Jump to content
AnPetrovich

Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?

Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?  

289 members have voted

  1. 1. Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?

    • Befoe 3.008
      65
    • After 3.008
      224


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

Panthera, it is useless arguing with the guy that thinks adding single shot probabilities to 100% yields the average number of shots needed to bring down a plane...

 

The American study does attempt to make survival rate calculations. These calculations are based on single shot probabilities. Why do they do that? Maybe they had spare time left and wanted to produce another statistic.

 

They do that, as you would know if you read the report, because they conclude that much of the time the probabilities really are independent, especially for the large caliber guns. 

 

16 minutes ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

 

If you take into account that there is not only an infinite amount of possible ways to parametrisize a single dependence (cumulative effect) between the kill-p (since the the survival never actually goes down to 0 so you have to set a convergence alas your implicit dependence changes) but also an infinite amount of possibly different covariances between single shots, you see that you end up with an infinite amount of degrees of freedom that can also be parameteisized by an infinite amount of parameters to arrive the same average of 4 hits.

 

You cannot determine the cumulative effects of a succession of hits unless you have a distribution. We do not have that for the German tests - actually we barely have any credible averages.  You are aware, I hope, that the 25% and "4" numbers being bandied about are based on assuming independence? A 25% hit rate will generate a mean hits/kill of 4 with a large sample.  So is it the 25% number you do not like, or the "4"?

 

18 minutes ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

 

Any reasonable person would thus conclude that comparing an implicit p for a kill derived from an average to a kill percentage derived for single shot data is absolute nonsense but I guess the name already says it all... This has been said so many times that it is kind of sad that this idea is still being clinched onto like Hitler believing in the Endsieg in his Führerbunker in Spring 45.

 

 

The US reports give single shot estimates. These are useful because they can be checked in the game. In terms of relating averages to single shot probabilities, to say that this is nonsense is itself nonsense: you can either assume independence, or some degree of increasing probability based on the data you have to generate a distribution. The game's DM needs to be able to reflect both single shot rates and the average hits/kill.

 

23 minutes ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

 

As strange as it may sound, actually recorded data on averages is the best data available if that is what you want to measure. A model that does not have any parameters vital for measuring an average amount of hits to bring down a plane is not suitable to measure this, what a surprise. This is crystal balling as hard as it gets.

 

Averages from observations are only as good as the observations. I note that not a single person has given any response to the points setting out the difficulties in generating averages from the German gun camera results, where both hits and kills are highly questionable. At least in the US reports they knew exactly how many hits had taken place, and where. Estimating kills can be done at leisure, not from few seconds of film that would rarely show a definitive result.  

  

 

 

18 minutes ago, JtD said:

 

I understood the statistics in that the estimated value came with uncertainty. Meaning if we were to continue testing, there's still a 2.5% chance the estimate settles at 17% or above. I'm not sure if you're saying the same thing with a different wording, or if you're saying something else.

 

But, of course, going with the upper limit of the confidence range is quite optimistic, and the reasonable thing to do is to go with the estimated value. Additionally, it's always good to make an error effect analysis, for all studies.

 

Restating in a way: but emphasizing the very high chance of a large error when you take the limits of the distribution. 

 

An error analysis of the gun camera  films would be interesting: the 95% confidence band for 1 fire in 8 hits ( 0.125) is 0.003 - 0.527

Tiny samples = very uncertain results.  

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unreasonable, you really only seem to understand statistics or at least dependence on a very basic level.

 

The dependence you assume is a very basic stable one across all states. There are in fact also dependences that are not stable across observations.

 

You emphasize my impression of your knowledge by saying that the implied 25% would be equal to an average of 4.

I have tried to explain that the 25% is only implicit for the average of 4 under very strict statistical assumptions that you make, so again you prove your basic understanding, but basic none the less.

 

At this point you usually advise people to read some more, but I don’t think you will be finished by the time the game has already had a number of updates...

 

Any error margin calculations based on an already highly questionable model to begin with are total siso Sh.. in Sh.. out.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A further note of reconciling "4" with 25%:

 

If you fire at 100 planes, and note how many get shot down with each hit, assuming 25% p of a kill with each shot, you get a graph like this: the mean number of hits/kill is 4

 

25 constant distribution.JPG

 

You cannot get a mean of 4 with a 25% initial kill probability with a constant positive compounding effect. The more you think the compounding effect is, the lower the mean. So for a 25% start, increasing by a multiple of 1.2 each round, the graph looks like this.  The mean hits/kill is 2.94

 

25 compounding 20%.JPG

 

If you want a mean of 4, and compounding, the initial hit probability must be lower. This is for 15.6% initial loss rate compounding at 1.2 times. The mean is 4.01.

 

compounding mean 4.JPG

 

You cannot have both your "4" and your 25% unless you either assume independence, or that some of the later probabilities are negatively compounded. 

 

So which is it? 

 

"Any error margin calculations based on an already highly questionable model to begin with are total siso Sh.. in Sh.. out."  That is certainly true of the gun camera analysis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine this 1st hit 25% p of kill second hit 70% p of kill (all cum) third hit doesn’t really matter so 1% also 4th 5th etc. because the plane is either $&@! After the second or you are just detonating in empty spaces. Then after a very long tail the % goes up again because you have no empty spaces left to hit. Then you engineer the tail to make the average fit 4 by taking rather big numbers and increasing the probability again.

There is no constant „compounding“ and the average is still 4 and the Single hit  kill p% is not really the deciding factor.

 

The US figures are for single first hits. There is no reasonable way of re-engineering a distribution from the kill p of a first shot...

 

It all boils down to the question whether a distribution of shots vs kill p’ can be implicitly created by knowing nothing but the first shot kill p‘s. If you think yes and can show it, then you are in for a fields medal for sure. 

 

 

Edited by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why I have to repeat the same thing over and over again, but since I believe in helping people:

 

The German estimate was based on analyzing gun camera footage AND testing range firing trials (!)

 

Also the sample size of gun camera film analysed was apparently quite large, upwards of 200 seperate recordings. That's not really a "tiny sample" if you ask me.

 

So I'd dare say the German estimate has some pretty decent credibility to it. That the British estimate based on their own extensive firing trials ends up with the same result is also quite the "coincidence" :happy:

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2018 at 7:41 PM, unreasonable said:

 

IMy criticisms of some other peoples' posts critical of the 3.009 DM are of their methods and arguments in support of some of the more extreme claims being made about the 3cm mineshell.  Reading the US analysis of the German camera film posted by JtD further reinforces my skepticism.   We all know that it was an effective shell: the problem is in quantifying that degree of effectiveness.  When I  disagree with Panthera's claims about the uselessness of the US tests, or with sevenless about the trustworthiness of the estimates in the German report, is about the quality of the evidence, that is all. 

 

I doubt anyone has a problem with that. The question is though do we need to cling to the "4 shots per B17" thing? As a layman I`m just trying to understand all of this.

 

All 3 of the reports don`t just feature raw quantified data. Methodology aswell as resource material is known pretty well too. So a fairly competent person can draw his own conclusions based on what is available. I agree that footage alone for drawing up conclusions is far too shady of a data since just about anyone can see different results although is this the case in German/UK report?

 

Again, as a layman I`d think that with all the data is available to be analised : shell construction, filing, fuse etc. along with aircraft construction details, a competent person could pretty much model it so a PC based hardware could simulate physical consequences of them interacting. You know, action-reaction thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mac_Messer said:

Again, as a layman I`d think that with all the data is available to be analised : shell construction, filing, fuse etc. along with aircraft construction details, a competent person could pretty much model it so a PC based hardware could simulate physical consequences of them interacting. You know, action-reaction thing?

 

In all likelihood: Not viable for a game. Sims as by their nature always have to find a way to approximate. Cut corners to keep things managable and timely. Remember we're playing a real time game here. If the "proper" simulation of a hit takes only half a second to compute, what you think would happen on a hit rate like 10-15 per second? That stuff starts compounding. Now mix that with everything else going on in the game and you quickly get to the point where every corner cut is necessary to keep the game playable.

 

As to the whole discussion in general: Propabilities from loss reports like these are not a good guide to model the weapons by IMHO (they can be checked against for gross deviation game vs report but that's it).  I'd rather modelling concentrated on the physical properties and mechanisms the here discussed shells worked on. Right now, we know that the HE effect is approximated in game (splinters/fragmentation numbers scaled by HE filler size). I hope the devs find a better, cleverer way to model this so results in game get closer to the known real life firing trials.

 

All this discussion feels like whether that shape on the cart axle should have 4 or 6 edges. Let's wait till we get something that's closer in shaped to a wheel. Until that happens, people will have to live with the 4-6 30mm hits on a P47 to de-wing it. Take solace in the fact that usually after 1-2 hits, the enemy plane is already pretty much out of the fight so in sum, the weapon did have its desired effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Mauf said:

As to the whole discussion in general: Propabilities from loss reports like these are not a good guide to model the weapons by IMHO (they can be checked against for gross deviation game vs report but that's it).  I'd rather modelling concentrated on the physical properties and mechanisms the here discussed shells worked on. Right now, we know that the HE effect is approximated in game (splinters/fragmentation numbers scaled by HE filler size). I hope the devs find a better, cleverer way to model this so results in game get closer to the known real life firing trials.

 

 I agree that the DM should model mechanistically, but it will have a statistical component as it cannot practically model to the level of detail that would give a realistic range of outcomes, for instance for an outer wing hit. Hence the RNG element.   Once you have your mechanistic DM then statistical checks do just as you say: check to see if the overall results are coming out in line with expectations based on RL data.

 

That is what my P-47 vs 37mm thread is trying to do, counting the US data as the real world check. If there is a significant mismatch (there is) you can then go on to investigate why.  

1 hour ago, Mac_Messer said:

 

I doubt anyone has a problem with that. The question is though do we need to cling to the "4 shots per B17" thing? As a layman I`m just trying to understand all of this.

 

 

No, it is just one data point. Ideally you would come up with some kind of DM that gave a best fit to all of the available data, but even then you need to weight the data points by their reliability. Much of the argument here is about the reliability of different sources, and interpreting exactly what the numbers they give really mean, given how they were collected.

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Panthera said:

 

Now you're just being silly, because you responded to me saying this:

 

Panthera

"The US report doesn't really try to arrive at an average, it combines the 1 hit probabilities, in which case it takes 9 of them to reach the average of 50%. "

 

with this

 

Sgt_Joch

"Well no, actually it does. See table 4, p.41, overall probability that one 30 mm hit will result in a "A" kill on a B25. 6 or 10% depending on how much fuel is carried. "

 

In other words you've repeated me twice now without at any point actually reading what I said in the first place.

 

Well no you are just not man enough to admit when you are wrong.

Repeating myself yet again for the 4th time for those that have trouble with basic english skills but with subtitles this time.

My original post was about the margin of error. My point is that the gap between the two reports is too large to be simply explained away as being a margin of error. The german report states that it takes an average of 4 hits to take down a B17 which other sourves have expressed as a 25% probability. The US report states that there is a 6 or 10% probability that a single 30 mm hit can result in a "A" kill on a B25 which you could also express as that it takes an average of 10 to 17 x 30 mm hits to take down a B25. Now of course that is never a straight correlation which is why I added the qualifier that it may take as much as 10 to 17 x 30 mm hits to take out a B25 to make it clear that the actual number could be lower. 

Again my point was not that it took an average of up to 17 x 30 mm HE hits to shoot down a B25, although you could make that claim based on the US report, but that the gap between the conclusions between the US report and the German report is too wide to be simply explained away as being a normal margin of error. The only way to reconcile the two is to actually see the German report. 

Now is it clear enough even for you to understand?

6 hours ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

Panthera, it is useless arguing with the guy that thinks adding single shot probabilities to 100% yields the average number of shots needed to bring down a plane...

 

..just like it is useless trying to argue with someone who does not understand simple logic...

3 hours ago, Panthera said:

The German estimate was based on analyzing gun camera footage AND testing range firing trials (!)

 

And how would you know that? Do you have a link to the actual report? And no, it is not the one JTD linked to.

Edited by Sgt_Joch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/26/2018 at 9:10 AM, Operation_Ivy said:

Asking for correctly modelled mineshells, which btw are used by roughly 50% of all aircrafts in the game, is hardly asking for an overcomplicated damage model. I think modelling the mineshell in a simplistic way wouldn't  be much more complicated than AP or HE. Even if it is a lot more complicated, which might be very well the case, it is necessary in my eyes, because simply adjusting the HE values for it obviously doesn't work. Even when you don't consider the unrealistic damage depiction (shrapnel focused).

Imagine the outrage if something similar would be the case with the flight model. 

 

A good combat flight sim depends on a good DM as much as on a good FM. I can't emphesize this enough.

 

Ya it's so easy that everyone is making flight-sims these days. According to the survey we just did A LOT of users think our damage model is one of the main attractions. So we're doing something right. It can always be better, but I have multiple departments and only so many people. You can start your own company and make whatever damage model you want.

 

Jason

  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jason_Williams said:

 

Ya it's so easy that everyone is making flight-sims these days. According to the survey we just did A LOT of users think our damage model is one of the main attractions. So we're doing something right. It can always be better, but I have multiple departments and only so many people. You can start your own company and make whatever damage model you want.

 

Jason

 

And i am one of the people thinking the DM is great, especially when compared to other flight sims. Considering that we "talked" about this a couple of days back, you should be aware of the fact that i appreciate all of the work you guys are putting in, especially when considering how difficult the flight sim market is. So no need to be passive aggressive.

 

That being said, i am still of the opinion that the DM needs quite a lot of work and is one of the biggest issues in the game currently. Looking at the quantity of threads concerning the DM, especially after the update, i don't think i am all alone. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 4./JG26_Onebad said:

Hey Jason does 777 pay you more for passive aggressive comments compared to just being nice?

 

Considering I own 777 I pay myself to say whatever I want. It's the community that is passive aggressive with us. I see the same people saying the same uninformed and erroneous things over and over even though we've corrected you many times and gone to great lengths to explain the difficulties of what we do for you. And my job is not to just be nice to constant detractors, my job is to make a great product for you. And we do and we continue to try to improve it. I'm nice to those that are nice to me and my team. I've also said this a million times. And I was just being a little sarcastic. You guys can wail on us 24/7/365 and we're not supposed to push back. Please. Same ole' self-righteous forum nonsense. 

 

Jason

  • Like 2
  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jason_Williams said:

 

Considering I own 777 I pay myself to say whatever I want. It's the community that is passive aggressive with us. I see the same people saying the same uninformed and erroneous things over and over even though we've corrected you many times and gone to great lengths to explain the difficulties of what we do for you. And my job is not to just be nice to constant detractors, my job is to make a great product for you. And we do and we continue to try to improve it. I'm nice to those that are nice to me and my team. I've also said this a million times. And I was just being a little sarcastic. You guys can wail on us 24/7/365 and we're not supposed to push back. Please. Same ole' self-righteous forum nonsense. 

 

Jason

And as you do your work well in my humble opinion, Jason. I will be supporting your product in the future.

 

Honestly, I can't understand some positions here. I don't mind to get called a fanboy or whatever but in my personal point of view 1C has always delivered what they promised. People just get mad when they get yelled at for doing something they shouldn't.
There are issues and there will always be but at the end of the day a working product it's what stands and words are forgotten.

Edited by LF_Gallahad
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

 

And i am one of the people thinking the DM is great, especially when compared to other flight sims. Considering that we "talked" about this a couple of days back, you should be aware of the fact that i appreciate all of the work you guys are putting in, especially when considering how difficult the flight sim market is. So no need to be passive aggressive.

 

That being said, i am still of the opinion that the DM needs quite a lot of work and is one of the biggest issues in the game currently. Looking at the quantity of threads concerning the DM, especially after the update, i don't think i am all alone. 

 

You're not alone, but you're not the majority opinion. I know the current state of the DM and all technical issues it has. We will continue to improve it every chance we get and when I play the game I do not see such a big problem as you describe and neither does a lot of other users. So you are posting your opinion which is fine (although I'd use different language), but it does not back up the facts that I have.

 

Jason 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jason_Williams said:

 

You're not alone, but you're not the majority opinion. I know the current state of the DM and all technical issues it has. We will continue to improve it every chance we get and when I play the game I do not see such a big problem as you describe and neither does a lot of other users. So you are posting your opinion which is fine (although I'd use different language), but it does not back up the facts that I have.

 

Jason 

 

Just to bring your attention to a post while you're here Jason, you may not be aware but a community member has done some pretty rigorous testing of the one instance of real-world damage model data we have against the same weapon caliber and airframe in the sim.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

Just to bring your attention to a post while you're here Jason, you may not be aware but a community member has done some pretty rigorous testing of the one instance of real-world damage model data we have against the same weapon caliber and airframe in the sim.

 

 

 

Ya I've seen it. I have no further comments. Nor will be making any about it. We know where we can make technical improvements to the DM, but we already have pretty good results based on what we see i the real WWII footage and information we have seen. 

 

Jason

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, Jason_Williams said:

 

You're not alone, but you're not the majority opinion. I know the current state of the DM and all technical issues it has. We will continue to improve it every chance we get and when I play the game I do not see such a big problem as you describe and neither does a lot of other users. So you are posting your opinion which is fine (although I'd use different language), but it does not back up the facts that I have.

 

Jason 

 

Is it a game breaking issue? definitely not. But i think it is a field that can get improved with relatively low effort in comparison to let's say increasing the render range of aircrafts. You will probably never be in the majority with these issues, simply because most people don't really care or can't be bothered to do the research on it. This is fine of course but that also does not mean that the issue isn't there. If my use of language offended you i apologize, it wasn't intended. 

 

8 minutes ago, Jason_Williams said:

 

I see the same people saying the same uninformed and erroneous things over and over even though we've corrected you many times and gone to great lengths to explain the difficulties of what we do for you.

 

I am not certain if this is directed at me but i never got any explanation concerning the DM. Especially why the 20mm Hispano HE is performing as it is compared to the other two 20mm HE shells. I have absolutely no issue with admitting i am wrong when it is the case, but i do wonder why all research papers that i am aware of are coming to the same different conclusion. I am not saying that i am entitled to anything but it would probably be helpful to stop a lot of people from being uninformed and repeating erroneous things over and over.

 

Thank you for engaging in a discussion, especially when it is probably in your spare time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason, an Il-2 wingtip which I tested on for a good part of the day should not be able to absorb 15-20 20mm round or 5 30mm rounds before it structurally fails mid air. It's also apparent that the mechanics of gas shock and gas pressure damage are absent from the DM. Personally I don't mind this when playing, but I still know it is technically and historically inaccurate. And I think the majority of posts in here is people discussing their perspective on variations of this issue, among themselves. It's for the most part not directed at you, it's not a general bashing of the damage model, the product or let alone the team. I really appreciate all the improvements you're making, and the job the team is doing. The fact that you guys reworked the damage model to the extent you did speaks volumes about the effort you're putting in. I'm looking forward to the fine tuning.

  • Upvote 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jason_Williams said:

 

Ya I've seen it. I have no further comments. Nor will be making any about it. We know where we can make technical improvements to the DM, but we already have pretty good results based on what we see i the real WWII footage and information we have seen. 

 

Jason

giphy.gif

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JtD said:

Jason, an Il-2 wingtip which I tested on for a good part of the day should not be able to absorb 15-20 20mm round or 5 30mm rounds before it structurally fails mid air. It's also apparent that the mechanics of gas shock and gas pressure damage are absent from the DM. Personally I don't mind this when playing, but I still know it is technically and historically inaccurate. And I think the majority of posts in here is people discussing their perspective on variations of this issue, among themselves. It's for the most part not directed at you, it's not a general bashing of the damage model, the product or let alone the team. I really appreciate all the improvements you're making, and the job the team is doing. The fact that you guys reworked the damage model to the extent you did speaks volumes about the effort you're putting in. I'm looking forward to the fine tuning.

 

You should read my comments AGAIN more closely. Why does no one listen? No one posts such discussions just to talk. They do it i this forum so we notice their opinions. Otherwise they would do it elsewhere.

 

Jason

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jason_Williams said:

 

You should read my comments AGAIN more closely. Why does no one listen?

 

Jason

 

Hello Jason, 

 

How do you explain an IL2 can still fly for 8 minuts after being continously hited for 5 seconds with 20mm?

 

http://taw.stg2.de/pilot_sortie.php?id=67343&name=F/JG300_Faucon

 

There is also the already well knowned video of Vade. It's happening everytime. 

Edited by F/JG300_Faucon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

 

 

Is it a game breaking issue? definitely not. But i think it is a field that can get improved with relatively low effort in comparison to let's say increasing the render range of aircrafts. You will probably never be in the majority with these issues, simply because most people don't really care or can't be bothered to do the research on it. This is fine of course but that also does not mean that the issue isn't there. If my use of language offended you i apologize, it wasn't intended. 

 

 

I am not certain if this is directed at me but i never got any explanation concerning the DM. Especially why the 20mm Hispano HE is performing as it is compared to the other two 20mm HE shells. I have absolutely no issue with admitting i am wrong when it is the case, but i do wonder why all research papers that i am aware of are coming to the same different conclusion. I am not saying that i am entitled to anything but it would probably be helpful to stop a lot of people from being uninformed and repeating erroneous things over and over.

 

Thank you for engaging in a discussion, especially when it is probably in your spare time. 

 

Different conclusion from what exactly? That we admit it could be better?? WHEN DID I EVER SAY WE WERE COMPLETELY HAPPY WITH OUR DM IN ALL RESPECTS??? Huh? WHEN? SHOW ME RIGHT NOW! Come on show me since you are such an expert on everything we say and do. 

 

Jason

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Cause it's God damn MP bugs or cheating. Stop showing me damage crap from MP. How many times do I have to say this? 

 

Jason

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are a lot flying on MP, so results of DMs on MP are more important than SP ones...

Edited by F/JG300_Faucon
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, F/JG300_Faucon said:

We are a lot flying on MP, so results of DMs on MP are more important that SP ones...

MP keeps the game alive,yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, F/JG300_Faucon said:

We are a lot flying on MP, so results of DMs on MP are more important that SP ones...

 

Nope wrong. SP is where there is no lag and damage is tested and results calculated. We WANT damage in MP to mirror SP. That is the goal. Right now there are some problems with hit calculation being transmitted in MP so there is some wacky stuff on occasion. And some assholes may be cheating somehow so I don't take testing in MP seriously and neither does the team when it comes to evaluating damage results. 

 

Jason

2 minutes ago, -[HRAF]BubiHUN said:

MP keeps the game alive,yes.

 

Says who? Alive meaning what? Sales? Because that is not true for a sim like ours with a robust SP experience and 95% of our users only play SP. It's content and improvements that keep games so called "alive" from a sales perspective. MP just keeps certain groups of players playing for longer periods.

 

Jason

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jason_Williams said:

 

Nope wrong. SP is where there is no lag and damage is tested and results calculated. We WANT damage in MP to mirror SP. That is the goal. Right now there are some problems with hit calculation being transmitted in MP so there is some wacky stuff on occasion. And some assholes may be cheating somehow so I don't take testing in MP seriously and neither does the team when it comes to evaluating damage results. 

 

Jason

 

So how is damage in multiplayer ever supposed to become "correct" if we can't even bug-report it, because what we see in MP doesn't happen, since MP doesn't count?

Edited by Inkompetent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quiet a challenge to put some real world scores on a happy fragging environment and expect same statistics.

 

MP crowd a competitive one is...

 

As for myself, I appreciate you Jason are being with us, even when the children are difficult. ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jason_Williams said:

 

Nope wrong. SP is where there is no lag and damage is tested and results calculated. We WANT damage in MP to mirror SP. That is the goal. Right now there are some problems with hit calculation being transmitted in MP so there is some wacky stuff on occasion. And some assholes may be cheating somehow so I don't take testing in MP seriously and neither does the team when it comes to evaluating damage results. 

 

Jason

 

This is a reasonable approach.

 

Maybe in 2019 you guys could give the community a dev diary about the DM system including some footage of testing and some behind-the-scenes perspective of how it all happens - without infringing on the secret stuff of course - much in the vein of how you showed us the development of the gyro gunsight for the Bodenplatte planes? It's just an idea. Could fill a possible hole in the dev diary schedule if you don't have any particularly interesting content one week and if this thread is anything to go by I'm sure many people would be interested in it!

 

Just an idea of course.

 

Thanks :salute:

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jason_Williams said:

Says who? Alive meaning what? Sales? Because that is not true for a sim like ours with a robust SP experience and 95% of our users only play SP. It's content and improvements that keep games so called "alive" from a sales perspective. MP just keeps certain groups of players playing for longer periods.

 

The other 5% who play with the MP keeps the community alive who plays with the game and also generating sales.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Talon_ said:

 

This is a reasonable approach.

 

Maybe in 2019 you guys could give the community a dev diary about the DM system including some footage of testing and some behind-the-scenes perspective of how it all happens - without infringing on the secret stuff of course - much in the vein of how you showed us the development of the gyro gunsight for the Bodenplatte planes? It's just an idea. Could fill a possible hole in the dev diary schedule if you don't have any particularly interesting content one week and if this thread is anything to go by I'm sure many people would be interested in it!

 

Just an idea of course.

 

Thanks :salute:

 

Nope. I will never do this or force my guys to dance like this. See my earlier answers on this topic elsewhere.

 

Jason

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, -[HRAF]Arrow19 said:

 

The other 5% who play with the MP keeps the community alive who plays with the game and also generating sales.

That is the main point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Talon_ said:

Maybe in 2019 you guys could give the community a dev diary about the DM system

In 2019 I‘ll (hopefully) buy FC2 and (even more so hopefully) by not being the only one, Jason can hire some more hands to make things even better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jason_Williams said:

 

Nope. I will never do this or force my guys to dance like this. See my earlier answers on this topic elsewhere.

 

Jason

 

Just a note is that I wasn't trying to ransom or force anything - just suggesting a possible approach to dealing with what is an obvious impasse for some community members that might help calm down a somewhat fraught dialogue.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Inkompetent said:

 

So how is damage in multiplayer ever supposed to become "correct" if we can't even bug-report it, because what we see in MP doesn't happen, since MP doesn't count?

 

Oh dear Lord. It improves as you would put it (it will never be 100% correct compared to real-life,) when we improve the data sharing in MP and we can further improve the DM modeling in general hinted at above in my earlier posts.

Never said you couldn't bug report. What I said was don't show me MP footage as proof our "damage model itself is porked. 

 

Jason

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, -[HRAF]Arrow19 said:

 

The other 5% who play with the MP keeps the community alive who plays with the game and also generating sales.

You think the other 95% hold those chosen 5% such dear that they base their own future investments on their needs?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jason_Williams said:

 

Different conclusion from what exactly?

That we admit it could be better?? WHEN DID I EVER SAY WE WERE COMPLETELY HAPPY WITH OUR DM IN ALL RESPECTS??? Huh? WHEN? SHOW ME RIGHT NOW! Come on show me since you are such an expert on everything we say and do. 

 

Jason

 

Hey man, i really did not intend to insult you or anything. I am really trying to be civil about all of this but criticism is still allowed no?

 

Concerning the different conclusions, i think you are aware of my bug report in my signature. You can also check out:

 

- Rapid Fire: the Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces

 

- Flying Guns: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations

 

Like i said already, i have no issue admitting when i am wrong if that's the case. As of right now, i have absolutely now idea on what the 20mm HE values are based upon. It is nothing game breaking and neither will it stop me from enjoying the game but i still considered it as wrongly modelled. 

 

Cheers. 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, -[HRAF]Arrow19 said:

 

The other 5% who play with the MP keeps the community alive who plays with the game and also generating sales.

 

Nope, this is not Battlefield or Call of Duty. MP is a tiny sideshow in the big picture and Jason knows that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...