DD_fruitbat Posted March 3, 2013 Posted March 3, 2013 (edited) 8) Will we see the truly massive battles in the game, for example, 50-80 bombers raid to Stalingrad? Or it will be the small battles as in RoF? No, alas. We have to choose between detailed development or scale events. This choice is still standing and still relevant, despite some progress. We certainly make optimizations based on the experience gained and an increased capacity. Once we get the results of the first tests, I'll write the exact number of aircraft in the frame at a reasonable fps. I sincerely hope they succeed in increasing the capacity from RoF. Be interesting to see what he comes back with after the results of the tests. Edited March 3, 2013 by fruitbat
hiro Posted March 3, 2013 Posted March 3, 2013 (edited) Thanks for the update, and I liked the detail of the sound project open vs closed pit. I'm with bear on this, it's waayyyy to early to be griping about stuff. In the cockpit thang, it's better than old school IL-2 1946, even with the graphics mod. But it isn't CLOD quality. But you know what? I remember something mentioned the quality wouldn't be CLOD but it would be better than 1946. The diary answers are helpful. The part of about the negative and positive emotions, I think its a bit of a marketing thing. But at least they acknowledge the emotions behind people's reactions and its play in reasoning. the new vs worn thing, everyone knows having something new and shiny is good. I remember in training it was always told: "take care of your sword (rifle) and it will take care of you". It shows the devs are thinking about other things than just the FM, but about the player's interaction with the game. I know worn is popular (electric guitars), as it gives a 'working man's' touch to things. But that also takes effort to do it right, and I suspect there are other bigger fish to fry than weathering / worn planes. I agree it's a great detail to immersion, but I'd rather they spent time and effort on things that really count (and we all know the bare essentials of what makes a sim awesome) and hit it out of the ball park first time up at bat. Another thing is great, is the devs are checking in on scope creep (basically this means doing too much in to little of a time so lots of half finished parts). Some of the answers they say no to, which is good. CLOD is an example of how scope creep and kill a great project. Edited March 3, 2013 by hiro
Blitzen Posted March 3, 2013 Posted March 3, 2013 Love the inclusion of the screenshot...I hope you do one or more every week!
Zorin Posted March 4, 2013 Posted March 4, 2013 Monday update LaGG3s29_4.jpg Loft posted that picture yesterday himself already
1CGS BlackSix Posted March 4, 2013 Author 1CGS Posted March 4, 2013 Loft posted that picture yesterday himself already Yes, I didn't see, thanks)
JtD Posted March 4, 2013 Posted March 4, 2013 Could you add this to the firsts posts of the topics? I think it would be easier to find there when more folks come and take a look around.
79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer Posted March 4, 2013 Posted March 4, 2013 the new vs worn thing, everyone knows having something new and shiny is good. I remember in training it was always told: "take care of your sword (rifle) and it will take care of you". ... know worn is popular (electric guitars), as it gives a 'working man's' touch to things. I heard the same thing in the army, so I polished, and polished and kept my rifle (a G3 back then) in immaculate condition. And guess what, the more I wiped and polished it, the more the gunmetal would start to peek through the bluering, the more the nicks and scratches in the stock would stand out! Things that are well maintained (and old school military equipment is exceptionally well maintained) quickly develop a unique patina you rarely see on civilian material. So yeah, new from the depot is good, but the really good pieces are worn shiny.
Freycinet Posted March 4, 2013 Posted March 4, 2013 Soviet planes typically didn't get to be very old, I'd guess...
89- Posted March 4, 2013 Posted March 4, 2013 Soviet planes typically didn't get to be very old, I'd guess... Stalingrad was where La-5's made their appearance, so dont make sweeping statements
JtD Posted March 5, 2013 Posted March 5, 2013 Early La-5 are said to have been particularly unreliable, failure rates being 3 times as high as those of contemporary Yaks. Just because the plane was a better performing fighter, doesn't mean the aircraft got to be very old.
89- Posted March 5, 2013 Posted March 5, 2013 Even so, failed planes were not put onto a scrap heap,failed parts were changed but paintwork remained fresh...
79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer Posted March 5, 2013 Posted March 5, 2013 Early La-5 are said to have been particularly unreliable, failure rates being 3 times as high as those of contemporary Yaks. Just because the plane was a better performing fighter, doesn't mean the aircraft got to be very old. Failure rate is not evenly distributed. Planes whose wings came off or engine caught fire on start did not build up any patina, those who held together probably did though, and quickly too. They would have been flown a lot as the other fell apart around them. Add to that the quality of paint used on the internal parts may not have been the greatest either. The Russians were fighting with their backs against the wall, developing high-grade cockpit paint was likely not on top of their priorities list.
FlatSpinMan Posted March 5, 2013 Posted March 5, 2013 "developing high-grade cockpit paint was likely not on top of their priorities list" Man, they had everything backwards!
royraiden Posted March 6, 2013 Posted March 6, 2013 I sincerely hope they succeed in increasing the capacity from RoF. Be interesting to see what he comes back with after the results of the tests. Same here.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now