Discussion of Fortresses and Focke-Wulfs Announcement

[No.54_Reddog]

I don't really understand the case for optimism that they'll fix the bug. Have they not been trying up till now? Presumably they have. And have failed. Repeatedly. There's no reason to suspect they'll be successful based on that evidence.

[Lorena_Scout]

Still no steam update page with the good news for those who doesn't check it out the forums?

[9./JG52_J-HAT]

18 minutes ago, No.54_Reddog said:

I don't really understand the case for optimism that they'll fix the bug. Have they not been trying up till now? Presumably they have. And have failed. Repeatedly. There's no reason to suspect they'll be successful based on that evidence.

Who knows if it is always the same bugs or new ones? I don't.

From the beginning of testing they've fixed a lot of stuff already. 

 

They have to keep trying and have to succeed. And be confident they will find the last bug causing crashes and squash it. 

 

Otherwise I don't see the point of hanging on to the VR implementation if they don't. Just scratch the whole thing because the cause for crashes has not yet been found? Don't see that as a better outcome tbh. 

Hopefully Mikmak can shine some light on it. Otherwise just keeping my fingers crossed, since there is nothing else we users can do other than report the crashes. 

[Buzzsaw]

On 9/23/2023 at 2:13 AM, 5th_Barone said:

Question: since we won't get tropical version of the Dieppe plane set (atm at least).

What if players use these planes on Tobruk map.

Is the sand/desert damaging engine simulated? Or is it not?

Because if it's the second choice having the tropical version it's just for accuracy but in the meantime servers could allow the Dieppe plane to be used on Tobruk map.

Thanks in advance

If you use any standard version of an aircraft on a Tropical map, you will see overheat sooner than in a Tropical version, (tropical versions typically had larger oil coolers) and a possibility of sand damage.

 

That is already modeled into the game.

[5th_Barone]

22 minutes ago, Buzzsaw said:

If you use any standard version of an aircraft on a Tropical map, you will see overheat sooner than in a Tropical version, (tropical versions typically had larger oil coolers) and a possibility of sand damage.

 

That is already modeled into the game.

ok thanks for reply.

 

At this stage do you think Dieppe planes will possibly be converted also to trop version?

 

thanks

[Mysticpuma]

Which is why, as I mentioned, there could be someone out there who is playing now, who may have already faced an issue like this and be the key to cracking the cause of it? 

 

I am pretty sure an Open Beta will not happen, but that will likely protract finding the bug and delaying the release more. 

[BOO]

20 minutes ago, Mysticpuma said:

Which is why, as I mentioned, there could be someone out there who is playing now, who may have already faced an issue like this and be the key to cracking the cause of it? 

 

I am pretty sure an Open Beta will not happen, but that will likely protract finding the bug and delaying the release more. 

 

Devils advocate - but why would the golden child randomly turn up in a public beta? Surely, someone with the knowledge, experience and skills to hit the nail would already be engaged if they were interested?  Or would have at least proffered a thought somewhere if they didnt want to jump through the beta hoops. Perhaps they are there, awaiting the next round of invites to join? 

 

I'll maintain my view that open season would more likely lead to TFS having to filter through a  shed load of time wasting hokum and dulplicated "findings" that being presented with a gold nugget.   

 

I know zilch about code, or drivers or windows or any of that. What I do know is that when Cilod launched you were rocking it if you had a sidewinder and  a Track IR. Now there are just  so many variables and thngs plugged into the engine that couldnt possibly be imagined at the time it was conceived..  i really dont envy TFS in trying to sort it. 

 

though.....iI'm sure at one point it was said that only Primax was the problem. I assume now that this was perhaps......miscommunicated?

[No.54_Reddog]

If by that you mean deliberately obfuscated I might tend to agree. It's a bit like how certain questions get answered, and others don't.

[BOO]

13 minutes ago, No.54_Reddog said:

If by that you mean deliberately obfuscated I might tend to agree. It's a bit like how certain questions get answered, and others don't.

All i can say is that it came as a bit of a surprise to find out multiple users were suffering regualr crashes HOWEVER I have not looked for the post so perhpas a different issue with primax could have been the issue. 

 

On the second point - I agree ole boy. Quite the frustration. 

[PO_Baldrick]

58 minutes ago, BOO said:

All i can say is that it came as a bit of a surprise to find out multiple users were suffering regualr crashes HOWEVER I have not looked for the post so perhpas a different issue with primax could have been the issue.

I believe the Pimax issue was the need for parallel projections to be turned on which killed performance, hence the warning for Pimax users at the time.

[Buzzsaw]

4 hours ago, PO_Baldrick said:

I believe the Pimax issue was the need for parallel projections to be turned on which killed performance, hence the warning for Pimax users at the time.

We have a tester who is getting good results with Pimax, but he has a very high quality system.

 

Pimax puts a cap on their fps with an intervening program... which may add extra load.

[No.54_Reddog]

On 9/23/2023 at 9:04 AM, No.54_Reddog said:

Is the dieppe map the same size as the existing channel map? Apart from some new objects is there anything different between it and the channel map?

 

Since this seems to have been missed a couple of times, I'll try again. Anyone from TFS care to comment?

[Mysticpuma]

1 minute ago, No.54_Reddog said:

Since this seems to have been missed a couple of times, I'll try again. Anyone from TFS care to comment?

(and can vehicles cross bridges now that the CloD map has been rebuilt?)

[SCG_Schneemann]

The Dieppe map will be the same size as the Channel map. The map will be revised as required to replicate 1942 era airfields, fortifications, and German and British construction that occurred in that timeframe, along with the Atlantik Wall objects, and British defense response to the threat of a sea invasion.

[Mysticpuma]

43 minutes ago, SCG_Schneemann said:

The Dieppe map will be the same size as the Channel map. The map will be revised as required to replicate 1942 era airfields, fortifications, and German and British construction that occurred in that timeframe, along with the Atlantik Wall objects, and British defense response to the threat of a sea invasion.

and can vehicles now cross bridges along with the vehicle bounce conga being eliminated? 

Go to the 1 minute 20sec mark for the fun times ?

 

 

Edited September 26, 2023 by Mysticpuma

[Feldgrun]

 

[Gunfreak]

On 9/25/2023 at 8:58 PM, 5th_Barone said:

ok thanks for reply.

 

At this stage do you think Dieppe planes will possibly be converted also to trop version?

 

thanks

 

I'm not sure how many of them were converted to Tropical, as far as I know the 190s never served in North Africa and I don't think the Typhoons did either. B17s took off from North Africa, but I don't know if they got the "Tropical " treatment. 

I do think the Mustangs and MkIX did serve in North Africa, I'm unsure if the 109G model did.

[SCG_Schneemann]

I can't speak to the conga line - I'll try to revisit it when I have time. I seem to recall the issue is vehicles don't want to follow at a speed - they race up, then slam on their brakes, then figure they are behind, then jam on the throttle, etc. It causes them to behave weirdly. There are obviously internal values that need to be adjusted to prevent the racing and braking. I'll see what I can fiddle with to get the convoys to behave. 

[Enceladus828]

Some questions I have:

- When will the torpedo sights for the Wellington Torpedo and He-111 be added? The plan was to release them as part of the Visual Update but if they’re done then just add them in the next update.

 

- Will there be any SP content in Dieppe that would require Desert Wings-Tobruk such as non-tropical planes?

 

- Will there be any ships added in Tobruk, obviously not Italian, but British and German ships that will be available in Dieppe to non-Tobruk owners?

 

Thank you

[9./JG52_J-HAT]

3 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

 

I'm not sure how many of them were converted to Tropical, as far as I know the 190s never served in North Africa and I don't think the Typhoons did either. B17s took off from North Africa, but I don't know if they got the "Tropical " treatment. 

I do think the Mustangs and MkIX did serve in North Africa, I'm unsure if the 109G model did.

190A were in Tunisia by late 1942, although not all with tropical filters.

 

The 109G-2 indeed served in North Africa. And even 109s (G-6 being the last model to be based there afaik) in Sicily had tropical filters.

 

IIRC exactly three Typhoons were sent for trials to North Africa but weren‘t very successful. 
 

Mustang Ia (P-51) served in North Africa, as well as the A-36 (modified Mustang I).

 

Spitfire IXs were there too.

 

But almost all of these models were present later on, more towards after Torch and the evacuation of Tunisia. Not really the scenario we have now with Tobruk. So just the 109G-2 fits it really.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mysticpuma]

15 hours ago, SCG_Schneemann said:

I can't speak to the conga line - I'll try to revisit it when I have time. I seem to recall the issue is vehicles don't want to follow at a speed - they race up, then slam on their brakes, then figure they are behind, then jam on the throttle, etc. It causes them to behave weirdly. There are obviously internal values that need to be adjusted to prevent the racing and braking. I'll see what I can fiddle with to get the convoys to behave. 

And crossing bridges? ?

I am sure Buzzsaw said the Clod map was being rebuilt (because I asked if all the assets could just be placed on top of it from the old map... which was met with derision ?) 

 

So my understanding was, the original map was being rebuilt and this would fix the issue with vehicles not being able to cross bridges? 

I mean... it's a yes or no. Can they now cross bridges? 

 

Cheers, Mysticpuma 

Edited September 27, 2023 by Mysticpuma

[SCG_Schneemann]

Should be able to. I'll try again and double check. I've also gone and put bridges at all spline roads across the map. Not sure I got them all in, as it's a huge map, but everywhere I could find.

[Blitzen]

On a related note; Setback has already started new skins for the Tiffy, which gives me hope the Dieepe version really is coming along and eventually will be released.

https://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37484&p=392211#post392211

[Mysticpuma]

5 hours ago, SCG_Schneemann said:

Should be able to. I'll try again and double check. I've also gone and put bridges at all spline roads across the map. Not sure I got them all in, as it's a huge map, but everywhere I could find.

That would be a great video to see? 

A car, a truck a tank crossing a bridge ?

[No.54_Reddog]

2 hours ago, Blitzen said:

On a related note; Setback has already started new skins for the Tiffy, which gives me hope the Dieepe version really is coming along and eventually will be released.

https://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37484&p=392211#post392211

Already? The Tiffy model was around when I was (briefly) in TF back in what, 2014?

6 hours ago, SCG_Schneemann said:

Should be able to. I'll try again and double check. I've also gone and put bridges at all spline roads across the map. Not sure I got them all in, as it's a huge map, but everywhere I could find.

So it is the case that the map for Dieppe is a completely rebuilt one and not just an amendment of the current one?

[343KKT_Kintaro]

59 minutes ago, No.54_Reddog said:

So it is the case that the map for Dieppe is a completely rebuilt one and not just an amendment of the current one?

 

 

My understanding is that the owners of "Blitz" alone won't possess the map of the Channel in the summer of 1942. I think the latter, the Channel in 1942, will be a different item in the list of available maps in the series and that it will be necessary to possess the Dieppe add-on for having it as an unlocked element in the game.

 

I may be wrong (TFS will tell) but for the moment my assumption is as follows:

 

- Possessors of "Blitz" will have one map (Channel map 1940)

- Possessors of "Blitz" + "Tobruk" will have two maps (Channel map 1940 and Tobruk map)

- Possessors of "Blitz" + "Dieppe" will have two maps (Channel map 1940 and Channel map 1942)

- Possessors of "Blitz" + "Tobruk" + "Dieppe" will have three maps (Channel map 1940, Tobruk map and Channel map 1942)

 

The above mentioned maps are considered each the "main" in its respective game, obviously everybody will keep all the free maps in the game: Channel autumn of 1940, Channel winter of 1940/1941... plus all the online "dogfight" maps.

 

Again, this is nothing but an uncertain second-guessing of mine, but the TFS communications give me the impression that there will be two separated maps, one for 1940 and another one for 1942, and that the 1942 Channel map will be traced (though adapted) onto the one we already have which represents the Channel in 1940.

 

 

[BOO]

7 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

My understanding is that the owners of "Blitz" alone won't possess the map of the Channel in the summer of 1942. I think the latter, the Channel in 1942, will be a different item in the list of available maps in the series and that it will be necessary to possess the Dieppe add-on for having it as an unlocked element in the game.

 

I may be wrong (TFS will tell) but for the moment my assumption is as follows:

 

- Possessors of "Blitz" will have one map (Channel map 1940)

- Possessors of "Blitz" + "Tobruk" will have two maps (Channel map 1940 and Tobruk map)

- Possessors of "Blitz" + "Dieppe" will have two maps (Channel map 1940 and Channel map 1942)

- Possessors of "Blitz" + "Tobruk" + "Dieppe" will have three maps (Channel map 1940, Tobruk map and Channel map 1942)

 

The above mentioned maps are considered each the "main" in its respective game, obviously everybody will keep all the free maps in the game: Channel autumn of 1940, Channel winter of 1940/1941... plus all the online "dogfight" maps.

 

Again, this is nothing but an uncertain second-guessing of mine, but the TFS communications give me the impression that there will be two separated maps, one for 1940 and another one for 1942, and that the 1942 Channel map will be traced (though adapted) onto the one we already have which represents the Channel in 1940.

 

 

 

TFS communication? where? So far the only thing I can glean from TFS is that some of the bridges culled when Blitz was released are being put back and some new buildings are being added. Not a new map then. 

 

The question has been asked several times but not answered. There are lots of reasons why this could be and, whilst its, pointless to second guess on the absence of anything from TFS the lack of engagement doset instill confidence. 

 

As I understand it from years gone by, the map is more than something you fly over and crash into. The roads and railways and how they interact with vehicles are an integral part of it and were quite badly broken. Thats not something a 4K reskin and speedtree is going to fix. Hence the interest in finding out more. 

 

 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

32 minutes ago, BOO said:

TFS communication? where?

 

 

Boo, if you go back to the announcement (an announcement, to me, IS a communication), you'll read the words "A detailed new 1942 English Channel map". That's what my assumption is based on. In the meantime, TFS will decide if whether or not they consider necessary to bring more precision to what they've already said...

 

[BOO]

4 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

Boo, if you go back to the announcement (an announcement, to me, IS a communication), you'll read the words "A detailed new 1942 English Channel map". That's what my assumption is based on. In the meantime, TFS will decide if whether or not they consider necessary to bring more precision to what they've already said...

 

I read those words - i also went onto read the words "with added landmarks, updated airfields and 4k terrain, large caliber Coastal Gun batteries, fortifications, minefields and defenses".

 

"Add" and "updated" are not words I'd expect to be used on a map built from the ground up. If I bought a new car I wouldnt tell people I added car play, updated the interior and gave it an on trend paint job. I'd say "I've bought a new car". 

 

As i said pteviously theres more to a map than what you see. Im pretty sure those that are interested would not care if it was based on what went before as long as it fixed the landtrack issues over bridges and with convoys. So far all we have is that it will look a little sharper. 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Doesn't seem to be a map built from the ground up. On an above post of mine I said "traced onto", like was the 1940 autumn map, 10 years ago at it's release. At the time, by 2013 more or less, the autumn map was new but not built "from the ground up". Same thing, apparently, with the "new" English Channel map set in summer of 1942 for Dieppe... although seems that the update will be almost radical if compared to the previous maps based on the classic Channel map of summer of 1940.

 

 

[BOO]

1 minute ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

Doesn't seem to be a map built from the ground up. On an above post of mine I said "traced onto", like was the 1940 autumn map, 10 years ago at it's release. At the time, by 2013 more or less, the autumn map was new but not built "from the ground up". Same thing, apparently, with the "new" English Channel map set in summer of 1942 for Dieppe... although seems that the update will be almost radical if compared to the previous maps based on the classic Channel map of summer of 1940.

 

 

If "based on" i have no doubt it will look better or at least different than does currently. Thats not the (primary) concern. These is also some confusion in terms of what has been said previously when the question about placing new assests on the existing channel map was asked by @Mysticpuma.

 

Perhaps the question to TFS should be rephrased "Will road and rail assets work definately correctly in Dieppe regardless and, if so, will that fix be global within the game?"

 

I guess we await @SCG_Schneemann's update.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Sure, no problem, Boo, let's wait for more precise informations from the devs.

 

Other than that, let's highlight that other part on the announcement that reads "New Quick Mission Builder provides the opportunity for faster and more detailed player created missions without the complexity of the Full Mission Builder".

 

Isn't that good news?

 

 

[BOO]

8 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

Sure, no problem, Boo, let's wait for more precise informations from the devs.

 

Other than that, let's highlight that other part on the announcement that reads "New Quick Mission Builder provides the opportunity for faster and more detailed player created missions without the complexity of the Full Mission Builder".

 

Isn't that good news?

 

 

Its is. There is much good news and im not knocking any of it. I like the model choice, I like the fact that its in the Channel area. The Tiffy images look excellent and appear to be a step up from previous TFS produced models though these were never bad in the first place and at lot could be thanks to 4K.  I'll be watching with interest and, when space allows, no doubt will reinstall the game to see what improvements the VU has btought should it arrive before Dieppe.  

[Mysticpuma]

I think it's a fundamental fix required, especially for Campaign an Mission builders. 

Moving fronts for vehicles have been curtailed since day 1 due to vehicles being unable to cross bridges. 

The video I posted above is a perfect example of the longstanding issue that is yet to have an effective fix. 

Initially the reply from Buzzsaw was that the map was being completely rebuilt and this would fix those issues. I asked at the time if (as all the assets are on the map) if it was possible to effectively lift the assets from the current map, place the improved map under it, and place them on the new map. 

Obviously there would be Z axis issues, but most of the asset work would have been done. 

This was explained that it was not possible. 

But this was not possible as it was a new map. And that new map would fix vehicles being able to cross bridges. 

 

From reading the post about Dieppe 42, is the entire map new including the original area of the original map but redone? 

 

I ask because the Z levels have been an issue on the beta map (is that still the original map) where boats are sunken because the waterevel is too high? 

 

 

[Gunfreak]

I have no idea if this is planned, but I think it's a missed opportunity if they don't add parts of the low countries  to the 42 map. 41 and 42 saw many many raids on Nederlands, it was there they first met the Butcher Bird. Boston bombers and later B17s did bombing raids there. Its was also there the first American P47 squadrons flew their first missions. (Not that they are making P47s for this expansion) 

[BENKOE]

 

Dagwoodyt, I share the same view.

 

What often gets forgotten:
Already in spring 2015, Team Fusion announced the BF108 as an advanced trainer. It should have been able to be flown online by two players. For that, the implementation of functional dual-human pilot controls is necessary, much like how it works in the Maddox-DH82A. Apparently, there's no access to existing code for this. So, in the enchanted tale of the Bf108 release, Team Fusion turned their attention away from the promised "sweetener," for they considered it but a small detail in the epic journey of their endeavor, and focused on more pressing matters.

 

And soon, but nobody exactly knows when,
they release the legendary B-17 Flying Fortress, but without playable waist gunner positions. The reasoning behind it is highly entertaining.

 

On 9/25/2023 at 3:51 PM, Dagwoodyt said:

I made a decision not to apply for the beta when it was first announced. I have no regrets. I have read posts from some who did apply and waited months without a resolution. What TFS is doing with the TF 6.0 promotion is to stack a "carrot" onto its' unfulfilled VU commitment. Though TFS says second half of 2024 for TF 6.0 release, they have an established track record of miscalculation by multiple years. Anyway, in the next breath they will remind everyone that their due date is not written in "stone". They will also add that they have to contend with "real life" situations that compromise their opportunities to work on TF 6.0. So what good is the TF 6.0 timeline? The B17 alone could represent a huge resource drain. What does TFS offer in the meantime if they will not provide every Blitz owner access to their beta that is claimed to outshine GB and DCS VR implementations? I have dealt with CloD quirks since its' first release. Why would I now be incapable of accepting limitations of the VU beta?

 

 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

6 minutes ago, BENKOE said:

should have been able to be flown online by two players

 

 

No... really?

 

?

 

 

[Dagwoodyt]

On 9/25/2023 at 1:40 PM, BOO said:

 

Devils advocate - but why would the golden child randomly turn up in a public beta? Surely, someone with the knowledge, experience and skills to hit the nail would already be engaged if they were interested?  Or would have at least proffered a thought somewhere if they didnt want to jump through the beta hoops. Perhaps they are there, awaiting the next round of invites to join? 

 

I'll maintain my view that open season would more likely lead to TFS having to filter through a  shed load of time wasting hokum and dulplicated "findings" that being presented with a gold nugget.   

 

I know zilch about code, or drivers or windows or any of that. What I do know is that when Cilod launched you were rocking it if you had a sidewinder and  a Track IR. Now there are just  so many variables and thngs plugged into the engine that couldnt possibly be imagined at the time it was conceived..  i really dont envy TFS in trying to sort it. 

 

though.....iI'm sure at one point it was said that only Primax was the problem. I assume now that this was perhaps......miscommunicated?

TFS has had a beta test team for 18 months now. When was the most recent beta build submitted for testing? It has been more than a year now since TFS admitted that they were unable to add Speedtree 8/9 to their private beta. Adding a public beta would not prevent TFS from accepting input from current beta testers. TFS would not be obligated to wade through discussions from a "public" beta. Why does TFS insist that the VU has to have finalized trueSKY and Speedtree 8/9 implementations before they can provide a public beta access? By that time a public beta would be irrelevant. Certainly their current beta testers have become used to game crashes. Why wouldn't "public" beta users be equal to that challenge? TFS has not indicated anything new they can offer over the next several years if they are unwilling to provide a public beta access.

Edited September 28, 2023 by Dagwoodyt

[PO_Baldrick]

It is the developer’s choice if they believe a public beta would be beneficial. It works for some and most certainly not others depending on what is being tested and the organisation and resources.

 

I see no obligation for any developer to provide a public beta or need to prove anything. 

[BOO]

4 hours ago, Dagwoodyt said:

TFS has had a beta test team for 18 months now. When was the most recent beta build submitted for testing? It has been more than a year now since TFS admitted that they were unable to add Speedtree 8/9 to their private beta. Adding a public beta would not prevent TFS from accepting input from current beta testers. TFS would not be obligated to wade through discussions from a "public" beta. Why does TFS insist that the VU has to have finalized trueSKY and Speedtree 8/9 implementations before they can provide a public beta access? By that time a public beta would be irrelevant. Certainly their current beta testers have become used to game crashes. Why wouldn't "public" beta users be equal to that challenge? TFS has not indicated anything new they can offer over the next several years if they are unwilling to provide a public beta access.

As i said - devils advocate. And perhaps that ship has sailed already. As far as i can see anyone with a VR set and tobruk can be a VR "beta tester" so I guess its a free for all in any case. Perhpas that not a bad thing and what TFS is wanting if crashes are hard to pin down. Open beta means a loss of control of what gets out on social media. YT vids about game crashes or what is currently worng wouldnt exactly serve the cause well. 

Edited September 28, 2023 by BOO