists hardened steel, steel, iron, aluminum, layered aluminum armor, concrete, wood, etc. etc. For example, when creating pilot armor plates, the 3D artist has to create/draw the plate in exactly the same thickness as historical... because the game calculates the plate's strength based on the thickness of the 3D object. The plate is then designated in the game as either hardened steel, steel or laminated aluminum armor depending on the type used historically in the aircraft. In the case of bombs, (as well as all weapons which contain high explosives) the weight and type of the explosive contained in the weapon, (amatol, PETN, etc.) is included in the rounds description. There is no question that the CoD engine has one of the more complex weapons/damage systems available in gaming.
  4. Markings might be something like this too, which is closer to the historical naval flag:
  5. There are already difference 'armor' values for different areas of vehicles/ships.... (front/side/turret/etc.) We hope to elaborate on that basic system with critical areas defined... if the weapon penetrates the armor and hits the critical area, then that implements critical damage effects. Otherwise the vehicle/ship just gradually degrades from hits... and if a gun turret is hit... then it is out of operation. This is not a ship/vehicle game though.... it is an aircraft simulation... so there are limits to what we intend to do with damage of objects other than aircraft.... too much work for our modeler/coders... plus too much of a load on the game engine to monitor all these different objects and their damage status.... has an effect on fps.
  6. We will be using black German cross, (same as aircraft wing markings) inside the white circle for German ship markings.... sorry no Swastikas... players can mod for their own skin versions if they want. (we hope to allow players to skin vehicles/ships same as planes)
  7. Yes, there are more bomb/torpedo types planned for TF 5.0. Mostly in the area of the larger types required for ship destruction. Yes, there is a difference between SC/SD bombs... and also between British GP/AP. Destruction as a result of bombing can require more than one.... depends on the size of the bomb which hits. Larger ships will require quite a number of hits... although we are also looking at critical hit areas. Buildings have very simple Damage models.
  8. What aircraft are you flying? The Hurricane is an easy and forgiving aircraft to start off in. What are your settings? List them here and we'll be able to see if there are any choices which might not be best for a beginner. Check the configuration of your joystick on Microsoft... make sure it is not inaccurately set up. I would recommend using the default sensitivity settings for your joystick to start... don't try to get too complex. All these aircraft should be easily controllable with normal settings. It is only when you are in a really tight turn at maximum power, or at low very low speeds during takeoff or landing that you should encounter spin problems.
  9. Hello Dagwoodyt You seem to be asking the same questions in each post. - First of all... TF 5.0 'Tobruk' will be published. I will not mention a date... that is 1C's decision anyway. But you will see it for sale. - 2nd of all... The various issues in CoD are continually being addressed... in the 4.5 patch and in subsequent patches... you will see 4.56 soon. That was what originally motivated TF and if you compare the original game and what exists currently, there are enormous improvements in place. - Your original premise... that we should focus on the BoB again, does not make sense either from a business point of view or from the player's levels of interest... by far the majority of the community wants new maps and content. Which is why we are going to N Africa. (also that Theater does not conflict with the BoX series) Time to close the thread.
  10. TF 5.0 will be much more focused on Ground Attack and attack on shipping. For one, the opposing sides ground units are actually in contact. There will be artillery.... the German 105mm artillery has a range of approx. 11,000 meters, the British 25lber has a range of approx. 12,000 meters. So let them get too close and your airfields will be under fire from artillery. We also hope to see the ships able to fire on airfields and ground targets... the big 15 inch weapons on the British Queen Elizabeth and Revenge Class battleships and the 8 inch/203mm guns on the Italian Heavy Cruiser have ranges over 30,000 meters. A 15 inch shell landing on an airfield will destroy any unprotected aircraft. There will be columns of ground vehicles moving... if you do not destroy the enemy tanks/vehicles, they will over-run your positions and take control of the front... maybe even over-run your own airfields. One of the strengths of CoD is its ability to have a lot of ground vehicles on the map. Aircraft which can destroy enemy tanks will become more important.... objectives will not just be bombing enemy airfields as is often the case in CoD. (although targeting airfields with bombing raids was a part of the conflict in N Africa) There will be tropical versions of all the aircraft... including Ju-87/88 and Bf-110.
  11. The P-40C/E Tomahawk II/Kittyhawk IA's will be very dangerous opponents at lower altitudes, especially under 5,000 ft/2500 meters where the Allison V-1710 engine developed most of its power. The P-40 was the best "...close in dogfighter" of all the US fighter aircraft types... it got a negative reputation as a dogfighter from the Pacific Theater stories of it matched up against the A-6M Zero... which made any aircraft, including a Spitfire, look silly in a dogfight. The P-40 had excellent speed/acceleration at low altitudes, an extremely good rollrate at all speeds... excellent turn/stall characteristics at all speeds, was a good gun platform, had a dive speed and acceleration better than the 109's or Spitfires, and was extremely durable. Over 10,000 ft/3000 meters performance falls off fast... over 14,000 ft/4500 meters it will be sadly lacking... due again to the characteristics of the Allison's power curve. When/if TF gets around to modeling the the P-40F/Kittyhawk II, with its Packard Merlin V-1650-1, (the two speed copy of the Merlin XX) then this version of the P-40 will be better at higher altitudes. But the drag characteristics of the aircraft are such that even these models were not very fast. At high altitudes, i.e. over 20,000 ft/6000 meters, a 109F will run circles round a P-40 and play with it like a cat plays with a mouse. But the 109 pilot who commits to low altitudes should beware.... lest the nasty Shark turns and bites a big chunk off him. ☠️
  12. I have one which I bought in 2000 which is still working perfectly.
  13. Can you list your system specs, including your video card? Also, if you are running any 3rd party graphics programs besides the standard Nvidia or AMD offerings.
  14. We are not planning a specific combat campaign for the Bf-108, but would like to see it incorporated into a set of training missions. Also could obviously be incorporated into another aircraft's campaign... as for example a RAF Channel map campaign which includes 'Rhubarb' missions could include as a target a Bf-108 landing/taking off from a German airfield. Also could have a Tobruk campaign include a protection mission for a 109F campaign... covering Rommel flying into a particular airbase for example.
  15. Glad to hear you are up and running. 😉
  16. Hello Reddog In answer to your question: Yes, we have not finalized our release as quickly as we might have hoped, but not from lack of effort. Unfortunately for a team whose members all have jobs, families and commitments, sometimes real life in the form of illness, job demands, etc. intrudes and reduces the time they have to spend on their 'hobby'. We can't make absolute demands or set deadlines for team members who are doing this out of a love of the game and genre. We have had some stumbles in our generally steady forward progress. If you want me to apologize for a few words of optimism several months ago... then sure. If you want me to apologize for a team who is working as hard as they can and who are all doing superb work, then I am sorry, I can't. We will finish this project, we are making great strides every day and we are confident of releasing something which I think the majority of the community will enjoy. Perhaps some won't, but there have always been those who prefer to attack TF rather than accept the idea we are doing this for any positive reason. Thread is closed.
  17. TF will not go to the Pacific. That is not in the cards. We have enough areas to cover in Europe.
  18. This was before the period covered by TF 5.0.... the module starts at the time of Operation Compass in December 1940. Also would require the map to include Alexandria and the airfields there.... if we do an El Alamein expansion then you'll see that area. We're not going to include the Swordfish in TF 5.0.... would mean a minimum six month delay in release. All in good time. The Wellington IA/IC has the 3D work for the Pilot/Bombardier cockpits and external model complete, we have shown those images a number of times. It is in the queue for import/animation and once that is complete and the FM/DM is finished we will show it in a video update.
  19. Fairey Swordfish did not see a lot of service from land bases in Egypt against the Regia Marina.... mostly they were based on Carriers and land based on the island of Malta. There was some bombing of the Italians at Tobruk by HMS Eagle based Swordfish in late 1940, but there were not a lot of sorties and it didn't have much effect. We don't have Carriers working in the game at this point anyway. That is not possible if we want to get a release out in any reasonable time frame. We hope to have the Swordfish included in TF 6.0.
  20. If a player is able to control the ships as we plan, then that player would be able to go to full speed and maneuver to avoid torpedoes. For non-player controlled AI ships, we would also would like to revise the response to attacks.... right now there are small maneuvers, but we want full avoidance procedures to be implemented for the AI... but this is complicated because we want to avoid collisions with other ships. Historically as a response to torpedo attacks, ships would typically turn away from the direction of the launched torpedoes and sail parallel to the estimated torpedo running direction... or '...comb the tracks'... hoping the torpedoes would pass on either side. However in the case of 'hammer and anvil' type attacks, where the torpedoes are launched from two directions, where the torpedoes are running at right angles to each other, then if a ship turns to 'comb' one set of torpedoes, it exposes its side to the other set. Regarding spotting torpedoes in bad weather... not sure we can implement that for the AI... obviously the human player will have more problems in seeing torpedo tracks in bad weather.
  21. The clip you are showing is from an FM-2 which is powered by the Wright Cyclone R-1820 9 cylinder engine, whereas our Martlet is powered by a Pratt and Whitney R-1830 14 cylinder engine. Both have similar displacement in Cubic Inches/CC's, but each sounds quite different. The Pratt and Whitney has more, but smaller cylinders... so the firing impulses are quieter but closer together... which gives a smoother quality. The Cyclone has larger cylinders, but fewer in number so the firing impulses are louder but separated audibly more so... so it is more ragged and staccato. If you want a real life comparison, think of the differences between a old style American V8 and a BMW or Mercedes V12. (and the aircraft engine comparison would be more so) It is always a good idea to check your sources and research carefully before posting.
  22. Hello Yo Yo The amount of work required to get the Fiesler Storch into the game is the same as adding a Focke-Wulf 190A... in fact a little more since the cockpit cabin is bigger in the Storch than the 190 and therefore more 3D work is required. So we won't be able to add it for TF 5.0. And unlikely for TF 6.0 either, as there are other utility aircraft which were more important... as for example a flyable seaplane type. As we have mentioned in our updates, the Bf-108 will be flyable for TF 5.0.... an aircraft which was used in the role of a light transport... obviously not a short takeoff/landing type, but one which was used to transport officers... in the desert often referred to as "Rommel's Taxi".
  23. "Toggle Prop Pitch Mode" is used for the 109's and some others to switch from automatic prop pitch to manual pitch. Most aircraft use 'Decrease/Increase' only.
  24. Yes, the GUI is very difficult to re-code. But we do plan changes. Re. Ilya: It is certainly the case that Ilya Shevchenko/Luthier is a nice guy, very personable. 🤠 But from my perspective, it is also clear that he made fundamental errors in how he approached the development of CLIFFS OF DOVER. There were too many diversions into areas which did not need attention, and not enough focus on core elements and the details. Too many bugs were left unaddressed which could have been fixed in the development process with a little more quality control. TF now has to locate and find these bugs after the fact... it would have been much easier to fix the problems at the time of original development. Luthier also overlooked obvious solutions to problems... not sure why, maybe he had a problem with too much responsibility for too many areas. Anyway, TF owes Ilya and especially Oleg a vote of thanks for developing a game system with as much potential as CoD has. We hope with TF 5.0 we will go some way to allowing that full potential to be enjoyed by the community. 😉
×
×
  • Create New...