Developer Diary 200 - Discussion

[LukeFF]

6 minutes ago, E69_geramos109 said:

Sherman was called the zipo because the ammo storage was really exposed and it used to explode killing everyone so the survival rate... was really one of the worse.

 

...on certain models only. Seriously man, do some more research before repeating the same old myths that refuse to die. 

[E69_geramos109]

3 hours ago, Plurp said:

Ask your bomber pilots to try the game again.  With the new horizon draw distances, climbing to altitude is a lot more enjoyable and the view is great, especially fall/summer.  I have bombed targets online upwards to 7K and yes, intercepted at that alt.  Most targets are around terrain features and these can been seen from those alt's.  A little recon of the target (online) or recon pics (co-ops) goes a long way for target orientation etc as yes, the targets themselves render later then the terrain.  The greatest hinderance these days to bombing from high alt is cloud cover, to me this is the only limiting factor.

 

I have also had fun with the trial and error of different bomb/fuel loads, especially on hot days to compare climb times and to be able to reach the higher alts.  Examples:  Just the 28 50s in the 88; A 500lb and 4 250s/16 50s in the H-6;  16 100s in the A-20;  With the H-16 you get back the 8 250s or 32 50s with the 111.

 

Long story short, I am having a blast with some high alt level bombing in addition to bombing with everything else that carries a bomb.

I use to bomb also on servers like taw and you can navigate or see the pics. But the problem is sometimes that when you arrive is too late to know if something is destroyed or not because the rendering distance with no time for corrections

[Legioneod]

10 minutes ago, E69_geramos109 said:

Sherman was called the zipo because the ammo storage was really exposed and it used to explode killing everyone so the survival rate... was really one of the worse. 

This was fixed on nearly every model later in the war with the addition of wet ammo storage. The Sherman was actually one of the safest tanks on the battlefield when it came to crew survival rates.

[E69_geramos109]

1 minute ago, LukeFF said:

 

...on certain models only. Seriously man, do some more research before repeating the same old myths that refuse to die. 

Maybe you should do it  before acusing me. The wet ammo storages was introduced later model of shermans not on the 43 early M4A2 

 

I know is fun for you to search every post i write to criticise me with personal attack. So is fine

[skline00]

Thad, THANK YOU for the compilation of controls for Tank Crew. Just bought it this morning and your sheet was VERY helpful.

[Thad]

Keep em rolling tanker. 

[Dakpilot]

58 minutes ago, Habu said:

It's not the building view distance which is increased, it's only the landscape which is increased, but not the objects.

 

Under Settings - Game-

Map scenery distance 

 

What does this influence compared to 

 

Settings - Graphics - 

Horizon draw distance

 

I never really looked Into it properly 

 

To question the above mention of Sherman and T-34, I thought T-34 was diesel engined and the lend lease Shermans sent to Russia were also diesel versions, I thought this made them much less susceptible to fires than petrol engined tanks. 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[Legioneod]

16 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

 

Under Settings - Game-

Map scenery distance 

 

What does this influence compared to 

 

Settings - Graphics - 

Horizon draw distance

 

I never really looked Into it properly 

 

To question the above mention of Sherman and T-34, I thought T-34 was diesel engined and the lend lease Shermans sent to Russia were also diesel versions, I thought this made them much less susceptible to fires than petrol engined tanks. 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

The likelihood of a tank catching fire from the fuel being gas vs diesel was minimal, the main killer of tanks was the ammo storage.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Almost all tanks had "exposed" ammunition racks though, the Tiger and Panther also had ammo stored at almost all the lenght side of the crew compartment, vulnerable to side hits. The Panzer IV also had some ammo stored vertically behind the driver and machine gunner, those would be vulnerable in case of front penetration.

Having easy access ammo for the loader tends to go in line with vulnerability against incoming fire. The safest place for ammo would be horizontally placed at the hull floor, but it isn't very convenient for loading quickly.
 

50 minutes ago, E69_geramos109 said:

Sherman was called the zipo because the ammo storage was really exposed and it used to explode killing everyone so the survival rate... was really one of the worse. T34s had the fuel tank on the sides of the crew compartment so from the front and sides the fuel tank could be hit with catastrofical consecuences

Afaik the zipo name was a post-war term, the early Shermans were vulnerable ofc, but the whole zipo/ronsoon thing was a post-war nickname. The T-34/KV-1 fuel tanks at the sides of the compartment is interesting as well, if the tanks were full/close to full there wasn't much risk of fire/explosions as there wasn't enough oxygen and fuel fumes to ignite. IIRC in WT forums someone posted a Soviet report about firing tests to see the effects, and the conclusion was that for the first hit there wasn't much effect, but with consecutive hits as the fuel tanks were pierced and emptied, then they went up in flames.

[Blutaar]

5 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

Rubbish... I want the AI sorted as much as the next man as I am mainly a SP player.

However, never forget that the team 'has' to make money and a living. If they were to follow the advice of some people on here they would soon be out of a job.

And how people become the font of all knowledge on numbers leaving because of their personal issues with the game is beyond me... show us all the evidence of that and I'll eat my words.

There are so many things that I would love to see improved that would make the SP element that much better, but I'm not going to 'leave' (how over dramatic) because of it.

 

If you are mainly a SP guy, how can you enjoy the game then? And how can you still support the game when there are no AI changes planned like forever? The devs made it clear at some point that there will be no AI overhaul because they are not willing to pay for a dedicated AI guy. It seems they think it is not worth the money and that they should focus on new content to keep the money flow. I kind of understand them but im not willing to pay them anymore for that and i hope many people will do the same. Only when the money stops flowing they might change their prioritys and the importance of good AI in a Flightsim. And i supported the game long enough patiently waiting but without a change in AI, there is no reason for me to further support the game. So why should i? To not letting them get bankrupt? Pff i dont care because im not a good samaritan. If they cant deliver me the product i deserve for my money, i wont give a damn. Thats how it goes for every buisness.

 

When playing the campaign it gets so obviuos how bad the AI really is, that it astounds me how people can enjoy the game. Are my standards really to high? I dont think so. I mean it is not so that i didnt try. I played so many hours in the campaign since its release and i really tried hard to enjoy it but the longer i played, the deeper my frustration got. In my opinion it would be a good idea to make a great AI so people who only purchased BoS and stopped playing the game because of reasons, could come back and enjoy the game again and maybe buy more. Sure it sounds like a risk but ignoring the AI completely is also a risk in my book. Im still surprised that they made it so far with all the issues like the AI, short render distance, cloud issues, inconsistent FMs (subjective) and ridiculous engine destruction timers (lol). I guess it is the luxury to not have any competition. I hope this will change in the future. Because i like WW2 Flightsims the most but im not stupid enough to pay more and more money for a product i cant enjoy. And it is not so that im not interested in tanks or ww1 planes but with the current AI, no way for me i could enjoy it. Just saying.

 

Can you explain to me what is so over dramatic about it when you cant enjoy a product and therefore stop buying it? For example if you stop lifting weights in the gym because the gym lacks quipment, do you still gonna pay the membership fees because you like the owner or do you stop your membership and invest that money elsewhere? I bet you stop the membership like every normal person would do. But here you make an excuse even when you dislike many things it seems. I mean do what you want and keep supporting but this will not fix any AI problems.

 

And in case a dev read this. I dont hate you or your game! I just hate what you call AI and i disagree with your decisions you made when it comes to the AI. So please dont be confused. Overall i can enjoy the game enough when it comes to flying and shooting at stuff in the QMB but this gets boring really fast and will not be enough to make me buy more. Because im not a fanboy. I can overlook all the other issues i have with your game but not the lack of AI anymore. Sorry! I can of course only speak for myself and maybe i am in the minority and can be ignored. You know best what the actual numbers are. And delete my post if you want to just like my previous post got deleted, i dont care but it will not fix any AI problems for me or anyone else!

[Thad]

Gee, I have to wonder why anybody would delete such a wonderful post. The IL2 world can be crazy can't it? ?

[Habu]

46 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

 

Under Settings - Game-

Map scenery distance 

 

What does this influence compared to 

 

Settings - Graphics - 

Horizon draw distance

 

I never really looked Into it properly 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

1

 

 

Map scenery distance is for campaign mod, and if i remember, it's for the AI.

But it's not a visibility setting. It's just the game which manages AI at a higher distance.

For example :

If you set to 20 km, the game will generate all the AI and manage them in a bobble of 20 Km, but object visibility will still remain at 10 km.

[E69_geramos109]

@Ishtaru I agree on everything. If you dont like the product then dont support. That is happening to a lot of people including me depending the next realease. For the momment I did not buy the tanks and the circus and lets see with next map. 

Game is not achiving my expectations regarding some bugs, limitations and fm consistency. If they anounce a check of some points i will be back buyng but was already some years hearing the same about the lack of resources and that they need to keep releasing to get more money so... 

 

Is not hate or something is just my desition. I will keep sending pms to them about test of the bugs etc even i get not money for doing them part of the job keeping some hope that at some point they will have enought money or gap to read them and solve it. 

[Trooper117]

11 minutes ago, Thad said:

Gee, I have to wonder why anybody would delete such a wonderful post. The IL2 world can be crazy can't it? ?

 

It's not crazy Thad, more like pathetic... at the end of the day, I have enough brain cells to understand it's simply a game when all said and done.

No game will ever replicate real life, so we are left with an idea, an approximation or semblance of air combat in WWII, and that is it.

The dev's have explained over and over again they understand that the AI needs some attention, they are aware... If, as an individual I can't live with that I would simply leave the game and find something else to do... but there are individuals here that feel the need to cry to the world that their world is collapsing around them.

 

Fair enough, we are all different, it takes all sorts etc, so on... I have stated many times that the game needs some major work on the SP side, in fact I have done it since BoS was released, and yes, I have stopped playing a few times since then as my whole life does not revolve around this sim.

I have other interests and visit them while I give this game a rest...

Have I ever 'threatened' to leave the game just because things aren't as I would like?... no.

Have I tried to sway other users by stating that 'many people will leave' because things I would like improved or changed haven't happened?... no.

 

I have followed the IL2 series from the start with Oleg... it has been part of my life for many years now and I would not be without it.

Am I a fan, of course I am... 

[Thad]

Trooper117... I meant my post as sarcasm critical of the prior posts' contentions. ?

 

Sorry for any confusion. 

Edited August 26, 2018 by Thad

[Trooper117]

lol!... I know, No drama mate!  

[Gambit21]

23 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

Also, please lets stop with the fallacy that content development is somehow preventing bug fixes. Bugs tend to be issues with code and coders are not typically involved with content development.

 

 

 

This

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

The likelihood of a tank catching fire from the fuel being gas vs diesel was minimal, the main killer of tanks was the ammo storage.

 

...and spalling/wounding, killing the crew.

"Killing" the tank often just meant that the crew was killed/incapacitated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[E69_geramos109]

50 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

 

It's not crazy Thad, more like pathetic... at the end of the day, I have enough brain cells to understand it's simply a game when all said and done.

No game will ever replicate real life, so we are left with an idea, an approximation or semblance of air combat in WWII, and that is it.

The dev's have explained over and over again they understand that the AI needs some attention, they are aware... If, as an individual I can't live with that I would simply leave the game and find something else to do... but there are individuals here that feel the need to cry to the world that their world is collapsing around them.

 

Fair enough, we are all different, it takes all sorts etc, so on... I have stated many times that the game needs some major work on the SP side, in fact I have done it since BoS was released, and yes, I have stopped playing a few times since then as my whole life does not revolve around this sim.

I have other interests and visit them while I give this game a rest...

Have I ever 'threatened' to leave the game just because things aren't as I would like?... no.

Have I tried to sway other users by stating that 'many people will leave' because things I would like improved or changed haven't happened?... no.

 

I have followed the IL2 series from the start with Oleg... it has been part of my life for many years now and I would not be without it.

Am I a fan, of course I am... 

We Know that is just a game but is on the end a product you buy and you get something for your money so is valid to make critic if there are bugs. This is also a Forum and there are discussion topics some people make critics, others clap the hands, other say nothing etc. 

But happens allways the same, the time someone makes critic others say that the people that is making critic has no brain cells so yes the comunity sometimes is pathetic. 

One thing is wanting to have a "real thing" and other wanting to have a fine game without that big bugs. 

Of course is a game i have other things to do. But on the forum of the game i will talk and critic things of the game so nothinc collapsing on my other word. The only one who will collapse is the enterprise doing the game if comunity is not happy. If you want to keep paying for something that you dont know if is going to be fixed or not great is your choice. There are other choices but there will be people allways that can not accept that there are other ways to think so they think that are the only ones on the world with brain cells. 

 

Edited August 26, 2018 by E69_geramos109

[BraveSirRobin]

I’d love to know on which planet the IL2/1946 AI was good.  Because here on planet Earth it sucked.