Jump to content
Han

Developer Diary 203 - Discussion

Recommended Posts

Im so glad next update is about improving the netcode and bug fixing!

All the rest looks good too, but i'm not craving content too much when the gameplay is (sometimes) hardly enjoyable with bugs piling up.

So a massive thanks to you!

Can't wait to fly over the new Kursk map too, I might end up buying the tanks.^^

 

Edited by =FEW=Hauggy
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

😁

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stupor-mundi said:

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.

😁

 

Parity for what? If the tiger was better why do we need to establish some artificial parity. Allies will have to work together to get rid of the tigers instead of lonewolfing it one on one frontally.

Lets stop asking game changes for things that should be player behavior changes.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stupor-mundi said:

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.

😁

 

 

Salutations,

 

I suppose you think there was parity between the games original T-34 and the Pz III. The T-34 was obviously superior. The German players just had to deal with it... and they did.

 

No plane or tank will ever be unstoppable. Forget about supposed equipment parity for game balancing.

 

I agree with Jade_Monkey....'partiy for what'? For those that want a super plane or tank so they can single  handedly take on others... don't hold you breath or expect such a weapons platform in any form.

 

I've seen a pilot in a Stuka take on and defeat several dedicated fighters and win. There was no performance parity In such an engagement, just a superior pilot in a Ju-87. Other such examples could be given but let it suffice to preclude us from wanting a super weapons platform or parity. It didn't and doesn't exist in multiplay war. The players expertise cannot be dismissed or quantified base upon their equipment inherent capabilities. :salute:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Jade_Monkey said:

Parity for what? If the tiger was better why do we need to establish some artificial parity. Allies will have to work together to get rid of the tigers instead of lonewolfing it one on one frontally.

Lets stop asking game changes for things that should be player behavior changes.

Yes, this will be a matter of mission design, and player cooperation. The mission maker will need to be sure to restrict the number of German uber-tanks (Tiger I, Panther D, and Ferdinand) and include a large number of AI soviets for the Red players to hide among and use as bait. Red players will also need to work together to flank and have proper air support from the Il-2s etc. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Historically, there were inherent limits of the so called 'uber' tanks in large tank battles. One shouldn't have to contend with a armored battalion made up of Panthers and Tigers etc. They simply didn't exist.

 

Of course, players will want to be in the so called 'uber' vehicles but they should be in the minority (numbers wise) on any large battlefield created by mission builders..

 

In my last single player tank mission, I had two T-34 and two of the new Kv1s in the defense of a small town. There were various other light tanks and such but those four were the most potent defense against a incoming battalion sized German panzer force from the West and South.

 

I had one of the new Kv1s routed out to the west, to a elevated spot, to cover a road approach to the town. The others (including the Players Kv1s) were used to counter the enemy attack from the south of town. In this case, the lone Kv1s to the west completely obliterated the force of five light and medium panzer platoons at range and survived all counter fire. At the time of the mission creation the Tiger could not be used under AI control. I strongly suspect the situation would have played out differently if the German force included only a couple Tigers.

 

That's not to say that the new Kv1s is invulnerable. As the player, I was knocked out several times during my playtesting of the mission. Although, I could have made life even more difficult for the 'player' by the inclusion of a few more 88s. But in this case, I desired to give the Russian player a chance to win versus a much larger force.

 

That brings up another point... why wasn't there a AI controllable Tiger version included in Tank Crew? Only a 'player' version is currently available. Inquiring minds want to know. 

Edited by Thad
Mission Example

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather excited by the Po-2. Also glad to have the Pfalz (one of my two favourites planned for vol.1)

 

I love the various improvements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Thad said:

That brings up another point... why wasn't there a AI controllable Tiger version included in Tank Crew? Only a 'player' version is currently available. Inquiring minds want to know. 

 

I suppose they made no AI model for this new tank. So we need to wait for proper tank AI that can control all the stations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Thad said:

I suppose you think there was parity between the games original T-34 and the Pz III.

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.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, stupor-mundi said:

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.

 

 

 

It is interesting that the tank creators are working on a up-armored version of the Pz III. It will be interesting to see how things develop. We are only at the beginning of Tank Crew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2018 at 10:52 AM, 6./ZG26_Gielow said:

Great !! Lets end soon the unfair bug of two guys collide and one survive. Yesterday night I survived a head on ram attack from a 109 with no damage

I agree had this happen tonight and had a track recorded of it felt terrible after seeing it.  In game I had thought it was a lag collision.

Edited by Garven_Dreis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, stupor-mundi said:

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

 

Best place would be in the Tank Crew forum. They just created new tabs at the top.

If you are on mobile you can tap the menu icon on the top right (three horizontal lines) and you should find the Tank Crew tab there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those new effects look very nice! :salute:

 

A question about Air Marshall mode - will it bring us the feature of reconaissance? (+ possible recon mods for some planes we currently have and even some dedicated recon planes such as FW 189)?  :)

 

 

 

 

Edited by Ropalcz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

Fire effects are astonishing.

 

I actually don't like them, at least in the screenies we see here. The "fire bubble" texture features look way too big to me. Will have to see how it looks in action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first I was thinking that the development cycle seemed slow compared to Kuban, but i finally figured out that they are waiting until a whole swath of items are ready to release. So instead of monthly updates containing a plane each it seems they are in bi-montly intervals with two planes and other things. All is well.

 

The effects definitely are an improvement. The P-40 gun smoke is nice but I hope we have a variation of the effect based on speed. Faster speed would mean the puffs dont reach out in front so much and we should see a pronounced trail leading behind. 

 

Overall I cant wait for the end of this month or early next month for those A8 goodies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Field-Ops said:

At first I was thinking that the development cycle seemed slow compared to Kuban, but i finally figured out that they are waiting until a whole swath of items are ready to release. So instead of monthly updates containing a plane each it seems they are in bi-montly intervals with two planes and other things. All is well.

 

The effects definitely are an improvement. The P-40 gun smoke is nice but I hope we have a variation of the effect based on speed. Faster speed would mean the puffs dont reach out in front so much and we should see a pronounced trail leading behind. 

 

Overall I cant wait for the end of this month or early next month for those A8 goodies.

 

or...you know... the devs were on summer vacation like every year? 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do wonder what happened to the Fw-190 D9. We saw it twice in the last couple of DD's. I would have thought it would be ahead in development compared to the K4, but maybe that's not true. 

 

Not a big deal. Just a brain-fart.

 

Grt M 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems obvious that the Spit IX, both 109s and the A-8 were the aircrafts needing the lesser amount of work, as they are so similar to already existing aircrafts.

The d-9 on the other hand, is significantly different from the other 190s, so it makes sense that it's coming later. There was little reason to expect it before the k-4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2018 at 12:31 PM, bies said:

Great update. Late war German bombs, so much content, improved visual effects.

Fantastic work as always.

What are late war german bombs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheTacticalCat said:

What are late war german bombs?

 

I explained it up above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fire is leaping forward, ahead of the leading edge of the wing on this speeding aircraft.  Surely this would be impossible in real life?

 

gfx_04.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

The fire is leaping forward, ahead of the leading edge of the wing on this speeding aircraft.  Surely this would be impossible in real life?

 

gfx_04.jpg

 

Yeah, there is really no way that would happen - especially not with the fire originating behind the spinning prop.

 

Also to be really nickpicky: Shouldn’t the propwash heavily influence the fire and smoke here?

 

Still, it’s minor details. The fire itself looks great.

14 hours ago, I./ZG1_Martijnvdm said:

I do wonder what happened to the Fw-190 D9. We saw it twice in the last couple of DD's. I would have thought it would be ahead in development compared to the K4, but maybe that's not true. 

 

Not a big deal. Just a brain-fart.

 

Grt M 

 

The K4 obviously was kinda low-hanging fruit in terms of development. Especially since the cockpit can bemade with only minor alterations from the G14. Not surprised to see it slip in ahead of the D9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

The K4 obviously was kinda low-hanging fruit in terms of development. Especially since the cockpit can bemade with only minor alterations from the G14. Not surprised to see it slip in ahead of the D9.

 

That is of course understandable. The one thing that i found curious is that the D9 was shown twice already, and the K4 just this once. 

 

Grt M 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, I./ZG1_Martijnvdm said:

 

That is of course understandable. The one thing that i found curious is that the D9 was shown twice already, and the K4 just this once. 

 

Grt M 

 

Just a guess, but maybe they thought the K4 would be the least exciting thing to show off, at least until it was fully skinned? They are working on multiple aircraft simultaneously, so each week it has got to be a choice of what’s more exciting to show the community today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Finkeren said:

 

Just a guess, but maybe they thought the K4 would be the least exciting thing to show off, at least until it was fully skinned? They are working on multiple aircraft simultaneously, so each week it has got to be a choice of what’s more exciting to show the community today.

 

It certainly is the least exciting for me. I am waiting for the Tempest, of which so far no word except that it is on the list.  Perhaps once the K-4 is done we need never see another 109, since the early war seems to be off limits for some reason.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

The fire is leaping forward, ahead of the leading edge of the wing on this speeding aircraft.  Surely this would be impossible in real life?

 

gfx_04.jpg

 

 

FB_IMG_1537259972272.jpg

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a fire !!! 👆👆

Fire from three years ago. 👇

 

 

Fire from 10 years ago. 👇

 

 

Edited by 6./ZG26_Gielow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the graphic improvements. If you could also improve the impacts (damage) of heavy machine gun on lighter buildings, wooden shacks  or warehouses.

Also add people to man the guns on boats and submarines.

Thanks again for your efforts improving the game. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I am very skeptical when it comes to new effects, They are simply not easy to get right and to suit all tastes around . To me showing a picture of a exploding B 17 with real people inside to prove a effect is not ok, and totally wrong type of effect to compare a fire in a moving plane.

I once again see improvements or attempts of improvements from the developers . I like subtile effects like small puffs when hitting and a bit less fire than shown here. But I can live with whatever extra on  top of that. Mostly because it is me that usually go down in flames, and I fly on servers I do not get to use outside view

Edited by LuseKofte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

 

What are you trying to say here?   

Proving your point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a fan of new fire effect either. The individual fire "bubbles" as Freycinet called them seem to be way out of scale at the very back of the flame, making the screenshots look as if it was a much downscaled R/C plane burning. It seems BoX effect artist went the same way Team Fusion 4.3 mod effect artist did, with the same, questionable result.

 

Oh well, let's wait and see how they look in motion, though. One can usually get over / get used to so-so effects that are not visible close to his airplane anyway.

Edited by Art-J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...