Has TC peaked?

[ShampooX]

So I came over to TC as a very frustrated War Thunder Tanker who's main priorities are realistic maps and historical "match making,"  about a year and change ago.  War Thunder has so many things wrong with it that it's really become no more than a video game, even at it's most "realistic" settings (I forget what they call it - simulation?).  I had no clue about the Finnish server so that was a real bonus to discover as I think it's the best mix of combined arms simulation and realism that one can find in the internet gaming space today.  Advance & Secure is a close second and really more like War Thunder but with better maps and less video game like play. 

 

So I've been playing FVP long enough to know all the "old hands" well, to see the hardcore players come and go, and to see some modest growth in a new player base....but I'm surprised that it hasn't exploded in the same way WT did when they introduced tanks.  WT too, was originally an air combat rooted game, but since they added Tanks their tank playing base has blown past the air players in number.  It says to me their is a huge market for armor based games.  One would think the best-in-class realism TC has to offer, especially on the online multiplayer servers, would be attracting more players.  I get it - WT is free and TC is pay - but there has to be something else going on.  There are far too few players playing this game for the quality it delivers

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that FVP and A&S are still only really played by 10-15 tankers at a time....world wide even...and on a good day.  It's the best kept secret in the entire world as far as I'm concerned.  Like a great surfing spot. But even the TC forums here are kind of stagnant lately - it seems as if players are moving on.

 

I guess it doesn't help that in single player mode there are no new missions, an that it's still kind of buggy.  But it just seemed like the creators launched a really nice first effort, ground breaking actually when you consider tank interiors and crew positions etc etc etc.....and then followed it up with, well, not a whole lot.

 

Are the best days of TC here....or even behind us?

[JV44HeinzBar]

S! ?? I don't know what to call you

 

Anyhow, I have faith that once Normandy is out, TC will get some love. There's no other sim out there that I know of that features tanks. I don't count  WT or WoT as sims, they're just moneypits where people chase achievements.

 

My faith is in the form that the Stug III & Churchhill are being modeled. That tells me that there is some interest in seeing TC continue. I'm probably being biased as I like TC, but that's how I feel about the matter for the time being.

 

HB

 

Edited March 10, 2022 by JV44HeinzBar
left out "that's"

[Thad]

2 hours ago, JV44HeinzBar said:

Anyhow, I have faith that once Normandy is out, TC will get some love. There's no other sim out there that I know of that features tanks. I don't count.

 

My faith is in the form that the Stug III & Churchhill are being modeled. That tells me that there is some interest in seeing TC continue. I'm probably being biased as I like TC, but how I feel about the matter for the time being.

 

HB

 

 

I agree. Completing Normandy is their primary focus right now even through the interruption caused by the pandemic. The introduction of the Stugg and Churchill indicate that TC hasn't been forgotten. It's development isn't going as fast as we tankers want but it will continue to grow and improve. I have faith in the developers.

[LachenKrieg]

11 hours ago, TheRealShampoo said:

So I came over to TC as a very frustrated War Thunder Tanker who's main priorities are realistic maps and historical "match making,"  about a year and change ago.  War Thunder has so many things wrong with it that it's really become no more than a video game, even at it's most "realistic" settings (I forget what they call it - simulation?).  I had no clue about the Finnish server so that was a real bonus to discover as I think it's the best mix of combined arms simulation and realism that one can find in the internet gaming space today.  Advance & Secure is a close second and really more like War Thunder but with better maps and less video game like play. 

 

So I've been playing FVP long enough to know all the "old hands" well, to see the hardcore players come and go, and to see some modest growth in a new player base....but I'm surprised that it hasn't exploded in the same way WT did when they introduced tanks.  WT too, was originally an air combat rooted game, but since they added Tanks their tank playing base has blown past the air players in number.  It says to me their is a huge market for armor based games.  One would think the best-in-class realism TC has to offer, especially on the online multiplayer servers, would be attracting more players.  I get it - WT is free and TC is pay - but there has to be something else going on.  There are far too few players playing this game for the quality it delivers

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that FVP and A&S are still only really played by 10-15 tankers at a time....world wide even...and on a good day.  It's the best kept secret in the entire world as far as I'm concerned.  Like a great surfing spot. But even the TC forums here are kind of stagnant lately - it seems as if players are moving on.

 

I guess it doesn't help that in single player mode there are no new missions, an that it's still kind of buggy.  But it just seemed like the creators launched a really nice first effort, ground breaking actually when you consider tank interiors and crew positions etc etc etc.....and then followed it up with, well, not a whole lot.

 

Are the best days of TC here....or even behind us?

The problem with the questions your raising is that the only way to answer them is subjectively. The definition of best-in-class realism will likely change depending on who your talking to, and I think on top of that your missing a few very important points. 

 

I know there are groups here that get enjoyment out of TC and even seem to be willing to overlook its blemishes in the name of fun, but for me TC got progressively worse, not better.

 

It started with the gun-lock feature, which was pretty cool except it meant your platoon now had to drive around in battle with the gun locked. And for a game that was trying to sell you on the idea of a TANK CREW, this was pretty strange to say the least coming from the Devs.

 

And it just spiraled down from there. Take camo as one of the simplest examples. Regardless of how tanks were being shipped from the factory, individual units added camo as needed depending on the terrain they were fighting in. Other than white-wash for winter settings, the Devs have provided nothing even though it has been repeatedly requested. I think they cater to the planes because that is their bread-and-butter, but adding it for tanks would only add to the problem of memory overhead/map texture issues.

 

But other than nice models, the two most important elements of realism for me (gun/armor and map) are a complete miss in TC, or at least that is how I saw things as headed for the door. I was willing to overlook the map issue to start, but saw TC go from being almost believable in the gun/armor department to becoming  a complete joke. I not only saw this in SP, but experienced it first hand in MP too.

 

The problem with this is that I could no longer use TC to learn, or have fun. In fact after TC, I reinstalled WT and had some of the best MP tank encounters I ever remember having. I mean if we are going to talk realism in gun/armor mechanics, TC has nothing over games like WT/ WoT. Where WT comes out on top IMO is instead of giving you eye candy inside the tank, they put it in the map where it counts. But if you want a good multi-player WWII tank experience you have a better chance finding it with something like HLL, or PS. 

 

But to your missing points, WT has much higher player density, much more interesting terrains, and most importantly a method of balance. All 3 of those things are important parts of the fun factor, which is what drives people in.

 

In order for games like IL2/DCS to succeed, they have to take the issue of balance very seriously especially because they are meant to be simulations. A simulation means that you are trying to recreate the actual real world object in the environment it was used. The reality is that scenario doesn't translate well to the online gaming world. What happened in real life after all the PzIII tank crews came back from the Eastern Front complaining the game is rigged, they were sent back in Panthers. You can't capture that in a computer game. The balance has to be there from the start. For something like TC, it means you either destroy the accuracy of the simulation, or you control the units allowed in the match. They chose the first option.

 

But if your really want realistic tank battles, have a look at Gunner Heat PC, you will not be disappointed.

 

 

Edited March 9, 2022 by LachenKrieg

[Voidhunger]

27 minutes ago, LachenKrieg said:

The problem with the questions your raising is that the only way to answer them is subjectively. The definition of best-in-class realism will likely change depending on who your talking to, and I think on top of that your missing a few very important points. 

 

I know there are groups here that get enjoyment out of TC and even seem to be willing to overlook its blemishes in the name of fun, but for me TC got progressively worse, not better.

 

It started with the gun-lock feature, which was pretty cool except it meant your platoon now had to drive around in battle with the gun locked. And for a game that was trying to sell you on the idea of a TANK CREW, this was pretty strange to say the least coming from the Devs.

 

And it just spiraled down from there. Take camo as one of the simplest examples. Regardless of how tanks were being shipped from the factory, individual units added camo as needed depending on the terrain they were fighting in. Other than white-wash for winter settings, the Devs have provided nothing even though it has been repeatedly requested. I think they cater to the planes because that is their bread-and-butter, but adding it for tanks would only add to the problem of memory overhead/map texture issues.

 

But other than nice models, the two most important elements of realism for me (gun/armor and map) are a complete miss in TC, or at least that is how I saw things as headed for the door. I was willing to overlook the map issue to start, but saw TC go from being almost believable in the gun/armor department to becoming  a complete joke. I not only saw this in SP, but experienced it first hand in MP too.

 

The problem with this is that I could no longer use TC to learn, or have fun. In fact after TC, I reinstalled WT and had some of the best MP tank encounters I ever remember having. I mean if we are going to talk realism in gun/armor mechanics, TC has nothing over games like WT/ WoT. Where WT comes out on top IMO is instead of giving you eye candy inside the tank, they put it in the map where it counts. But if you want a good multi-player WWII tank experience you have a better chance finding it with something like HLL, or PS. 

 

But to your missing points, WT has much higher player density, much more interesting terrains, and most importantly a method of balance. All 3 of those things are important parts of the fun factor, which is what drives people in.

 

In order for games like IL2/DCS to succeed, they have to take the issue of balance very seriously especially because they are meant to be simulations. A simulation means that you are trying to recreate the actual real world object in the environment it was used. The reality is that scenario doesn't translate well to the online gaming world. What happened in real life after all the PzIII tank crews came back from the Eastern Front complaining the game is rigged, they were sent back in Panthers. You can't capture that in a computer game. The balance has to be there from the start. For something like TC, it means you either destroy the accuracy of the simulation, or you control the units allowed in the match. They chose the first option.

 

But if your really want realistic tank battles, have a look at Gunner Heat PC, you will not be disappointed.

 

 

I do agree with you but I still have faith. Mainly because I really really want modern WW2 realistic tank sim.

I think it was bad decision to integrate this game into BOX series. Its enough that you have to buy BOS to have acces to TC is stup.. imho

 

 

 I have never tried WT and I never will.

However I have tried the Gunner HEAT. It looks very good, but without interiors its just a shooter for me and I will never buy it. (im also not interested in modern tanks)But the graphic effects and progresive fire, smoke and post battle statistics are excellent and together with the Graviteam games  are standard what I expect from the tank sims these days.

 

In the Gunner HEAT you have better AI, better enviroment, better graphic effects, comparable balistics, better damage model, post battle statictics, mission generator (in Patreon demo) and its absolutelly fluid in terms of CPU and GPU. NO slowdowns and its just ALPHA and not finished product to buy.

 

I understand that making tank sim from the scratch is different than trying to fit tanks to the flight sim and they probably need to make new techs for that.

I really hope we will get massive update in the near future or it will stay only as an option for some guys who enjoy some tank shooting on MP serves together with planes.

 

[No_Face]

16 minutes ago, Voidhunger said:

I think it was bad decision to integrate this game into BOX series.

But without BOX, no combined arms.

16 minutes ago, Voidhunger said:

Its enough that you have to buy BOS to have acces to TC is stup.. imho

Only on Steam, if you go through the site, you can buy TC alone.

To answer the basic message, for my part, I currently don't play the game anymore but that's relatively normal as I've always had phases where I play IL-2 a lot then take a break then come back etc.

I know for example that I will at least come back when the Stug is available, I can't wait to get my hands on it.

 

For a game to last, you also need something new, it's very difficult to stay on a fixed game that doesn't evolve. No matter how much you love a game, you will always get bored if there is nothing to spice it up. Currently TC doesn't have many new features* (there was the DCA and there will be the Stug and the Churchill) but we don't have a TC 2 in sight allowing us to play the current TC while waiting for the next major content addition.

 

If IL-2 had remained frozen at BoS, I think the number of players would have dropped sharply but since there is a major addition every 2-3 years, it keeps the player coming back. (as much as DD's help to wait, TC hardly ever appears in DD's these days)

 

Right now, we know that the team can hardly be on 3 projects at the same time. It is not uncommon for Jason to remind us that the team is short of qualified personnel.

I'm in a hurry for BoN (and FC2) to come out, so that the team finally has time to devote to TC and a possible TC 2 becomes really plausible. At the moment, I'm staying in the background because I think it's useless to put pressure on the developers, they do what they can and they know what they have to do. Complaining, "out of boredom" in order to keep the TC forum alive will not help (I'm not saying that your topic is complaining, but in the absence of news on TC, there has been a wave of complaint messages on the forum)

 

*I'm only talking about "pure" content and not visual, performance or other improvements.

 

[Voidhunger]

13 minutes ago, No_Face said:

But without BOX, no combined arms.

Yes, i do not care about combined arms. I wanted standalone product, because we all know limitation of this engine.

13 minutes ago, No_Face said:

Only on Steam, if you go through the site, you can buy TC alone.

 

I didnt know that.

 

 

If they add complex mission generator just for the TC I dont need TC2 in near future, but I need big improvements in damage model AI, Graphic effects and in quality of life.

 

I know they are small team and we need to support them, but I dont want to wait for TC6 to be able to finally enjoy the game.

 

TC on different graphic engine, would be nice. If your crew is killed and disappear after 2 secs, same with destroyed parts of the tank, something is wrong.

Enviroment is poor and no infantry in this engine. If I start some official missions game is slow.

[NapoleonBonapart]

2 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

The problem with the questions your raising is that the only way to answer them is subjectively. The definition of best-in-class realism will likely change depending on who your talking to, and I think on top of that your missing a few very important points. 

 

I know there are groups here that get enjoyment out of TC and even seem to be willing to overlook its blemishes in the name of fun, but for me TC got progressively worse, not better.

 

It started with the gun-lock feature, which was pretty cool except it meant your platoon now had to drive around in battle with the gun locked. And for a game that was trying to sell you on the idea of a TANK CREW, this was pretty strange to say the least coming from the Devs.

 

And it just spiraled down from there. Take camo as one of the simplest examples. Regardless of how tanks were being shipped from the factory, individual units added camo as needed depending on the terrain they were fighting in. Other than white-wash for winter settings, the Devs have provided nothing even though it has been repeatedly requested. I think they cater to the planes because that is their bread-and-butter, but adding it for tanks would only add to the problem of memory overhead/map texture issues.

 

But other than nice models, the two most important elements of realism for me (gun/armor and map) are a complete miss in TC, or at least that is how I saw things as headed for the door. I was willing to overlook the map issue to start, but saw TC go from being almost believable in the gun/armor department to becoming  a complete joke. I not only saw this in SP, but experienced it first hand in MP too.

 

The problem with this is that I could no longer use TC to learn, or have fun. In fact after TC, I reinstalled WT and had some of the best MP tank encounters I ever remember having. I mean if we are going to talk realism in gun/armor mechanics, TC has nothing over games like WT/ WoT. Where WT comes out on top IMO is instead of giving you eye candy inside the tank, they put it in the map where it counts. But if you want a good multi-player WWII tank experience you have a better chance finding it with something like HLL, or PS. 

 

But to your missing points, WT has much higher player density, much more interesting terrains, and most importantly a method of balance. All 3 of those things are important parts of the fun factor, which is what drives people in.

 

In order for games like IL2/DCS to succeed, they have to take the issue of balance very seriously especially because they are meant to be simulations. A simulation means that you are trying to recreate the actual real world object in the environment it was used. The reality is that scenario doesn't translate well to the online gaming world. What happened in real life after all the PzIII tank crews came back from the Eastern Front complaining the game is rigged, they were sent back in Panthers. You can't capture that in a computer game. The balance has to be there from the start. For something like TC, it means you either destroy the accuracy of the simulation, or you control the units allowed in the match. They chose the first option.

 

But if your really want realistic tank battles, have a look at Gunner Heat PC, you will not be disappointed.

 

 

nailed it

they need some ass whooping like this 

it's neither sim nor game

it's somekind of nothing inbetween

i wouldn't recommend TC to anyone even if it's on half price discount

it's just MEH for now

 

Edited March 9, 2022 by NapoleonBonapart

[LachenKrieg]

2 hours ago, Voidhunger said:

I do agree with you but I still have faith. Mainly because I really really want modern WW2 realistic tank sim.

I think it was bad decision to integrate this game into BOX series. Its enough that you have to buy BOS to have acces to TC is stup.. imho

 

 

 I have never tried WT and I never will.

However I have tried the Gunner HEAT. It looks very good, but without interiors its just a shooter for me and I will never buy it. (im also not interested in modern tanks)But the graphic effects and progresive fire, smoke and post battle statistics are excellent and together with the Graviteam games  are standard what I expect from the tank sims these days.

 

In the Gunner HEAT you have better AI, better enviroment, better graphic effects, comparable balistics, better damage model, post battle statictics, mission generator (in Patreon demo) and its absolutelly fluid in terms of CPU and GPU. NO slowdowns and its just ALPHA and not finished product to buy.

 

I understand that making tank sim from the scratch is different than trying to fit tanks to the flight sim and they probably need to make new techs for that.

I really hope we will get massive update in the near future or it will stay only as an option for some guys who enjoy some tank shooting on MP serves together with planes.

 

Comparable ballistics? Not even close. Even armor composition is modeled in GHPC. I would say even WT in its current iteration has a more accurate gun/armor model than TC, with better game play to boot. But whats more, there is a balance to game play that is completely missing in TC.

 

I totally agree with you though on the WWII interest thing. If GHPC was dressed in WWII uniforms, it would be exactly what I am looking for. The amazing thing about GHPC for me is that it wasn't that long ago the Dev team consisted of just one guy. It has expanded to include a couple more people now, but you can't get much smaller than a team of one, and just look at how far it has progressed.

 

I think the big hurdle here is BoN, and I could care less about TC2 at the moment. The only way I will get back into supporting this franchise is if they fix the TC we have now. BoN shouldn't be too far off now, so I don't think it will take too long to confirm what's coming next.

 

 

[Voidhunger]

Its really cool that in Gunner HEAT you are actually spending your ammo so there is a lower chance of catastrofic explosions.

And of course ammunition has exact location in the tank.

Nice change from the TC.

[Panzerlang]

War Thunder lost me when they dumped the Simulator mode, along with the huge maps and historical matchups. Yes, it has superb DMs and realistic armour and ammo modelling but the gameplay itself, on postage-stamp sized maps, is pure arcade. Ditto the 'tier' balancing stuff.

HLL is pure arcade, PS is getting there but still lacks proper crew damage. TC, I have it but it's clunky and barren. I've not played it enough to have an opinion on its DM and armour/ammo modelling, though I've not read good things about it. I think it sucked a lot of resources away from the planes to not much good for us lot but if it made 777 a useful amount of money I suppose that has to be a plus for all.

[Voidhunger]

7 hours ago, Hetzer-JG51 said:

War Thunder lost me when they dumped the Simulator mode, along with the huge maps and historical matchups. Yes, it has superb DMs and realistic armour and ammo modelling but the gameplay itself, on postage-stamp sized maps, is pure arcade. Ditto the 'tier' balancing stuff.

HLL is pure arcade, PS is getting there but still lacks proper crew damage. TC, I have it but it's clunky and barren. I've not played it enough to have an opinion on its DM and armour/ammo modelling, though I've not read good things about it. I think it sucked a lot of resources away from the planes to not much good for us lot but if it made 777 a useful amount of money I suppose that has to be a plus for all.

Ahhh quite the opposite, planes are sucking a lot of resources away from the TC ?

[LachenKrieg]

15 hours ago, Voidhunger said:

Its really cool that in Gunner HEAT you are actually spending your ammo so there is a lower chance of catastrofic explosions.

And of course ammunition has exact location in the tank.

Nice change from the TC.

Yeah it's pretty impressive to see what this guy did essentially on his own and without much in the way of $ support.

 

Makes you wonder what gives with shops like IL2/DCS?

 

I mean if the birth of your child was timed with the announcement of a module, the kid will likely be old enough to vote by the time the module makes it out of early access! But hey, its realistic! It didn't take that long for the real plane to be designed, manufactured, flight tested, and then used in a world war!

 

Clearly there is something behind it all, but what is the question?

 

Is it because these platforms have been around for so long that updating the extensive code base running them is now next to impossible, or is there something else at play? 

 

13 hours ago, Hetzer-JG51 said:

War Thunder lost me when they dumped the Simulator mode, along with the huge maps and historical matchups. Yes, it has superb DMs and realistic armour and ammo modelling but the gameplay itself, on postage-stamp sized maps, is pure arcade. Ditto the 'tier' balancing stuff.

HLL is pure arcade, PS is getting there but still lacks proper crew damage. TC, I have it but it's clunky and barren. I've not played it enough to have an opinion on its DM and armour/ammo modelling, though I've not read good things about it. I think it sucked a lot of resources away from the planes to not much good for us lot but if it made 777 a useful amount of money I suppose that has to be a plus for all.

 

Arcade, well okay. I pretty much agree that is what we are all dealing with here.

[Avimimus]

I'm a bit confused by the talk of better designed maps and game balance.

 

I mean - the terrain at Kursk wasn't designed for multiplayer, it just happened to be the way it is - and the battlefield wasn't 'balanced' either in terms of equipment etc. That is the reality.

 

I understand the desire for more intelligent tanks or more infantry targets for the high explosive rounds... and I also understand people having doubts about the damage model (which, I personally suspect is exceptionally accurate)... but I think complaints about map design and balance might be missing the point.

 

That said, I do wonder if release a few multiplayer only fictional maps would garner an additional audience? Aahh... eek... the corruption spreads! I'm done for lads!

[LachenKrieg]

Yeah when taken like that, I can understand how it comes across as missing the point.

 

I won't get into a debate regarding your suspicions that the armor/gun DM is exceptionally accurate. Mine is that it is not accurate at all based on my own experiences.

 

The point about terrains and balance was more in response to the OP's questions/views on the current state of TC.

 

I realize that the area portrayed in TC is what it is.

 

I also said that I was willing to overlook this issue when I bought into this franchise.

 

But without an accurate armor/gun model to work with, I was simply pointing out that I reinstalled WT after the TC experiment, and was able to re-experienced decent armored battles there largely because of more interesting maps.

 

Maps that are densely populated with other players where I could use various objects to cover/angle behind as I try to take out my opponent.

 

My experience in TC was drive several minutes across a map, pump several rounds into the side/rear of a Sherman tank while he looks for you, once he finds you, get one tapped, re-spawn and start over.

 

One of the best historical match-ups Tank Crew has to offer under its current collection is the Sherman/PzIV. The balance comes from the fact that they were both lethal against each other from almost any positions at playable in-game distances. The challenge is that you would have to use each vehicles strengths to exploit the others weakness.

 

But using well placed shots from a PzIV as simply a reminder for the guy in a Sherman that he's not looking hard enough to spot his opponent completely destroys any semblance of historical accuracy, game balance, or reason to play.

 

So the point isn't that tank battles on the Eastern front were balanced, it is that MP game play needs to be in order to make the game worth playing.

 

Yes initially there were a lot of PzIII's sent to the Eastern front, and yes they were able to knock out T-34's with them, but it was very hard to do as well as very risky for the crew trying to do it. Hence all the frantic work that followed in German tank factories.

 

But the on-line server that is trying to attract new players is not Kursk. How long do you think the average computer game enthusiast is going to call being one-timed by the same guy he hit multiple times fun? Especially if the player bought TC on the premise that it is an accurate simulation. Before uninstalling the game, I couldn't even take out a Sherman in a Panther. The only reason I bought into this franchise was because of the possibility TC held at being an accurate WWII tank simulator.

 

     

[RedeyeStorm]

@LachenKrieg I feel that your remarks about balance are mostly based on MP and Like @Avimimushinted at there is only one TC map. That you can drive the tanks around other maps is simply a bonus. Like Avimus for the mix of tanks based on history is a strong point.

For me the biggest let down of TC is the absolute lack of AI. There is no maneuvering, no seeking of cover or hull down positions. It is just follow the path, spot an enemy, stop and start shooting until target is destroyed. Rinse and repeat until end of path or destroyed. It takes away any ‘simulation’ feel of the game.

 

Oh and pet peeve the clunky comms.

[Voidhunger]

1 hour ago, RedeyeStorm said:

@LachenKrieg I feel that your remarks about balance are mostly based on MP and Like @Avimimushinted at there is only one TC map. That you can drive the tanks around other maps is simply a bonus. Like Avimus for the mix of tanks based on history is a strong point.

For me the biggest let down of TC is the absolute lack of AI. There is no maneuvering, no seeking of cover or hull down positions. It is just follow the path, spot an enemy, stop and start shooting until target is destroyed. Rinse and repeat until end of path or destroyed. It takes away any ‘simulation’ feel of the game.

 

Oh and pet peeve the clunky comms.

Damage model, AI and the content (No mission generator or advanced QMB).

[Yogiflight]

27 minutes ago, Voidhunger said:

1 hour ago, RedeyeStorm said:

@LachenKrieg I feel that your remarks about balance are mostly based on MP and Like @Avimimushinted at there is only one TC map. That you can drive the tanks around other maps is simply a bonus. Like Avimus for the mix of tanks based on history is a strong point.

For me the biggest let down of TC is the absolute lack of AI. There is no maneuvering, no seeking of cover or hull down positions. It is just follow the path, spot an enemy, stop and start shooting until target is destroyed. Rinse and repeat until end of path or destroyed. It takes away any ‘simulation’ feel of the game.

 

Oh and pet peeve the clunky comms.

Expand  

Damage model, AI and the content (No mission generator or advanced QMB).

What made me stop playing TC was the white circle, showing, where the enemy is (and I was TC of an IFV, I never saw any white circles showing me the targets, so it must be purely arcade), even in expert difficulty, the AI gunner taking over control of the turret, although I didn't activate the autopilot, the missing possibility in gunner position to see in which direction my gun points (apart from using the HUD, which I never do), because when untoggling the gunsight, I can't move my gunner's head, except I press the key for 'Leave control of the gun', which then makes the turret turn to 12 o'clock position.

[LachenKrieg]

7 hours ago, RedeyeStorm said:

@LachenKrieg I feel that your remarks about balance are mostly based on MP and Like @Avimimushinted at there is only one TC map. That you can drive the tanks around other maps is simply a bonus. Like Avimus for the mix of tanks based on history is a strong point.

For me the biggest let down of TC is the absolute lack of AI. There is no maneuvering, no seeking of cover or hull down positions. It is just follow the path, spot an enemy, stop and start shooting until target is destroyed. Rinse and repeat until end of path or destroyed. It takes away any ‘simulation’ feel of the game.

 

Oh and pet peeve the clunky comms.

Your absolutely right, my comments about balance are in regards to game play (MP/SP). In terms of the map, I'm not opposed to the geographical location being portrayed. There is a very good reason that area was chosen for TC. I was more than happy to accept the bareness of the map in trade for an accurate WWII tank simulator.

 

If the Devs wanted to really round out the experience with map improvements, they could certainly make ground explosions/sounds and the like more real. But the absolute bare minimum in terms of accuracy/realism for me at least is an accurate gun/armor model.

 

I actually quite like the collection of tanks included in TC. We all know there are vast differences between these machines. The reason Germany had to up-gun the PzIV and develop tanks like the Tiger/Panther was because the balance was very strongly tipped in the Russian tanks favor.

 

In SP game play, it is completely up to you as the individual player if you want to put your self in a PzIII against a T-34. That can be a really fun challenge, and it works because it is SP. But in MP game play, you can't have an imbalance like that and still keep it fun for 99.9% of the players. MP game play usually demands that there is some type of balance so that both teams have a similar chance of winning. Unless your playing MP in a closed group where all those concerned accept what ever shortcomings are built into the match as a challenge. 

 

But what I started seeing after months of enjoying TC, was that in both MP and SP game play, I was no longer able to knock out Sherman tank in most scenarios. And others started seeing it too. So something fcuked something up in a really big way. Like I said, a Sherman/PzIV match up is probably the ideal scenario for WWII MP game play simulation. But something destroyed the balance to what should have been an excellent match up. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I was one of TC's most staunchest supporters. I spent months on this forum trying to encourage/develop the module. Now I'm just waiting to see which direction they are going to take it.

[Yogiflight]

11 minutes ago, LachenKrieg said:

But what I started seeing after months of enjoying TC, was that in both MP and SP game play, I was no longer able to knock out Sherman tank in most scenarios.

I tried it yesterday in the QMB, duel with a Sherman, in the Panzer 4, and the first try I destroyed it with two hits at the front from 1300m, the second doesn't count, as 800m from the side is nothing remarcable, the third try was again from the front at 1000m, but this time I needed four or five hits, until it was counted as destroyed and exploded. So it seems, it works at least in SP.

[Avimimus]

I found that I could easily take out Shermans in a Panzer III in QMB at ~1km. In the Sherman, I usually lost mobility after the first Panzer III hit at those ranges, the second or third would take me out.

 

When people claim issues with this not being possible - well, it is so different from my experience of the game, that it kind-of destroys their credibility.

The Panzer IV is even more powerful. Same is true with the Tiger. That said, the fact that two or three 75mm high explosive hits is a relatively reliable way to get a mission kill on enemy heavy armour is something that might be worth looking into and nuancing (e.g. making the damage to systems by HE hits more probabilistic, or dependent on the angle of impact or something).

 

[LachenKrieg]

12 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

I tried it yesterday in the QMB, duel with a Sherman, in the Panzer 4, and the first try I destroyed it with two hits at the front from 1300m, the second doesn't count, as 800m from the side is nothing remarcable, the third try was again from the front at 1000m, but this time I needed four or five hits, until it was counted as destroyed and exploded. So it seems, it works at least in SP.

That could be encouraging, but after spending months playing TC, I started seeing the exact opposite of what your describing. Some of which I commented on/left video clips of the events on this forum. But it is good to hear that they at least have it working in SP mode for you.

1 minute ago, Avimimus said:

I found that I could easily take out Shermans in a Panzer III in QMB at ~1km. In the Sherman, I usually lost mobility after the first Panzer III hit at those ranges, the second or third would take me out.

 

When people claim issues with this not being possible - well, it is so different from my experience of the game, that it kind-of destroys their credibility.

The Panzer IV is even more powerful. Same is true with the Tiger. That said, the fact that two or three 75mm high explosive hits is a relatively reliable way to get a mission kill on enemy heavy armour is something that might be worth looking into and nuancing (e.g. making the damage to systems by HE hits more probabilistic, or dependent on the angle of impact or something).

 

You repeating something you saw has nothing to do with my credibility. The were several threads/videos discussing/showing exactly what is being talked about here. The fact that you can easily take out Shermans in a PzIII at 1km either raises more questions about the gun/armor model, or your own credibility.

[Voidhunger]

Problem is that without post battle statistics, we cant see what is happening there. I think you hit the hitbox. If it is ammo hitbox, tank explode. If its hitbox without ammo there are some randomnes. Sometimes crew is hit, part of the tank is damaged.if you are unlucky you can score 8-10 hits to sherman. If one of the crew survive or you dont score hit to ammo box, tank is still not destroyed and can shoot back. I think and maybe im wrong there is no modeled shrapnel damage like in graviteam or gunner heat .

[Avimimus]

 

6 hours ago, Voidhunger said:

 I think and maybe im wrong there is no modeled shrapnel damage like in graviteam or gunner heat .

 

I'm pretty sure there is - hitting the cupola with an APHE round will take out the crew - that is an indirect effect. Of course, the question can be asked about the detail of the shrapnel & spalling models (e.g. does shrapnel appear from the round's centre on detonation, or is it also produces by spalling of the hull, how accurately are the angles calculated etc. etc.)

 

6 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

You repeating something you saw has nothing to do with my credibility. The were several threads/videos discussing/showing exactly what is being talked about here. The fact that you can easily take out Shermans in a PzIII at 1km either raises more questions about the gun/armor model, or your own credibility.

 

Yes - and I couldn't reproduce those videos in the current version. I tried multiple times... and on those trials I didn't get knocked out immediately, I was able to take out Sherman's with two or three APHE hits at ~1km. Usually if I fought two on one they'd track me... but I was often able to win. The same thing happened when I was in the Sherman - the second or third hit at those ranges would take me out.

 

So we're clearly having very different experiences. One possibility is that I'm firing on weaker points in the Sherman? I find it a bit hard to be imagine that I'm that accurate at 1 km - but it might have something to do with how I handle wind and shot correction. Another, more likely possibility is that your tests were done on a slightly earlier version?

 

You were using APHE?

 

 

By the way - I agree that having detailed reports (even in the technochat) about what was hit could help clarify a lot of these debates. Graviteam and some other tank games have more detailed systems for such reports - but it would be nice to have at least a difficulty option of technochat reporting on penetration and internal damage. Something to ask for for TC2?

[BlitzPig_EL]

Playing the Sherman tonight on a map I made, we were repeatedly one shotted by AI Panthers, Panzer IVs, Tigers, of course, and Pak 40 guns.  A P.IV hit me from over a kilometer away and I was dead in one shot.  Came around a corner in a city and BOOM! A single shot from a Tiger punched my ticket.

 

It's almost like you guys harping constantly on the Sherman are playing a totally different game than I and my friends are.  I'm trying to understand your position, but in my game play, I'm just not experiencing it.

[Yogiflight]

10 hours ago, Avimimus said:

hitting the cupola with an APHE round will take out the crew

I had it happen once, that my cuppola was hit, but only the commander was killed. I only noticed it was hit, when I wanted to change position from the gunner to the commander after a fight and couldn't. I went to outside view and was quite surprised to see there was something missing on top of the turret

[LachenKrieg]

12 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

 

I'm pretty sure there is - hitting the cupola with an APHE round will take out the crew - that is an indirect effect. Of course, the question can be asked about the detail of the shrapnel & spalling models (e.g. does shrapnel appear from the round's centre on detonation, or is it also produces by spalling of the hull, how accurately are the angles calculated etc. etc.)

 

 

Yes - and I couldn't reproduce those videos in the current version. I tried multiple times... and on those trials I didn't get knocked out immediately, I was able to take out Sherman's with two or three APHE hits at ~1km. Usually if I fought two on one they'd track me... but I was often able to win. The same thing happened when I was in the Sherman - the second or third hit at those ranges would take me out.

 

So we're clearly having very different experiences. One possibility is that I'm firing on weaker points in the Sherman? I find it a bit hard to be imagine that I'm that accurate at 1 km - but it might have something to do with how I handle wind and shot correction. Another, more likely possibility is that your tests were done on a slightly earlier version?

 

You were using APHE?

 

 

By the way - I agree that having detailed reports (even in the technochat) about what was hit could help clarify a lot of these debates. Graviteam and some other tank games have more detailed systems for such reports - but it would be nice to have at least a difficulty option of technochat reporting on penetration and internal damage. Something to ask for for TC2?

I think your opening comment in this thread was probably the most accurate by the look of things.

 

So your suspicion is that the DM is exceptionally accurate and that your pretty sure spalling is modeled because the crew get taken out when an APHE hits the cupola? 

 

That's it?

That's what your suspicions are based on?

 

So what happens when your tank hits a high velocity tree in TC? Does that also confirm you suspicions... you know... the ones your pretty sure about. Do you have any idea how many ways a programmer could write code to delete a fake crew member in a computer game? And none of them have to do with correctly modeling armor.

 

Take a step back and read what your writing.

 

You can easily take out Sherman tanks in a PzIII from 1km when in real life, the PzIV G had a max lethal range of approximately 1.2km, while in-game a number of people including myself couldn't take out a Sherman at near point blank range in a PzIV?

 

Your aiming for weak spots from 1km away?

 

And it might have something to do with how you handle wind correction? So what, you mean you jump out of your tank, and lick your finger to see which way the wind is blowing?

 

Are you for real? Because it sounds like your just hijacking this thread.

 

Someone raised concerns/asked about the current status of TC. My view is that TC in its current form would need a major update to win my support back. You chimed in with questions of credibility using the above as your rebuttal? 

 

I get it, your a flying fan-boy, but I'm not here to convince you to step away from your favorite flight SIM. I personally think its great that you are getting enjoyment from it. You paid to use the software, I think you should be able to enjoy it. And I hope you would agree that logic should apply to everyone. That is why I'm here! Something changed several months after I purchased and used TC to make it so that I am not able to enjoy the software I paid for anymore. And until that gets fixed, the IL2 GBS has lost my support with any future purchases.

 

So go back and read the thread/watch the videos and compare them to your superhuman ability to take out Sherman tanks in a PzIII from 1km away while explaining how you suspect things are exceptionally accurate. You might want to do a little reading on actual gun/armor performance from WWII while your at it.

 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Playing the Sherman tonight on a map I made, we were repeatedly one shotted by AI Panthers, Panzer IVs, Tigers, of course, and Pak 40 guns.  A P.IV hit me from over a kilometer away and I was dead in one shot.  Came around a corner in a city and BOOM! A single shot from a Tiger punched my ticket.

 

It's almost like you guys harping constantly on the Sherman are playing a totally different game than I and my friends are.  I'm trying to understand your position, but in my game play, I'm just not experiencing it.

So you not experiencing something means I didn't? I have over 900 posts on this forum in support of TC, so what, your suggesting that I woke up one day and decided to fabricate a complaint? Tell me something, do Ai platoons still drive around in battle with the gun locked? Next question, do you think that is historically accurate? Next question, why would the Dev team behind TC not only do that, but not correct it after almost the entire community asked for the change?

 

Or were you the only one that didn't experience it?

[BlitzPig_EL]

Whoa, whoa, whoa...  I was not making a personal attack on you sir, though you seem to take it that way.  I was only commenting on my and the rest of my "squad's" personal experience playing the Sherman.  I completely agree with you on the behavior of the AI ground units.  The P. IV driving around in combat areas with the gun in the uplocked position is indeed silly.  Traveling in column behind the lines, sure, but in visual range of the enemy?  Nope.  I have seen film of Tiger IIs driving through a German town with their guns locked in the up position, but as I said, they were obviously not near the front.  The devs seem to religiously follow the operating manuals for the various vehicles in the sim, both ground vehicles, and aircraft, which has made for some non-historic operating details (fly a P40 and see what I mean), so if the manual says travel with the gun locked up, that is how they would model it, even if in actual use, that is not how it was done in the field. 

 

I would love to have the AI tanks behave more realistically in combat as well.  I can make columns go where I need them, but when they get to their destination, it all falls apart as they just sit there.  Sure they will train their weapons and fire at enemies, but why don't they evade, seek better positions and present themselves as more than just a pillbox even set at the highest AI level?  The AI aircraft break formations and maneuver when presented with a threat, one would think the tanks could do the same. 

 

If the team had the budget and staff that say, EA's Mass Effect has, I think we would have all the things we all want on a time table that would suit those wants.  Sadly that is not the case.  My long history with this title, and all it's previous iterations has given me a more "long view" understanding of what to expect I suppose.

 

 

[BraveSirRobin]

3 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

So you not experiencing something means I didn't? I have over 900 posts on this forum in support of TC

Lol. No, you don’t.   You have over 900 posts on the forum.  You abandoned the game months ago after many, many posts trashing it.

[Avimimus]

6 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

I had it happen once, that my cuppola was hit, but only the commander was killed. I only noticed it was hit, when I wanted to change position from the gunner to the commander after a fight and couldn't. I went to outside view and was quite surprised to see there was something missing on top of the turret

 

Yes. It depends on the impact and the type of round - often only the commander is killed or injured. However, a detonation of an APHE round in the cupola can kill crew or even detonate ammunition - it is somewhat unpredictable.

 

I looked up some old WWII era charts on weak points and they tended to highlight the cupolas on German tanks. Many times in desperation I've aimed for the cupola when not penetrating - a hit is very unlikely even at close range... something of what they call a 'hail Mary' - but when you realise you aren't penetrating anywhere and make that desperate last few shots at the cupola after being immobilised - to watch the enemy tank explode is, well, amazingly satisfying.

 

 

On 3/11/2022 at 12:51 PM, LachenKrieg said:

But the on-line server that is trying to attract new players is not Kursk. How long do you think the average computer game enthusiast is going to call being one-timed by the same guy he hit multiple times fun? Especially if the player bought TC on the premise that it is an accurate simulation. Before uninstalling the game, I couldn't even take out a Sherman in a Panther. The only reason I bought into this franchise was because of the possibility TC held at being an accurate WWII tank simulator.     

 

Well - there are two points I think, which are interesting here:

 

The main one is that there is an apparent issue with the fact that damage upon hitting a tank is unpredictable... you (and likely many new players) perceive this as a flaw in the damage model. I interpret it as a sign that the damage model is accurate enough that terminal effects are unpredictable (e.g. did a round penetrate? did it penetrate in such a way to hit a piece of stowed ammunition? did the stowed ammunition catch fire or detonate?). I see the lack of predictability as realistic.

 

The spalling model may not be complex (as I acknowledged earlier - we don't know) but the size and distribution of spalling fragments itself is unpredictable in real life, and I think improving the model might make terminal effects (i.e. damage) even less predictable.

 

It would seem that more transparency (via the developers posting information) or through enhanced reporting of damage (e.g. detailed reporting in technochat) would be the only way to settle this.

 

The other interesting point - when did you uninstall the game? I got Tank Crew relatively recently (this winter), so almost all of my experience one-shotting Shermans at >900 metres is on the latest patch.

Edited March 13, 2022 by Avimimus

[MajorMagee]

Otto Carius was wounded when their cupola was hit, and it was torn clean off. Just by luck he had just leaned down into the turret to light a cigarette, or he would have been killed outright. (p. 133, Tigers in The Mud)

[Saedriss]

This is another good point for Gunner HEAT TBH.
They do not shy away from displaying the damage model in action for each shot in the battle report, solving those kind of discussion.
 

[Yogiflight]

4 hours ago, Avimimus said:

I looked up some old WWII era charts on weak points and they tended to highlight the cupolas on German tanks.

That is the reason, why they changed the cupolas of the late versions of the Panther and Tiger tanks. The early versions we have in game still have the old Panzer 3 and 4 stile cupolas.

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, Yogiflight said:

That is the reason, why they changed the cupolas of the late versions of the Panther and Tiger tanks. The early versions we have in game still have the old Panzer 3 and 4 stile cupolas.

 

Indeed... and a detonation there can penetrate the roof armour sometimes (at least the 122mm and 152mm can... it is dangerous to have anything up there which can allow a shell skipping along the roof to actually detonate rather than deflect).

 

[LachenKrieg]

9 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Whoa, whoa, whoa...  I was not making a personal attack on you sir, though you seem to take it that way.  I was only commenting on my and the rest of my "squad's" personal experience playing the Sherman.  I completely agree with you on the behavior of the AI ground units.  The P. IV driving around in combat areas with the gun in the uplocked position is indeed silly.  Traveling in column behind the lines, sure, but in visual range of the enemy?  Nope.  I have seen film of Tiger IIs driving through a German town with their guns locked in the up position, but as I said, they were obviously not near the front.  The devs seem to religiously follow the operating manuals for the various vehicles in the sim, both ground vehicles, and aircraft, which has made for some non-historic operating details (fly a P40 and see what I mean), so if the manual says travel with the gun locked up, that is how they would model it, even if in actual use, that is not how it was done in the field. 

 

I would love to have the AI tanks behave more realistically in combat as well.  I can make columns go where I need them, but when they get to their destination, it all falls apart as they just sit there.  Sure they will train their weapons and fire at enemies, but why don't they evade, seek better positions and present themselves as more than just a pillbox even set at the highest AI level?  The AI aircraft break formations and maneuver when presented with a threat, one would think the tanks could do the same. 

 

If the team had the budget and staff that say, EA's Mass Effect has, I think we would have all the things we all want on a time table that would suit those wants.  Sadly that is not the case.  My long history with this title, and all it's previous iterations has given me a more "long view" understanding of what to expect I suppose.

 

 

The point was not to make an argument against the gun-lock feature.The feature itself is great, the problem with the feature is more with the way they modeled it. Like the way settings change as you leave and return to a station. TC is a computer game where you control 4 different stations when playing alone in addition to any Ai tanks in your platoon. The user should decide WHEN to lock/unlock the gun for both his tank, and the Ai tanks in platoon. And as a single player, you should be able to move around without having to constantly reset things. But these are not the bigger issues, and the point of bringing up the gun-lock was to simply demonstrate that there is more than one thing about TC that is blatantly not historically accurate regardless of what someones suspicions are. 

 

Regarding experience, your comment at the time the videos were posted was something to do with internet lag. You were trying to explain away what I and others were seeing as some type of internet lag issue. Your point certainly wasn't that we were harping on the Sherman, and its almost like we are playing a different game. And it makes perfect sense that you didn't make that argument then because the videos speak for themselves. Now several months later you seem to have forgotten about the lag explanation and move onto almost suggest that it never even happened.

 

I was giving my own views to the questions/concerns someone raised, and for me, this issue is exactly why I don't play anymore. Yes its true I have uninstalled the game and have no plans on reinstalling it until the issue is fixed because I don't see the point in wasting more time trying to play something that is not playable for me. You and @Avimimus seem to be suggesting that the issue has been dealt with, or no longer exists. Do you have that written in a patch release somewhere, because I don't. 

[LachenKrieg]

7 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

Yes. It depends on the impact and the type of round - often only the commander is killed or injured. However, a detonation of an APHE round in the cupola can kill crew or even detonate ammunition - it is somewhat unpredictable.

 

I looked up some old WWII era charts on weak points and they tended to highlight the cupolas on German tanks. Many times in desperation I've aimed for the cupola when not penetrating - a hit is very unlikely even at close range... something of what they call a 'hail Mary' - but when you realise you aren't penetrating anywhere and make that desperate last few shots at the cupola after being immobilised - to watch the enemy tank explode is, well, amazingly satisfying.

 

 

 

Well - there are two points I think, which are interesting here:

 

The main one is that there is an apparent issue with the fact that damage upon hitting a tank is unpredictable... you (and likely many new players) perceive this as a flaw in the damage model. I interpret it as a sign that the damage model is accurate enough that terminal effects are unpredictable (e.g. did a round penetrate? did it penetrate in such a way to hit a piece of stowed ammunition? did the stowed ammunition catch fire or detonate?). I see the lack of predictability as realistic.

 

The spalling model may not be complex (as I acknowledged earlier - we don't know) but the size and distribution of spalling fragments itself is unpredictable in real life, and I think improving the model might make terminal effects (i.e. damage) even less predictable.

 

It would seem that more transparency (via the developers posting information) or through enhanced reporting of damage (e.g. detailed reporting in technochat) would be the only way to settle this.

 

The other interesting point - when did you uninstall the game? I got Tank Crew relatively recently (this winter), so almost all of my experience one-shotting Shermans at >900 metres is on the latest patch.

I'm not really following your logic here TBH. You are claiming to know the damage model is exceptionally accurate. You seem to base your belief in the DM on the fact that crew can be injured. The fact that crew can be injured means absolutely nothing in terms of what is modeled, or how accurate it is. In TC, hitting a tree can yield the same results as a high velocity tank round that penetrates.

 

I make no claims to know what is and isn't modeled, or even how well, but what I am quite certain of is that any Sherman crew who endured the type and number of penetrations shown in the videos would not likely survive long enough to tell the tale, let alone drive away. And while I doubt actual gun/armor performance data would support the claim a PzIII could easily knock-out a Sherman tank 1km away, how do you explain the videos that show the PzIVG was unable to do it at nearly point-blank range? Something doesn't seem right here wouldn't you agree?

 

 

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, LachenKrieg said:

And while I doubt actual gun/armor performance data would support the claim a PzIII could easily knock-out a Sherman tank 1km away, how do you explain the videos that show the PzIVG was unable to do it at nearly point-blank range? Something doesn't seem right here wouldn't you agree?

 

Definitely. Which is why I tried to replicate your videos (in single-player, with the current version). I couldn't.

 

 

2 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

You and @Avimimus seem to be suggesting that the issue has been dealt with, or no longer exists. Do you have that written in a patch release somewhere, because I don't. 

 

I didn't. But I didn't own TC until recently and thus tended to just glance at the patch notes. I just have my experiences starting at the very end of 2021 (Current, and last patches only).

 

P.S. You did get my point about unpredictability right? That if you shoot into a section of the hull with no crew behind it, or with just the loader or commander behind it - or if you miss the ammunition rack, or hit it but it fails to go off etc. Nothing should be visible to the player? It will appear like no damage was done, even if the target was significantly damaged. Have you tried driving the Sherman? That is a good way to quickly demonstrate that it isn't immortal.

[LachenKrieg]

7 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

Definitely. Which is why I tried to replicate your videos (in single-player, with the current version). I couldn't.

 

 

 

I didn't. But I didn't own TC until recently and thus tended to just glance at the patch notes. I just have my experiences starting at the very end of 2021 (Current, and last patches only).

 

P.S. You did get my point about unpredictability right? That if you shoot into a section of the hull with no crew behind it, or with just the loader or commander behind it - or if you miss the ammunition rack, or hit it but it fails to go off etc. Nothing should be visible to the player? It will appear like no damage was done, even if the target was significantly damaged. Have you tried driving the Sherman? That is a good way to quickly demonstrate that it isn't immortal.

I have used all of the tanks on both sides. I even did a video when all of this change started happening to show what happened when I was in a Sherman fighting an Ai PzIV and the other way around. The results were predictable.

 

But look, I would really like to see TC improve. If your saying none of what I was experiencing happens anymore, then I'll take that as an encouraging sign. If you see anything important show up in the patch notes, I would appreciate if you would link it to a thread. I try to stop in at least a couple times a week, but I might skip it once in awhile.

[Yogiflight]

8 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

Do you have that written in a patch release somewhere, because I don't. 

Not everything which changes with a patch is in the update announcements. Take alone the aircraft career mode. You will rarely find anything about it in the announcements, but thanks to Luke, there are some changes in pretty much every update.

[LachenKrieg]

17 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

Not everything which changes with a patch is in the update announcements. Take alone the aircraft career mode. You will rarely find anything about it in the announcements, but thanks to Luke, there are some changes in pretty much every update.

I would expect that the Dev team would want to include all of the important updates/fixes/additions in the patch notes. There aren't many ways the Dev team can get a community like this to give them credit for all their hard work. And not keeping the community informed only serves to add confusion as demonstrated in a number of the posts above. Any changes/additions/fixes to something as serious as the DM I would like to think would be detailed in the patch notes. I will certainly be watching for them.

Edited March 15, 2022 by LachenKrieg