So What's Next?

[Gixer]

A six year old machine has to turn something down to play it decently.

A six year old machine in PC terms is prehistoric a long with the graphics/frame rate it can support. Keep supporting PCs that are six years old plus and you'll never significantly increase subscriber numbers.  Keep with the same graphics engine and it will eventually reach it's use by date and passed over for something else.

It would be interesting to run a poll to see just what the average pc spec is of players. I'm sure it would be far higher then even the current recommended spec.


<S>...-Gixer

[SD67]

Don't forget it's a little known fact that HT uses SkyRock's machine as a benchmark!

[rabbidrabbit]

A six year old machine in PC terms is prehistoric a long with the graphics/frame rate it can support. Keep supporting PCs that are six years old plus and you'll never significantly increase subscriber numbers.  Keep with the same graphics engine and it will eventually reach it's use by date and passed over for something else.

It would be interesting to run a poll to see just what the average pc spec is of players. I'm sure it would be far higher then even the current recommended spec.


<S>...-Gixer

I tried that argument last month got poo poo'd down by HT and a few fanboys.  I'm all for maintaining as much backwards compatibility as possible but when my nearly 4 year old, mid level machine has everything maxed out, the deal is dated.  It seems some feel that all users must be able to run the game maxed out well or they will lose customers.  Every other game I have seen provided ways to turn down features in exchange for system performance and everyone knew that if you had an inadequate system you could still play but had to turn things down.  I would like non triangle hills and graphics from this decade but put up with it for the community.  That being said, I have not played for over a month and don't really have an inclination to log on.  Things just don't change much and that includes gameplay which has remained the same for what? 7 years? Seriously, there have been some great ideas on how to give meaning to teamwork and tactics in the MA's but there is no desire to try anything.

[Gixer]

I tried that argument last month got poo poo'd down by HT and a few fanboys. 

I've had the same argument opinion since 2003 when AH2 was released. With the same sort of replies.


<S>...-Gixer

[Wmaker]

That was removed for a reason.  It isn't coming back.

I'll quote myself from an earlier thread...

AHs G-6 has features that suggest it being from early production (high antenna mast and the lack of D/F) and it also has glass armor in place of the steel armor which suggests that it's a mid production aircraft. Most of the later production aircraft had the Revi 16B gunsight while the early production aircraft had the gunsight that is on AH G-6 right now, the Revi C/12D. Although many G-6s that were produced as late as mid-44 still had the C/12D sight and the same canopy that is featured in AH (can be seen in many G-6s that went to Finland, for example). Glass armor was added as a number of players (me included) wished its inclusion as we saw the preview shots that featured the steel armor.

Copy-pasting D/F-loop antenna's 3d-model from G-14 to G-6 and clipping its radio mast a bit would essentially make it an accurate representation of a mid-production G-6. Of course one could argue that changing the Glass armor back to steel armor would then make it an accurate early-production plane, but I have to ask...what purpose exactly would that serve? Right now we have a nice selection of all the major mass-produced canopy-variations which adds nice variety. G-6 was the most produced variant of the BF 109. Why should it be only restricted to depict the earliest model possible? Saying that 30mm gets abused in events doesn't really fly as long as we have P-51s with 4 .50s and 3xB-20 La-7s for example. There should rather be efforts for adding tools for CMs to define the available loadouts in events than for removal of loadouts that actually saw a lot of use. Lets think about a re-run of The Ruhr-scenario for example without the MK-108 option. By late summer of '43 the cannons were available. Again, there were plenty of G-6s flying with 30mm cannons AND featuring the exact same canopy that AH's G-6 already has (Canopy is the only feature that changed in production that matters AH-wise.). So, as it really isn't in HTC's interest to add 5 different G-6 subvariants they chose the one we have now. Weather it has the shorter antenna mast/d/f-loop or not shouldn't really matter...hell, it doesn't have a pitot tube either and since last version it started having a retractable tail wheel!

I think the reason why the MK-108 was removed in the first place was because Wotan suggested it when pyro asked about the 109-load outs and pyro went ahead with it. I disagree with the decision for the above reasons. Since it is removed I doubt it will be re-introduced anytime soon unfortunately.

You just keep repeating how it was removed for a reason and at the same time advocate 4x250kg load out for the N1K2-J without much proof. I have to say I find it just a tad comical.

[Wmaker]

double post

[zoozoo]

American-B29

[rogerdee]

Well i was told that the hurricane is not that far up the list to be updated so i can finish my skin off

[SD67]

I wish there was a way to easily make the old skins work on the new planes
So many good skins lost