Finnish VirtualPilots - Dynamic War

[LeLv30_Redwing 337]

On 6/17/2020 at 8:04 AM, LLv34_Temuri said:

After consideration, we have decided to turn on the Restrict Injectors setting on the server. This is due to how simple it is to e.g. see through trees and clouds via the use of graphics injectors.

 

I hope this decision has nothing to do with a player complaining furiously in chat some days ago of being discovered and shot down.

[LLv34_Temuri 738]

4 minutes ago, LeLv30_Redwing said:

 

I hope this decision has nothing to do with a player complaining furiously in chat some days ago of being discovered and shot down.

It has to do with video showing how tree coverage can be turned off and on.

[ATAG_SKUD 130]

On 6/14/2020 at 5:23 PM, =[V]P=vad-asz said:

Hi Pilots!

Some action from the Finnish server in my newest movie :
 

 Thanks for watching and thank you for your great server! 

 

 

Please share your graphics settings, your spotting distance is incredible! Your shooting is pretty good too!

skud

Edited June 18 by ATAG_SKUD

[H_Stiglitz 261]

6 hours ago, ATAG_SKUD said:

Please share your graphics settings

i second this 😄

[WB_jokkr 66]

OK, I used to have reshade (a few years back) and do not now. I uninstalled game and reinstalled.

I verified file integrity.

I confirmed 3DMigoto (new name VR enhanser) is off. Btw I never set it up, just did the install and did not change any settings

I am still locked out

 

What now?

 

This is nuts. You are erasing years of VR work to get close to 2D levels (the game is optimized for 2D, VR stock has been dreadful with developer settings. Hopefully that's getting better. 

 

Who's the idiot that cheated, want to hang him out to dry...

 

"You" is all multiplayer servers (at least the ones I play on. Finn, CB. AKA, Kota,TAW

 

jokkr

 

 

 

Edited June 18 by JG51_jokkr

[SR603-Flowbee 1062]

I am one of the last people still playing in 3Dvision. I  use 3DMigoto to remove shaders that cannot be fixed. This makes the game look very slightly worse ie no shadows in cockpit but hugely more immersive due to 3D. I wouldn't dream of using a cheat to get an advantage I have never nor ever would cheat as that would totally ruin any immersion. Now just when I discovered this brilliant server and was all setup to start flying on it regularly I find I will no longer be able to do so. Why? Because the tool I use to fly in 3D could be used to gain an advantage. Seriously. I am now forced out because of a remote possibility that someone might be smart enough to use 3Dmigto and cares so little for simulation flying that they would actually use it to cheat. To what purpose and gain would such cheating be? I am very sad and disappointed at this decision and thereby no longer being allowed to join your server.

 

I sincerely hope you will reconsider.

[WB_jokkr 66]

Ok, I fixed the exclusion

 

Apparently if you "ever" installed reshade in the past it leaves a few dead folders. No knowing that I removed

Shaderfixes and all D3D* files

I then did a file integrity pass, it checked and replaced what was missing and

 

ALL IS WORKING

 

[edited] who started this mess

 

jokkr

 

Edited June 19 by SYN_Haashashin
Language

[LLv34_Untamo 307]

Guys, cut the witch hunt. No one is or has been detected cheating. We were given direct evidence on HOW to cheat with the shaders, so it is POSSIBLE for anyone to cheat if they are enabled. So we disabled them. Simple as that.

[1./JG42flesch 49]

What is wrong with the Server?

Last 6 Missions are all betwenn 54-134 Minutes long.

Wy not 6 Hours?

[LLv34_Temuri 738]

6 hours ago, 1./JG42flesch said:

What is wrong with the Server?

Last 6 Missions are all betwenn 54-134 Minutes long.

Wy not 6 Hours?

One possible reason is that there are ships, which will be destroyed quite fast. After that, when the frontline troops and artillery get enough damage -> rotation.

[1./JG42flesch 49]

Thanks for Information

[1stCL/rudidlo 81]

@LLv34_Temuri, could you put Anti aircraft defenses at the bridges between Axis and Allied units? Some players got used to destroy those bridges and force tank players into the situation that tank players can't play.
Yesterday map rotated within an hour and you can't get so far with tank in this time. 

[LLv34_Temuri 738]

1 minute ago, 1stCL/rudidlo said:

@LLv34_Temuri, could you put Anti aircraft defenses at the bridges between Axis and Allied units? Some players got used to destroy those bridges and force tank players into the situation that tank players can't play.
Yesterday map rotated within an hour and you can't get so far with tank in this time. 

Putting AA guns next to the bridges would not guarantee that the bridges stay intact.

[1stCL/rudidlo 81]

29 minutes ago, LLv34_Temuri said:

Putting AA guns next to the bridges would not guarantee that the bridges stay intact.

I agree, it wouldn't. But it will really not motivate other players to intentionally destroying them.

[1./JG42flesch 49]

The Problem is this Bridges are destroyed for the Rest off this Mission.

It would be nice when the Bridges was repaired after 20 or 30 Minutes.

[LLv34_Temuri 738]

3 minutes ago, 1./JG42flesch said:

It would be nice when the Bridges was repaired after 20 or 30 Minutes.

Having this would be doable, and I like this idea. Just requires changes to mission generation.

[315_R2r 18]

1 hour ago, LLv34_Temuri said:

Having this would be doable, and I like this idea. Just requires changes to mission generation.

I encourage when it is possible to destroy the bridges and will do it my self as well whenever possible to prevent the tanks to get to the front line camps.

And I don't think that the 20 - 30 minutes repair is a good idea.... If you can repair bridges why not apply automatic supply for the camps?

This is target as any other and as any other destroyed target it stops the enemy progress.

Have seen that being done by blue side as well.

Another aspect is that it is being done recently more often when T-34 and Sherman need to face Panthers and Tigers face to face - which I have state in private conversation is totally pointless and unbalanced. Yesterday we deliberately start doing that to not let the Panthers next to red camp.

[1stCL/rudidlo 81]

2 hours ago, 315_R2r said:

I encourage when it is possible to destroy the bridges and will do it my self as well whenever possible to prevent the tanks to get to the front line camps.

I don't because in this case you're blocking patch between tanks for tankers from both sides.
 

 

2 hours ago, 315_R2r said:

This is target as any other and as any other destroyed target it stops the enemy progress.

Yes, it is and I hope it will get AA defense like any other target.

[315_R2r 18]

15 minutes ago, 1stCL/rudidlo said:

I don't because in this case you're blocking patch between tanks for tankers from both sides.
 

 

Yes, it is and I hope it will get AA defense like any other target.

Yes it block both side, high profitable when there are op panthers and tigers...

Anyone who thinks/says that panther or tiger is not op and they are balanced please prove me wrong, let's make duel you pick any tank/td from allies side on the Finnish front - I will take panther or tiger - we start 4km away from each other. Who take the challenge?

 

If you give AA defence to the bridges, please add AA defence as well to the temporary airfields.... Make it proportional to the number of aircraft on the af if needed, make it destructible if needed, make it rebuild after 20 min as well....

 

Edited June 25 by 315_R2r

[=SA=Semz 10]

No one will transfer from the tiger and Panther to the Soviet tanks, otherwise they will have to admit that there is no balance. Thank you stupid developers!!!

[315_R2r 18]

57 minutes ago, =SA=Semz said:

No one will transfer from the tiger and Panther to the Soviet tanks, otherwise they will have to admit that there is no balance. Thank you stupid developers!!!

It is not to the developers - 1C made it as real as could, but it is up to the front admins and configuration to balance the front....

[1stCL/rudidlo 81]

4 hours ago, 315_R2r said:

Yes it block both side, high profitable when there are op panthers and tigers...

Their numbers are limited.

@LLv34_Temuri, I wanted to fly on your server. Two times I connected, took a bomber and after half hour of flying just saw that server is rotating next mission. Two times during an hour. Are you going to solve that somehow?

[315_R2r 18]

1 hour ago, 1stCL/rudidlo said:

Their numbers are limited.

@LLv34_Temuri, I wanted to fly on your server. Two times I connected, took a bomber and after half hour of flying just saw that server is rotating next mission. Two times during an hour. Are you going to solve that somehow?

This is ok, the rotation is due to fact that the targets has been destroyed - and one side break trough the defend of the others - like 100% ships destroyed when on your side none has been destroyed, then your side make the progress - some players don't understand some rules or don't know that and they don't know how to be effective...

[315_R2r 18]

7 hours ago, 1stCL/rudidlo said:

Their numbers are limited.

LoL - and what does it change if they are limited?

You take my challenge:

Anyone who thinks/says that panther or tiger is not op and they are balanced please prove me wrong, let's make duel you pick any tank/td from allies side on the Finnish front - I will take panther or tiger - we start 4km away from each other.

[1stCL/rudidlo 81]

3 hours ago, 315_R2r said:

LoL - and what does it change if they are limited?

You take my challenge:

Anyone who thinks/says that panther or tiger is not op and they are balanced please prove me wrong, let's make duel you pick any tank/td from allies side on the Finnish front - I will take panther or tiger - we start 4km away from each other.

I've tried taking Panther few times in the past. Sometimes I was destroyed by AI. Just two hits. 

10 hours ago, 315_R2r said:

This is ok, the rotation is due to fact that the targets has been destroyed - and one side break trough the defend of the others - like 100% ships destroyed when on your side none has been destroyed, then your side make the progress - some players don't understand some rules or don't know that and they don't know how to be effective...

I understand the rules, this is why I want map authors to add more targets. I like Finnish virtual fighters server, because it has 6 hours rotation by default. That's possible fly with bomber, climb and attack targets from height. What is happening now is that you don't have enough time to climb.

[LLv34_Temuri 738]

51 minutes ago, 1stCL/rudidlo said:

I understand the rules, this is why I want map authors to add more targets. I like Finnish virtual fighters server, because it has 6 hours rotation by default. That's possible fly with bomber, climb and attack targets from height. What is happening now is that you don't have enough time to climb.

And this is why I want the devs to improve dserver performance

 

I did add some more ships to the rotation, as I think there was some capacity to do so.

[Tobi_der_Ossi 6]

1 hour ago, 1stCL/rudidlo said:

I've tried taking Panther few times in the past. Sometimes I was destroyed by AI. Just two hits. 

I understand the rules, this is why I want map authors to add more targets. I like Finnish virtual fighters server, because it has 6 hours rotation by default. That's possible fly with bomber, climb and attack targets from height. What is happening now is that you don't have enough time to climb.

Than you failed with the Panther. The AI is not possible to epentrate the front of panther. I took several dozen hits from their base whilr killing one tank after another untill my ammo went out. How many player T34 or Shermans do you need to destroy one Panther? And in general the panther dosent come alone since many people tend to play just german tanks. So before a panther attacls the base, bombing bridges is allways good. I even bomb bridges that arent targets so tanks cant croas it. 

[=SA=Semz 10]

All Russian tanks are destroyed by a single shell, maximum 2. Panther can be destroyed by a single shell from the side or from the back and it is necessary to still somehow go around it, the Tiger can not be killed by him all for nothing ., like peas from the wall. From SU-122, SU-152 after the first corrective shot you will be taken to the cemetery.On Russian tanks, you have to try hard not to die at the front. The tiger and Panther can go and not be afraid that the caterpillar will be damaged

[315_R2r 18]

Here what I wrote to Temuri on priv - but since we go here also for the tankset discussion apart from my challenge see below my next suggestion...

 

Please correct me if I am wrong but I assume you made the front with intention that it is balanced and gives both side more/less equal chances..
Or you made it only to have the shooting range and get proud of never-ending improvement in your stats? 😄
That is why the front depots, rear depots, train stations and artillery and troops camps are same size same points in total etc...
I agree when it comes to the planes blues and reds are different and each plane has it own purpose. Discussions here can be endless but in general I think that the plan-sets you gave are more/less balanced.
With one exception to Me-262 - but I will comeback to that later on.
As for the tanks - they are different as well but you know my opinion and I still think you should remove the Panther and Tiger from the tank set - you can remove the KV1s and both SU if you want,  
I don't find them useful and I guess not many people will regrate that...
At the forum no one yet pick up my challenge...
I guess you want the front to be balanced and that is why when you think about supply and paradrops you give the Ju52 for the red side as well since there is no similar plane yet in the game...
Please do me a favor - since you do not listen to my argumentation before - talk with your collegues and if in your opinion the Panther and Tiger are balanced as well as Me-262 do the switch.
Give KV1s and both SU to the blue side and Panther with Tiger on the same condition as blue have (2 per spawn) now to the red side.
Same with Me-262. Since you were able to do it with Ju52 as allied one for paratroops I see no technical problem with doing that for the one above.
Please do make it - I would be very curios about other people opinion on that and see who will be playing what sides after that.
I like to play for the objectives, I am for the fair fight.
Please don't give one side arguments and advantage that you cannot provide for the second side as well.

 

And let see for the next Q3 and Q4 how it goes with that...

Edited June 26 by 315_R2r

[13/JG5Luck 7]

Strange discussion,

 

I thought the game is built after the original features or planes / tanks . So, a Tiger should be much more stable than a Sherman under fire. Just study the literature, it's obvious.

 

German tanks on red side would ruin the historic virtual war.

 

[315_R2r 18]

13/JG5Luck ...please don't make me laugh with your argumentation -  the front is not for the historic accuracy, it is to be balanced....

Game is build after originals and I do not deny it. (more less as the game is not in the end the 100% of reality)

But the online front I think is not for the historic accuracy and it's obvious, tempest and me-262 never fought over Russia - so  you should just study the literature as well.... (got the point? - it was sarcasm)

And with Tigers and Panthers on 1vs1 action it is not balanced at all....

 

[Chaintong 2]

I think the Developers need to introduce the T34 85 with its 85mm gun this would maintain the realism as they were designed to deal with the Tigers late in the war. This would even things up a bit and make game less frustrating from a Soviet point of view

[315_R2r 18]

Just now, Chaintong said:

I think the Developers need to introduce the T34 85 with its 85mm gun this would maintain the realism as they were designed to deal with the Tigers late in the war. This would even things up a bit and make game less frustrating from a Soviet point of view

Game is a game, maybe they will add T34 85 or IS tank or even IS-2 or Firefly or King Tiger in the future etc...

The point is not in the game and it mechanics and algorithms - the point is about balancing the on line front ... That is why I send the message to Temuri and that is why the discussion is here on the Finnish-virtualpilots-dynamic-war topic.

Repeat again, we talk about balancing the front for both sides - otherwise why even care about objectives on the front - lets make it one side only and on the other side just put novice AI pilots and tc. Wonder if it will still be a fun....

[Chaintong 2]

Short term fix it would even things up to have Tigers and Panthers on either side with different camo so you know who is friendly or enemy It would be an interesting experiment  I agree

[315_R2r 18]

6 minutes ago, Chaintong said:

Short term fix it would even things up to have Tigers and Panthers on either side with different camo so you know who is friendly or enemy It would be an interesting experiment  I agree

would make it balance, but I would like to see also the others opinions when it will be just the switch.... just to give example of how unbalancing it is... Make the others that don't see yet any problem with that to feel how it is....

[13/JG5Luck 7]

Well, again. We play a historic flight simulation based on  WW2. I don't get your point at all to balance forces on both sides to have the same conditions. I see the individual material and technic on both sides as an additional kick which the players needs to handle besides operating a plane or tank. Russion planes turn faster than the German ones, top speed is different from plane to plane etc...

 

So, if you want to balance both sides we would only need one standard plane or tank on each side. Everbody has the same material available. And you think this would be fun?

 

 

[1./JG42flesch 49]

Wy does this Guys not play Chess, that Game has the Balance to both Side who the want!😜

Edited June 28 by 1./JG42flesch

[315_R2r 18]

8 hours ago, 13/JG5Luck said:

Well, again. We play a historic flight simulation based on  WW2. I don't get your point at all to balance forces on both sides to have the same conditions. I see the individual material and technic on both sides as an additional kick which the players needs to handle besides operating a plane or tank. Russion planes turn faster than the German ones, top speed is different from plane to plane etc...

 

So, if you want to balance both sides we would only need one standard plane or tank on each side. Everbody has the same material available. And you think this would be fun?

 

 

Not the one plane, similar planes and capabilities - that is why you do not face Tempest with your F4 or F2 - why you think both side have Ju-52 for the paratroops drop?

You want it to be historical? Reduce the available planes for blue by half, same for the camp size and ships - you will not tell me that the Russians and allies did not have the numerical superiority over Germans....

Limit the blue players number by half - so there could be only 1 blue player vs 2 red.... 10 vs 20 - make it historical.

 

Edited June 28 by 315_R2r

[HRc_Tumu 484]

balance is one of this strange things..... only are good when help u no?

[315_R2r 18]

1 hour ago, 1./JG42flesch said:

Wy does this Guys not play Chess, that Game has the Balance to both Side who the want!😜

And you are the guy who cry after the bridges get destroyed are you playing dumb or you really are one?

Go play Chess yourself, there are no bridges in that game.