Jump to content

Developer Diary 275 - Discussion


Recommended Posts

  • 1CGS
1 minute ago, Han said:
275
Dear Friends,

As some of you who frequent our forums already know, Jason has recently announced that we're developing a new tech called DVD and invited you to guess what that actually means. There were different guesses and some of them were near misses. The answer is, DVD means Dynamic Visual Damage. In a nutshell, it places an impact mark where a projectile hit.

...............................................

 

Full news - here is a full text and visual materials

  • Like 17
  • Thanks 9
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Han pinned this topic

I have always enjoyed looking back at replays of my sorties,this should make it more interesting...I look forward to it.

I just hope it does not cause any slow downs or stutters in play.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One question: is it possible to display damage to a tank right from the start of the mission, so that a tank does not always look like new from the factory?

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great addition to the game, any idea when to expect this to hit live? Together with the proposed decal changes teased for the end of the year?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this the first time we have ever seen a 1 for 1 visual damage model in a flight sim?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This looks promising. I'd say it still needs some fine tuning on the thinner plane parts where you'd expect to see a complete hole through to the other side, but it's definitely on a different order of magnitude where visual damage is concerned from what we currently have.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, its not what I was hoping for but!
 

Please be aware though that this tech is visual, it doesn't affect the physical interaction between the projectiles and aircraft and tank parts or systems. We're working on the improvements in the physical damage system as well, but we'll tell you more about that later.

Between how good those look and the bolded part. 

I'm pretty excited now... 

Also @Han

Its 8pm there, I hope you got to do this from a comfortable chair with a drink of choice in hand!

Edited by Denum
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BM357_TinMan said:

I mean, yeah, this kind of stuff is cool (rain effects etc) but, [dead horse]  resources focused more on systems modeling would be much more appreciated by this customer

How about „this customer“ tries to actually read the post and doesn’t just look at the pretty pictures ... it is mentioned right in the text

  • Upvote 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is really really neat.

 

I wonder what the improvements to the damage model are which they are talking about? I find it hard to imagine what could be improved. The fuel rework? Hydraulic failures? Gun jams for the Mk-108? More detailed modelling of damage to aircrew? More detailed fragmentation models for rockets during ground attack? I'm really racking my brain for what could be improved. I suppose better modelling wing spars or wires individually for FC aircraft might be an significant change? But that wouldn't impact the WWII aircraft.

 

IMHO, most of the complaints about the DM that I see are due to the overly simplistic gun convergence on the American fighters... but overall I think most people agree the sim is in a pretty superb place... which makes me curious about what might be planned 😄

 

Anyway, these decals will be pretty neat - and help people realise that sometimes when they complain about weapons being ineffective it is really a result of their aiming being ineffective 😄 

Edited by Avimimus
Link to post
Share on other sites

50.cal's won't melt steel 109 tail beams...

 

Please be aware though that this tech is visual, it doesn't affect the physical interaction between the projectiles and aircraft and tank parts or systems. We're working on the improvements in the physical damage system as well, but we'll tell you more about that later.

 

But they will soon.

 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, BM357_TinMan said:

I mean, yeah, this kind of stuff is cool (rain effects etc) but, [dead horse]  resources focused more on systems modeling would be much more appreciated by this customer

It's right there in the DD: "We're working on the improvements in the physical damage system as well, but we'll tell you more about that later.".

 

Have a nice day.

 

:salute:

Edited by FlyingShark
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Melonfish said:

50.cal's won't melt steel 109 tail beams...

 

Please be aware though that this tech is visual, it doesn't affect the physical interaction between the projectiles and aircraft and tank parts or systems. We're working on the improvements in the physical damage system as well, but we'll tell you more about that later.

 

But they will soon.

 

I wouldn't count on that :) I've flown the P-39 and just used the 0.50s to test (as they are mounted on the engine - like on Italian, Russian, and German fighters) as a test. I can use them very effectively and they're more effective than the Breda but maybe slightly weaker than the Mg-131 and UB (as one would expect). So, it fits with the other heavy machine guns (and those were historically weaker than cannons).

 

Honestly, I think the issue that people have is stemming from the lack of multiple convergence points for the wing mounted guns - and that would require an extensive rework of the convergence system (perhaps throwing out player selected convergences entirely and switching to pre-set historical convergences).

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FlyingShark said:

Jason mentioned that in his vid about the damage system he posted before the summer.

 

Have a nice day.

 

:salute:

 

Ah, right! So probably adding in the hydraulics mentioned and likely the fuel system rework as well (assuming drop-tanks will be included for cross-channel operation in 1943-1944 for Battle of Normandy).

 

Just now, [DBS]Browning said:

 

Yes you did 😄

Edited by Avimimus
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Avimimus said:

So probably adding in the hydraulics mentioned and likely the fuel system rework as well (assuming drop-tanks will be included for cross-channel operation in 1943-1944 for Battle of Normandy).

I guess, although plans are subject to change.

 

Have a nice day.

 

:salute:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with avimimus. Aside from perhaps fire probability, I think the M2AN modeling is pretty good where it is at the moment, and people are feeling let down by it due to mix of over-expectation and not landing their hits as effectively as they think they are. But let's not derail this thread.

Edited by migmadmarine
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Han unpinned this topic

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...