Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: humble on April 04, 2004, 07:06:37 PM
-
1st...understnad that I hate the entire concept of GV's and really don't feel that they have any place in a "flight sim"...that being said...they are a significant part of the AH community and integral to the "scoring system" (and can be fun at times)
Having now messed with them for two full tours I'm appalled at the overall state of affairs. For the last 60+ days I've been pretty satisfied that that all the anomalies are simply the result of garbage code...after all GV's are an afterthought. However you cant ignore things that go far beyond statistical modeling. example I watched a player score 10+ 1 hit kills in a pz while being hit numerous times from ~1200 yds (I hit him 4 times and saw him get hit 3+ other time)....this is repeated over and over with the same individuals...you listen to the vox and you here it repeatedly.
My question is simple...is filming this stuff worthwhile...and does anyone care at all? Personally if your not going to correct the code (here or in AH2) or police the problem...then get rid of this segment of the game.
I've played this stuff on line for 10+ years...this is a REAL issue....not the whinning of the ACM challenged you hear occasionally on VOX...the GV portion of AH is worse than what I see online in DOD...my concern is it's going to spread to the rest of the game.
If you spend alot of time in GV's and think I'm full of crap...post that here also...I'm curious how people feel about it. From what I hear on vox you have a fair number of folks verbalizing thoughts of quitting over it...and to me its gotten much worse over the two months I've paid attention to it.
-
I dont mess with GVs for that very reason.
-
The GV portion of AH is just like the fighter /bomber/attack part of Aces High: you are not going to be good at it until you work with it for a while and begin to understand the mechanics of it. Experience with the GV model teaches you how to aim, lead, where to hit, and a host of other tricks. (If you think 2 months is a lot of time, think about how long it took you to get the flight model down-and that was probably when you were flying 100% of your AH time).
Furthermore, one-hit killls don't just exist in the GV model: pilot kills are a part of the aircraft damage models as well. It just so happens that having a 75mm shell landing in your lap is a bit more traumatic to the human body than a mg round. Knowing where to hit, and actually hitting that place are the key to killing GVs with only one or two rounds.
As for AH being a "flight sim," I don't recall ever reading that HTC was not going to model as much of WW2 combat as possible. In fact, from some of the information out there on what they have said about future plans for the game (infantry/submarines), I expect that althought the CORE of the sim will probably stay in the air, they will not ignore other aspects of WW2 combat.
As it is, I happen to enjoy the GV part of the game. I usually focus on fighters, but running around in the dirt being sneaky can be fun too.
-
Originally posted by humble
1st...understnad that I hate the entire concept of GV's and really don't feel that they have any place in a "flight sim"...that being said...they are a significant part of the AH community and integral to the "scoring system" (and can be fun at times)
1st off AH is not a "flight sim" you may like to think that or call it that, but it is NOT a flight sim.
2nd, if your such the "flight sim" pilot thats great, then go play IL2 or LO-MAC those are "flight sims" and there is no GV's to drive!
3rd HTC labels this game with the name "Ace High" which is all it is....A NAME, not a game descrpition. Their main page, commercials & all other advertising claims it as a "World War II" sim. "Attack by Land, Sea or Air"
4th, being a GV guy myself {LTAR the Knights only dedicated GV squadron} I will agree with you that the GV model needs some work and I'm possitive HTC will address the issues along with numorus others.
But to say GV's in AH are an afterthought or a waste of time OR dont belong, you should start looking into other "Flight Sims"
-
here here, well said ltar moil
-
I recognize GV's are a part of the game and it's evolution...I'm actually lobbying for the powers that be to address some very real issues that seem to exist...I'm just being honest...as a 10 yr flight simmer...I've never felt that GV's are integral to the game...especially if they are inserted via bozo code.
LAWCobra....my feelings exactly (not really changed)
emodin...I have spent alot of time in GV's, and skill (or lack of) isnt apart of my beef...I'll give you a couple of "bullets"
1) damage model is garbage. If the fighting compartment of a GV is penatrated the probability of catostophic damage is close to 100%. There are very few documented stories of vehicles continung to fight after a single penetration. Obviously engine/trackissues are a bit different but most vehicles are abandoned then.
2) statistally impossiblity of variable damage...i.e certain players consistanty scoring 1 hit kills at ~2400-2800 yds and/or repeatedly surviving multiple hits at "close range" ~800-1200 yds. This is coming from VOX were many including lot of LTAR openly comment on specific players repatedly...this is community knowledge at this point.
3) "Invisable tanks" and all the other DOD style garbage that seems to be rampent.
MOIL...I'm not against GV's in AH at all, just upset that this garbage is allowed to continue so openly. The more it's tolerated the greater the likelyhood it will trickle into the rest of the game. Secondly, I think that every part of this game should stive to have the same attention to detail and "professionalism" as the original flight component...Hitech set the bar here...not me....I'm just asking them to live up to it.
-
Originally posted by emodin
Furthermore, one-hit killls don't just exist in the GV model: pilot kills are a part of the aircraft damage models as well. It just so happens that having a 75mm shell landing in your lap is a bit more traumatic to the human body than a mg round. Knowing where to hit, and actually hitting that place are the key to killing GVs with only one or two rounds.....
As it is, I happen to enjoy the GV part of the game. I usually focus on fighters, but running around in the dirt being sneaky can be fun too.
emodin...
So if I actually hit the driver slit from ~600 tank should die?
I hit a PZ (turret facing away) directly on driver slit 3 times while he rotated turret around to face me (he then got 1 ping kill). This same guy had been hit at least 5 times prior to me getting him (I was "vectored" to him) while others were engaging. He was still alive afterward for a good 2-3 minutes.
Also at ~2400 yds you really cant control shot to that degree...turret vs body...yup...driver slit?...as much luck as skill. Pretty typical is "encounters" I had with gustov1 yesterday...1st time he pinged me twice at 2600~ or so till I "found him"...I popped him with 1st shot (no clue if he was hit earlier). 2nd time hit him 3 times at ~2800...2 ricochet's and one flash (no dmage) ...his 1st hit took out my turret. Next time I hit him at 1600 and took out engine...his shot killed me (this pretty typical "statisticalexchange")...now 2nd example As I rolled out from VH saw tank (ours) die on edge of ridge line...as 2nd friendly moved to spot saw shell inbound...put warning out on text and pulled up side of ridgle line while 2nd GV died...put 4 rounds into GV from ~1200...side view with turret turned to my general area.
no damage showed...died 1 ping...reup...put 3 more in him die 1 ping...from vox he's been hit another 4-5 times at least and had 10+ 1 ping kills....statistically impossible.
-
"... if your not going to correct the code (here or in AH2) ..."
"The more it's tolerated the greater the likelyhood it will trickle into the rest of the game."
You make 2 rather huge assumptions here that, if I were HT, I would have a issue with.
First ... you can forget about getting anything fixed in AH I. HT has crossed the line in software development and once you cross it, you do not go back unless something catastrophic occurs. GV issues in AH I, I don't believe qualify ... YMMV.
Also, what makes you think that these issues aren't addressed in AH II or will not be addressed in AH II. Do you know for a fact that HT hasn't put in endless hours and 1000s of lines of code to address the GV issues ? It appears as tho you have an inside line as to the current and future development of AH II code ... which I doubt.
Second ... This is a direct attack on HT and his ability to write clean and stable code. You are insinuting that his code writing and code maintenance abilities are below par and are also insinutaing that as time progresses, the AH II will only degrade in quality.
Bad code, flawed code, whatever you want to call it, does not trickle into other logic structures within a product. You make it sound like when HT isn't looking, some flawed GV code will clone itself and magically insert its flawed logic into other logic routines ... like a virus. Flawed code is written and does not move from where it was put.
-
I'm not "attacking" anyone, I've been here since the beta and contributed time as a trainer etc...
When I talk about "bad code" I'm referring to things like having a clear line of sight (via your gun optics) but having your rounds hit the building your semi "hidden" behind. I've noticed a number of issues specific to GV's that apparently have been around for a while (from various threads and vox conversations). Other things like "invisable" tanks are less clear and some of the "results" are clearly suspect when viewed from a "probability index".
First ... you can forget about getting anything fixed in AH I. HT has crossed the line in software development and once you cross it, you do not go back unless something catastrophic occurs. GV issues in AH I, I don't believe qualify ... YMM
I'm not really asking for anything to be "fixed" in AH1 and I agree that GV issues dont/shouldnt rank high on the pecking order...BUT...if these are "coding" issues then acknowlege that you'll address the issues in AH2 (at least define what the issues are).
Second ... This is a direct attack on HT and his ability to write clean and stable code. You are insinuting that his code writing and code maintenance abilities are below par and are also insinutaing that as time progresses, the AH II will only degrade in quality
I'm not attacking HT or AH2 in any way...simply stating the obvious...that this particular aspect of the game isnt up to the high standard imposed on the rest of the product. Personally I think the FM for AH2 is a quantum leap over what we have now.
Bad code, flawed code, whatever you want to call it, does not trickle into other logic structures within a product. You make it sound like when HT isn't looking, some flawed GV code will clone itself and magically insert its flawed logic into other logic routines ... like a virus. Flawed code is written and does not move from where it was put.
Are the problems code related...or something else?
The whole point of this post was asking a couple of simple questions:
1) are the "GV issues" entirely an issue of "bad" code?
Personally I think not....after two+ months of GV play
2) do the "powers that be" even care about it?
since I've never seen a reply to any GV related posts I think not
3) Should I film or encourage others to film "anomalies"?
no answer so far
4) Or am I simply a whinny noob who's full of $#%^....
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Bad code, flawed code, whatever you want to call it, does not trickle into other logic structures within a product. You make it sound like when HT isn't looking, some flawed GV code will clone itself and magically insert its flawed logic into other logic routines ... like a virus. Flawed code is written and does not move from where it was put.
...until it is copied from where it is and pasted into another part of the code because the code there needs to do pretty much the same thing, and it's easier to do a cut-and-paste and change what's different than write the code again from scratch. This is called 'code reusability', and is widely practiced in the industry. This has the unfortunate side effect of propagating hitherto-unnoticed errors into other parts of the program, where they may or may not attract attention.
-
Well dont think Im against GVs.
I simply suk in them so I tend to fly more often than drive a GV.
I might grab an osti and tag some bad guys at a base but man they gotta fly right at me for me to hit em LOL.
So I leave the GV stuff to the PROS LTAR and Company:aok
-
Originally posted by humble
Are the problems code related...or something else?
The whole point of this post was asking a couple of simple questions:
1) are the "GV issues" entirely an issue of "bad" code?
Personally I think not....after two+ months of GV play
2) do the "powers that be" even care about it?
since I've never seen a reply to any GV related posts I think not
3) Should I film or encourage others to film "anomalies"?
no answer so far
4) Or am I simply a whinny noob who's full of $#%^....
I don't think you're too whiney as these bugs have been around a long time now. As AH2 is now running, what, 6 months late? The bugs date from awhile back.
I've been in a GV once or twice and can relate the following: there are pretty particular issues with the damge model in GV's--a tiger dying by running over a bit of bldg on the ground, becoming "stuck" in a building and having to exit, turning a tiger sharply on a hill at 10 mph and having it roll, the bouncing tiger after its tracks are killed (but not in a panzer), shootin an m3 four times with panzer HE shells and no kill--well the list goes on.
Bottom line HTC won't fix 'em in AH1. Remains to be seen whether they are addressed in AH2 either--I hope so as the bugs have been with AH1 over a year now. We'll see. And hope.
h
-
Originally posted by Shiva
...until it is copied from where it is and pasted into another part of the code because the code there needs to do pretty much the same thing, and it's easier to do a cut-and-paste and change what's different than write the code again from scratch. This is called 'code reusability', and is widely practiced in the industry. This has the unfortunate side effect of propagating hitherto-unnoticed errors into other parts of the program, where they may or may not attract attention.
Somewhat off-topic but this is not what 'code-reusability' means. What you are describing is just cut-and-paste. Code-reusability is the designing and writing of units of code so that they can be used with little or no modification by other units of code or applications. There is a huge difference: having to cut-and-paste indicates poor reusability because you have to have 2 (or more) copies of the functionality rather than re-using the original.
-
If, you think really hard on the matter, you may notice that similar things happen in aircraft. Some planes can twist and turn in ack all day and never take a hit, while others can't get near the stuff without going directly to the tower (just as an example).
Just realize that things are going to happen that do not jive with reality, and then move on. Please don't delay AH2 any longer.
Thank you.
-
I will have to agree with humble on about 99% of the issues, if there is one group in all of AH that spends more time in GV's than anyone, it's LTAR. {And maybe 1st SS Panzer's}
But they will tell you the same story, 1 hit from a Panzer to my Tiger....then boom I'm dead!! I hit the the M3 in my Tiger or Panzer for that matter and have to hit him 2 or 3 times ???
Go figure, and my favorite, bombed to death in a Panzer, make it though only to run over a 2x4 in the city/town AND I FREAKIN' DIE!!!!!!!!!
Yes this is all contributed to "poor code" I dont care who you are, what your coding skills are, what games ya made....the bottom line is there is a problem with the code & or certain aspects of it.
Does this mean HTC sucks or has a bad game ? Hell no, it just simply means things need to be corrected or revised.
My biggest concern to be frankly honest with HTC and the AH community is I would hope they take these things seriously, because it is issues such as these that start out small then just kill a game!!
Once you leave that bad taste in someones mouth and they have a choice to play a similar game {with maybe better features} you'll be hard pressed to get that customer back. That you can take to the bank.
P.S. LAWcobra for the "PROS" post on LTAR
-
Originally posted by MOIL
But they will tell you the same story, 1 hit from a Panzer to my Tiger....then boom I'm dead!!
With all due respect to you LTAR guys, I can kill yer tiger, one shot, every time, all the time, in a panzer if I have the correct angle. Almost got a thousand kills+assists last month in GV's and a BUNCH of them were tigers. Ask Topgunz or Whels, they'll tell you true.
h
-
By all means I'll agree with you Horn and NO I know your not cheating, but the whole point is just what you stated "I can kill yer Tiger in one hit IF i have the correct angle"
That being said, the the whine remains, were all out there on the field fighting, I sneak a flank, they engage me, I hit the target {usually a few times} from whatever angle, nothing.
That enemy tank has to swing his turret to the side, line up a shot, fire once and boom I'm done. So I guess HE has the sweet spot to hit on me, but I don't?
Furthermore, since now that tank was engaged, on me, my countrymen have been pounding him to no avail, hit after hit, he then swings the turret BACK around, aims and boom someone looses a turret or gets killed.
All because, from what your saying he knows right where to hit on enemy tank? and none of the other 10 tanks out there shooting at him hit that special spot? or angle?
Now see I just dont buy that:confused:
Oh well, still love the battles
-
I agree with you, I've seen what you are describing; however I submit to you that, using the current damage model, there are places more vulnerable to one kind of shell or another on most all GV's. IOW, if you know where to aim, with what ammo, at a given angle and distance in a particular GV, you can be more successful than those folks who haven't yet figured it out.
I've said elsewhere that some parts of the GV model are FUBAR but there are definitely things one can do to increase one's effectiveness in the virtual field.
h
I too love the battles ;)
-
Originally posted by humble
So if I actually hit the driver slit from ~600 tank should die?
I hit a PZ (turret facing away) directly on driver slit 3 times while he rotated turret around to face me (he then got 1 ping kill). This same guy had been hit at least 5 times prior to me getting him (I was "vectored" to him) while others were engaging. He was still alive afterward for a good 2-3 minutes.
Actually, there are four different places to hit a tank that do different things.
1.Front:This is where the thick armor is. HE(On Tigers, Pnzr too?) and ack bounce off into space when they hit this part. Needs to be hit with like 6 AP shells to kill the tank. Hitting the slot doesn't really help.
2.Sides:Can kill a tank, but usually not. This is where you get hit to lose your tread and get to spin around in cicles screaming like a little girl (lol). (Can you lose both treads?)
3.Rear:This is where pain ensues. If the shot partially lands in this area and the side, it will kill the engine and make your Ostie life miserable. If it lands head on(or butt on..whatever) then the shell will go straight through the soft, warm, metal engine and right into your backbone, killing you. Ow. Oops.
4:Turret:Unfortunately, most likily place to get plinked because the shells are falling from the sky. Getting hit here kills off your turret. Well, I guess you could whip out that peashooter stuck to the frontal armor and charge that Panzer, but that's up to you.
Edit:Also, damage doesn't sum together. Say, for instance, it takes four hits(ignoring armor, bla bla) to kill a tank. If you hit the front three times and the side once, it wouldn't die because the side has one damage and the front has three. I'm guessing that each area of a tank has a certain "HP" coded into it, and there's probably a nutload of variables about damage and yada yada.
-
Great info from both you guys:)
BTW OOZ, sounds like ya need a computer upgrade or new system. {no offence}
If I can be of service let me know, I noticed you were in WA also.
-
lol yeah, I'm getting a new compy, it's shipping on the 9th. ty though
-
I've been pretty careful to leave the "C" word unsaid. I think alot of it (maybe all) IS the ability to game the game .
I agree with you, I've seen what you are describing; however I submit to you that, using the current damage model, there are places more vulnerable to one kind of shell or another on most all GV's. IOW, if you know where to aim, with what ammo, at a given angle and distance in a particular GV, you can be more successful than those folks who haven't yet figured it out.
I certainly won't ever take someone to task for exploiting an advantage...but I'll take the developer to task if he doesnt correct it. Imagine if someone said I can kill your tempest
every time in my P-40 under these circumstances.
I've spent some time in a tiger and noticed I can't kill a PZ with one hit at ~2800+ (I hit one 4 times without killing him last week). So how does a tiger kill a tiger or a PZ kill a tiger at long range like that in 1 shot?
As a long time player (4 1/2 yrs) I've reached a certain level of expectations. HiTech and Pyro set that bar themselves...and all in all they've done an amazing job. I'm just asking them to expend some of the same effort on the "GV" portion of the game...after all they're the ones who decided to include it. I'd of rather had a Ki-84 & a Mig-3 :aok ....but it's here and actually its a lot of fun...but if your going to do it....do it right.:aok
-
Humble, when you call somebody's work "garbage", it is attacking and it is insulting and it's certainly not constructive criticism.
You sound like you just want a damage model that deals in "hits". Like 1 hit from Tank A will destroy Tank B. 2 hits from Tank B will destroy Tank A. Well that's not the way it works. Tanks aren't evenly armored, projectiles don't always penetrate the same. You sound like you would prefer a simpler system, yet your arguments run counter to that.
-
I'll agree Humble, to an extent, however I just find a lot of what happens on the battlefield {in gv's} to be a little "inconsistant" thats all I'm saying. Not to say your not a good shot, didn't range me sooner, had a better vehicle or whatever the case. But to say when you find that sweet spot, your garanteed a kill just about everytime seems farfetched:confused:
I look at it like this, I spend a lot of time in an Ostwind and so does are lot of our crew. If I hit ANY plane {execpt bombers and such} just one time, your coming out of the sky.....period!!!
I have NEVER hit a NIK1, Spit, Tiffie, P38, take your pick 2 or 3 times only to have them fly home.....never!
So if this can be modeled correctly, then me shooting a tank should be the same {within reason} but for me and 1/2 my squad to hit an enemy tank umpteen many times and NOTHING, then he fires once, hits, then boom dead or turret out.
Something is wrong with this picture IMO.
I know for a fact at any one given time you can watch Ch1 traffic and see time and time again people complaining how the GV model is "porked", messed up, not right, whatever. I still to this day find something wrong with driving over a 2x4 in the city and it killing me:mad: must of had the right angle huh ?
-
i got hit by a flak 1 time in a F4F and was able to make it back
just tell me how i can hit a M3 in my panzer and he gets nothing?
-
im more annoyed that 14x1000lbs (x3) doesnt kill a flak.........
GV code is ok GV vs GV...You just have to remember frontal armour is not where you want to hit the other tank...
-
Do you all realize that if you hit a tank in one spot and dont kill it continually firing at the same spot wont kill it either. If the round doesnt penetrate the chances are neither will the next 16.
The quality of the hit matters as well, where you hit matters. I would argue there is not enough "randomness" to the gv modelling. But more randomness = more whines like this one.
The "I shot you 17 times" doesn't really mean anything. Its not the number hits that matters. A guy who tanks alot knows what to aim at. Lobbing shells from 3k and hitting the same spot is just a waste of ammo. On top of that with no ground cover in AH tanks battles are mostly fought at longer ranges.
just tell me how i can hit a M3 in my panzer and he gets nothing?
Easy, if hit the m3 in a non-vital area like the rear side armor the round will just penetrate leaving a whole. Try using HE next time.
im more annoyed that 14x1000lbs (x3) doesnt kill a flak.........
Simply shot gunning bombs all around a gv wont get you a kill nor should it.
Infact it is the very opposite of what you claim. Aircraft are far more dangerous to Tanks in AH then in rl. In particular 50 cals and Hizookas.
Ian Gooderson's 'Air Power at the Battlefront' (http://rhino.shef.ac.uk:3001/mr-home/hobbies/rocket.txt)
-
I believe the GV damage model is reasonable. If you are hitting the glacis at an angle, yes, the round richochets. If you hit one at the side, you disable it unless you are fortunate enough to hit the turret. If you hit it from the rear, you kill it.
Now, what I want to know (from Humble) is how do you know which part of the tiger you are hitting from 2800 yards? How do you know you're not hitting the glacis?
M8s (in the real WW2) killed tigers by sneaking up behind them and killing the engine. It usually caused a fire and the crew bailed.
Humble, you've been here long enough to be familiar with the cry
a) "he took my wing off with 4 pings!" (duh, it was 4 short bursts from 6 50s.)
b) How did that guy do that? He couldn't have done it! He's cheating!!
c) How can a damn spit catch my La7? I was going freaking 450 mph!
and so on.
Humble, you are a noob to GVs. However, don't ask me for instructions, I'm a noob too (to GVs.) Rest assured though, your GV complaints are right in line with a), b) and c).
curly
curly
-
I too have noticed that sometimes one has to hit a tank may times. Could this be because they have GV supplies next to them?? Whenever I am in a tiger I make sure I have a squaddie bring me a full M3 load of vehicle supplies and put them right next to me. Sometimes I am very hard to kill and I can understand why sometimes other people (ltars in mind) can be super tough.
-
We'll you all have very legit complaints & explainations for what hap's on the battlefield. I agree with most and disagree with some, oh well.
Since were talking about GV's I have to throw in one lil complaint. How come when you up two or more Osties, you can hear him or others around you fire their gun and visa versa, but if two or more tanks up, you dont hear not one single anything? Too me thats kinda lame, if you play ANY other game on the planet that has tanks or assault vehicles you can hear your squadie {Countryman} firing his weapon {main gun}
As far as I know from watching countless hours of History channel the Tigers. Panzers, Sherman's & M8's made plenty noise when firing their gun:confused:
all
-
Moil, how about you give just a little thought about posting what you wish with out the comments like "thats sorta lame".
Comment like that mostly make me not respond to a poster.
The resone is because tank gun's are treated differently then hi rate of fire machine guns. Is somthing that can be added to AHII.
In the future do not excpect me to respond if you continue to post in a method simalar to you last one.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by Pyro
Humble, when you call somebody's work "garbage", it is attacking and it is insulting and it's certainly not constructive criticism.
You sound like you just want a damage model that deals in "hits". Like 1 hit from Tank A will destroy Tank B. 2 hits from Tank B will destroy Tank A. Well that's not the way it works. Tanks aren't evenly armored, projectiles don't always penetrate the same. You sound like you would prefer a simpler system, yet your arguments run counter to that.
1st,
Thanks for taking a moment to reply...
I completely disagree that calling a specific piece of a product garbage is an attack or is automatically insulting. It's simply criticism of one component. I've tried to make it constructive not combative in nature. I simply don't think it measures up to the standard you've set for yourself.
You sound like you just want a damage model that deals in "hits". Like 1 hit from Tank A will destroy Tank B.
Not quite, I think in GV action a damage model that deals in penatration is appropriate. My understanding is that penatration is the critical component. Even a small caliber bullet entering thru the driver slit...or a rivet driven back into fighting compartment (not uncommon in Grants or early Shermans) was usually catostrophic.
Like 1 hit from Tank A will destroy Tank B. 2 hits from Tank B will destroy Tank A. Well that's not the way it works.
I agree with this statement entirely, no amount of hits will defeat armour beyond the penetration capabilities of the projectile (unless they hit exactly same spot)...plenty of documented cases of a panther or tiger taking 20...30...50 or even 237 hits and surviving......
So how does a PZ IV defeat the frontal armour (front not top) of a tiger at ~3200 yds repeatedly
Tanks aren't evenly armored, projectiles don't always penetrate the same
Again I couldn't agree with you more, I've tried to point out the "normal" degree of variation and demonstate I've spent enough time "in the turret" to have some feel. When you repeatedly "see" someone roll "snake eyes" 5 times in a row you start to wonder. Example...I hit a PZ last night at ~2600 yds...3rd hit popped his turret...hit him 7 more times before he died...mad...no...how many times am I going to turret kill him:) It's simply at one end of the bell shaped curve...no different than the ~3200 yd golden BB....but when you see a guy with a clip full of golden BB's you wonder...
Thanks again for taking a moment to respond, thats all I (or any other customer can ask for). My comments are/were ment as constructive criticism of your product...not as an attack on you or your overall efforts.
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
.....
M8s (in the real WW2) killed tigers by sneaking up behind them and killing the engine. It usually caused a fire and the crew bailed.
curly
curly....
I appreciate your comments...I spent a couple months prior to even bothering getting "wrapped around the axle" about this stuff. I don't completely disagree with your comments but I think your over simplifying. As you and I both know the "impossible" becomes pretty clear over time in "air combat". Now GV combat is much simpler (to me at least)...you have less variables. As an example I got hammered by topgunz a bunch last night...SOB simply gets lead on me faster than I can get lead on him. I can understand and live with that....nowreferring to your above post...I hit a tiger with a PZ from ~600 yds 30+ times in rear facing without killing it last week.
I'll take one of your noob comments a step further...lets say a noob golden bb'd you every time he hit you (anywhere any angle any didstance) and everytime you hit him at 200 yds dead tracking shot you got nada....
Thats extreme and not really accurate...but really how it feels sometimes. I've had guys kill me 3-4 times in same tank with a single shot while i've hit them 7-10 times (while they in same tank) {no suppies} meanwhile they've killed 3-4 other guys and been hit by them as well....if this was going on in the air you have 100+ guys having a conipfit (new word for #$#%^).
Anyway, thanks again for your thoughts...Hitech took afew moments to reply and thats all I can ask for.
-
Originally posted by humble
curly....
clear over time in "air combat". Now GV combat is much simpler (to me at least)...you have less variables.
But is it? You get enough hit sprites (in a airplane) and your opponent is going down, regardless of the angle of attack or the point of penetration.
With GVs, point of penetration and angle of projectile are all important.
I agree that maneuvering aircraft is much more challenging than maneuvering GVs, but I think gunnery is much more challenging in a GV. You not only have to aim correctly, but you have to be certain of your target. For example, it's not safe to assume the main gun on a panzer points away from the engine. He may have rotated the turret.
curly
-
But is it? You get enough hit sprites (in a airplane) and your opponent is going down, regardless of the angle of attack or the point of penetration
EXACTLY...
So if I hit you X times at Y yards I have basic assumption "your going down"....now if you don't it's "breaks of the game"...we all live with it...but if its a repeating pattern then what.
You and I have had some great fights over the years (flying as azhacker now, was snaphook before I think) a lot of times in a tough knife fight you'll trade snapshots...1 guy gets no damage other guy loses a wing...some of its skill...some of it luck...it's all part of the game.
now in GV...two guys hook up...1st guy hits...no dmage...2nd guy hits "pop"...again part of the game...next time around guy 1 hits and gets "engine kill" 2nd guy gets a ricochet...break of the game...and so on....But you get jump on a GV hit him 3, 4 or 5 times with no damage and he kills you 1st shot...you come back and hit him 3 more times with no damage and he kills you 1st shot what do you think.
I find that I'm agreeing with 95% of whats being argued against me....because I'm "discounting" that portion of the equation. I'm focusing on the 5% that falls outside the "reasonable expectations" based on repeated experience. If you had a zeke outrun your pony you'd say no problem guy must of zoomed down before I saw him with a bunch of E...if you saw 500mph zekes repeatedly you'd begin to question it.
I certainly dont want to beat a dead horse, the bottom line is I'm not a noob...i've been taken out to the woodshed a bunch and don't whine (much:)). I understand the issues and progression. As a 10 yr vet on multiple platforms I'm simply stating that some of what I'm observing goes well beyond skill set variation and damage model randomization.
My guess is your questioning the messenger and discounting the validity of the message.
If I hit a PZ 4 times from ~1200 yds on its side facing what is the probability of it dying (or getting damage)? If said PZ hits me once on my front facing what is the probability of my dying outright. If next time I hit same PZ 3 more times on side facing what is probability of damage/death...again I get killed on 1 shot to front facing....meanwhile thissame tank has engaged and killed 5+ other PZ's and been hit other times...
Just one specific example among many...I don't have a clue what/where the problem is...but I can tell you there is one.
Anyway, think its time to let this one die, I'm sure that over time whatever valid issues exist will be reviewed and corrected.
-
Originally posted by humble
My guess is your questioning the messenger and discounting the validity of the message.
[/B]
Nope, I hear the same complaints from squadmembers. I just think GV gunnery is more complex than you believe.
I believe the randomness (today, you get one hit kills on everyone, yesterday, it took multiple hits) of GV gunnery is controlled to a large extent by the orientation of your target.
Because a turret is pointed at you doesn't mean that it isn't the rear of the tank. Hit it there with ap, boom.
How are you determining the the orientation of the target with respect to you?
curly
-
clear open line of sight, in every case I'm mentioning I have clear vis and can see exactly where I'm hitting, my orientation is controlled by aligning the machine gun up top to gun barrel and driving with "rudder"...aligning target in crosshair vertical and popping to F2 view...usually I can get a round in at speed then hop to F1 kill engine fire as tank brakesand again at stop...learning to get three rounds in ~2000-1600 that way. In the above mentioned incident guy was engaging multiple GV's...saw him pop 1 and take a 2nd under fire so was able to pull up and stop before firing...got 4 observed hits on his side view (full unobstructed profile) he got me with one shot...re upped and went back (short drive) watched him kill 2 other tanks otw...reengaged him and hit him 3 more times died again...was coming back for 3rd time when he finally died. i'd say he was hit at least 12-15 times...99.9% sure there were no supplies around (he never even smoked from my hits). My argument isnt gunnery (except maybe at long range) it's damage. for at least 2-3 weeks I was MFing everybody and anybody...now I can hold my own with 70% of the guys I run into. and I understand the randomization cuts both ways...I've got 1 hit kills at "long" (~2400-2800) range...but i've also had plenty of times I've had guys survive 5-6+ hits at that range. Now armour on a facing should be pretty consistant i.e no "magic weak spot" on your front facing. I can hit a turret a track or front center at ~2400. The "optics" of my gunsight don't allow me much better at ~1600 I can hit the driver slit (well some of the time:D )...it doesnt seem to make a big difference. How do you (and why should it matter) get golden BB's at 3200+ by hitting a "specific spot" as some claim.
going back to your plane argument...if you get on my 6 at reasonable range (~300 yds) and load me up with your 6 x .50's you'll expect me to die ... period ... end of argument. If I get a reasonable shot at a reasonable range multiple occasions I expect the GV to die ... period ...
Now what's reasonable will vary tiger vs m-8 is different then pz vs pz...but a pz "should" die if engaged by a pz on a side armour shot at ~1200-1600 yds based on my experience a reasonable % of the time ~25% and should be damaged a reasonable % of the time ~50% so3 out of 4 times you should damage or kill a GV at that range on a "T-bone" shot. I've found that face to face I survive about ~50% of face shots without damage and suffer damage to turret or engine ~40% only about ~10% of the time do I "pop" on 1 hit (or get a kill) at ~1600 yds {my guess here fill in yours)....
-
Originally posted by humble
clear open line of sight, in every case I'm mentioning I have clear vis and can see exactly where I'm hitting, my orientation is controlled by aligning the machine gun up top to gun barrel and driving with "rudder"...aligning target in crosshair vertical
Humble, suppose you're plinking a guy and nothing is happening. How do you know you aren't hitting the glacis (slanted armor surface at the front of the tank)? How do you distinguish between head and tail?
curly
-
That depends on range and vis...I can tell front from back at fairly long range ~2400 for sure...beyond that it gets tougher. At the ranges I'm talking about its easy to see the driver slit or the exaust pipes/muffler in back.
Also, i'm assuming the "little flash" is a ricochet and the "Big flash" is a round that penitrates....so you can tell if your round "hit" or bounced off.
EX...I just got home and grabbed a tank...we had em beat back a bit...crested hill by there VH a bit (maybe full hulldown maybe not)...anyway 3-4 tanks...picked 1 missed him...2nd round "bounced off" (little flash) another tnak took out my turret on 1st hit (pretty much in line with my "stats" earlier...hit rev backed out and limped back to my VH and logged for dinner etc...pretty typical. "bad guy" I hit was ~1900 and I hit him on his left part of turret (front) on gun mantle (no soup for me) easy to see where I hit him and his orientation...got exactly what I deserved from the shot.
It's like your telling me you but 400 rds of 50 cal in my wing root at 250 yds and asking why nothing fell off.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Moil, how about you give just a little thought about posting what you wish with out the comments like "thats sorta lame".
Comment like that mostly make me not respond to a poster.
The resone is because tank gun's are treated differently then hi rate of fire machine guns. Is somthing that can be added to AHII.
In the future do not excpect me to respond if you continue to post in a method simalar to you last one.
HiTech
My apologizes to HT for the "lame comment"
I will keep negitive, unhelpful and useless comments to myself.
Sorry to offend, I just figured I guess in my mind that since I pay to play this game and I find something that is......um......."unlikable" I should be able to state how I feel about it.
Apparently not, so I apologize to HT & the community.
-
The thing is Pyro, Hitech, us players can't always understand what happens on around us.
Strange things do happen - like others said, sneaking up on an enemy tank at zero range and blasting away a few shells, the enemy tanks doesn't explode.
It turns its turrets onto me, and then wham! one point blank range from his, and I'm dead. I'd understand if something like that happened from further ranges, but at point blank?
Granted, I've got no recording of it - it is admitably a rare instance. Also, most of the times the results are more or less satisfying - usually the first one discovers the other, and starts landing shells winning the battle.
..
However, in some of the strange occasions, (or even normal occasions..) the lack of visual representation of what happens around when two GVs engage just fuels the confusion even more. I'm not exactly thinking of a movie quality visual, but really, when all we've got is a graphic of a shell flying and a white glob of a momentary hit sprite... it's pretty damn hard to determine what's going on, or understand what is happening.
If there was someway we could perceive what was happening when we fire, land, and receive hits in the GVs in more detail, I think the complaints would simmer off a bit. Like, if we could tell that the round we've fired was a well placed hit, a bounced hit, or a just hit which unfortunately failed to penetrate.. something like maybe a well placed round giving off a hardy blast upon the target's surface, with bits and chunks of metal flying off... a bounced round which looks like it hardly done enough damage.. and a failed-to-penetrate round throwing off only a little bit of dust and smoke.. and etc etc.
And maybe if the visuals could portray the damages as seen in some planes in AH2 - like, crunched and battered metal plate which indicates the round hit but the armour held together.. or a largely drilled hole with messy blast rings around it indicating a penetrated hit.. and etc etc..
Also, we could use some better damage list - as in, if the round penetrated, which part of the turret with what component was damaged.. and etc etc.
..
What I'm saying is, ppl are making rash and hasty conclusions based on wrongly perceived string of events.. but their confusion itself is not entirely unjust - very little info for them to make judgements on, so its not surprising ppl come to wrong conclusions.
I just hope there's something better in stores for AH2 GVs to come :) No doubt if HTC really makes a decision to implement something, it's gonna be great - (just wish that the decision comes quick! :) )
-
Moil I humbly suggest a few posters look at this: not rocket science... (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=polite)
-
Not quite, I think in GV action a damage model that deals in penatration is appropriate. My understanding is that penatration is the critical component. Even a small caliber bullet entering thru the driver slit...or a rivet driven back into fighting compartment (not uncommon in Grants or early Shermans) was usually catostrophic.
Not exactly. For instance, the Soviets were using 14.5mm Anti-Tank Rifles thorughout WW2 (poor guys didn't develop a bazooka to the best of my knowledge). Now, the 14.5mm ATRs were able to penetrate German tank armor in the early war period, but they did NOT have a large degree of success in killing tanks even then. As I understand it, the round would penetrate the tank armor just fine, but the problem was that since the round didn't cause any significant spalling, the shell itself would have to actually hit a crew member in order to kill anyone. Now this may sound easy, but while tanks weren't exactly roomy, they were spacious enough that a 14.7mm projectile had a fairly hard time taking out tank crews. There is some really interesting information out there on these rifles (do a google search for "PTRD" and check out the acrobat link).
As for rear hull hits, I have not personally been able to kill any tanks by shooting their rear hull armor. I SUSPECT that the damage model does not allow the shells to pass through the engine compartment (my guess is that it acts as a hit location, and does not model the possibility for the shell to continue through-I could be wrong). I have been on sorties where I have personally absorbed over 10 AP hits from Panzers and Tigers at close ranges that did nothing more than kill my engine. I have also hit enemy tanks in the engine compartment to no effect. If I remember correctly, when a couple of squadies and I were doing some testing for our GV manual, we tried to kill each other with rear-hull penetrations only, and didn't meet with any success.
A note on penetration hit sprites: they can be deceiving. During testing, we found out that even if you get a penetration hit sprite, they may not take any damage. I assume this represents partial penetrations (where you penetrate, but do no damage). In all of these instances, the penetration hit sprite would be visible for the firing tank, but the other player did not hear the penetration noise, and not amount of hits in the same area would result in damage to the tank. This only occured in our tests at ranges just before actual damaging penetrations would occur.
-
What I'm saying is, ppl are making rash and hasty conclusions based on wrongly perceived string of events.. but their confusion itself is not entirely unjust - very little info for them to make judgements on, so its not surprising ppl come to wrong conclusions.
Well stated...but honestly I feel like I'm avoiding making rash and/or hasty conclusions...I'm simply relaying my personal observations and asking for clarification on what I'm experiencing. So far I haven't been presented with anything that provides a context that allows me to "understand".
-
Not exactly. For instance, the Soviets were using 14.5mm Anti-Tank Rifles thorughout WW2 (poor guys didn't develop a bazooka to the best of my knowledge). Now, the 14.5mm ATRs were able to penetrate German tank armor in the early war period, but they did NOT have a large degree of success in killing tanks even then. As I understand it, the round would penetrate the tank armor just fine, but the problem was that since the round didn't cause any significant spalling, the shell itself would have to actually hit a crew member in order to kill anyone. Now this may sound easy, but while tanks weren't exactly roomy, they were spacious enough that a 14.7mm projectile had a fairly hard time taking out tank crews. There is some really interesting information out there on these rifles (do a google search for "PTRD" and check out the acrobat link).
Very interesting...at odds with my own reading etc...but certainly presents the point that penetration doesn't equal "autokill"...my understanding is based on information I picked up at aberdeen proving grounds over the years...at one point they had a tank with inside painted white...single .45 fired through driver slit...hundreds of richochets visable...lot of damage to tank...statement that crew survivability from even a pistol round was minimal. Now obviously spalling (fragments of armour that "break off" inside of tank or get pushed through by shell) is another component.
Do you have any information on survivability and higher caliber rounds 37mm/75mm since thats what we're talking about here?
-
I can agree with you that spalling was and is a major factor in tank crew survivability. I am not, nor do I even pretend to be a computer programer. However, I would assume that it would be difficult to model spalling in tanks without a major amount of work. Do you want a set number of spalling fragements to be modeled given a certain penetartion table, or do you want a variable number of projectiles determined by a host of factors? Let's assume that you want a set number of fragments created by spalling to be modeled (call it 5). Now that you have that down, how do you want to model the way the spalling interacts with the inside of the tank? Are you going to model a set way they fly out from the impact point, or are you going to make that a variable? Are you going to model a set patern of richochettes, or are you going to make that a variable model too? Are you going to model every crewmember and their exact position in order to determine if they get hit, or only a couple of "critical" ones? And if you are only going to model a couple of them, how do you determine who is "critical" and who is not?
Look, I agree that the damage model isn't perfect, but I would think that modeling spalling would be a huge undertaking that would detract from the amount of time HTC would have to model new planes, not to mention AH2. I would also like to see ammo storage areas capable of brewing up and engine fires that could damage or even destroy a tank. While I would like to see these implimented, I can also see how doing so would probably take a lot of time and effort, and that the game engine would probably have to support that as well, not to mention the system requrements needed to compute all of that in real time. Instead, we seem to have a damage model that is location specific: if you get a penetration in a certain location, you kill the tank/engine/main gun/track, ect. While I have read that some people can't kill tanks when hitting them in the locations I aim for, I CAN say that I do not seem to have their problem. I have not observed any of the strange occurences that others have mentioned. Maybe I'm just lucky.
While I agree with you there is room for improving the ground vehicle damage model, I can also understand why it is the way it is.
As for information in regards to crew/tank survivability when penetrated by an enemy shell in excess of 14.5mm, I'll have to check. I do recall reading a book (don't remember if it was from "Death Traps" or "Marine Tank Battles in Korea", or another book entirely) where an enemy shell was found lodged under the driver's position after the tank had been engaged in combat with some enemy tanks. IIRC none of the crew were hurt, and the tank was fine.
-
I always looked at the GV model as I looked at the movie Titanic.I dont expect perfection.Just entertainment.We all know theres a "Chance" equation involved to a small degree,but yoiu can also improve your chances.Either you like GV's regardless,or you dont.Its just part of this addiction we love so much.
-
Originally posted by DrDea
I always looked at the GV model as I looked at the movie Titanic.I dont expect perfection.Just entertainment.We all know theres a "Chance" equation involved to a small degree,but yoiu can also improve your chances.Either you like GV's regardless,or you dont.Its just part of this addiction we love so much.
Ditto....bottomline, if you ain't havin' fun....do something else :).
-
Bet there was a meeting a couple of years ago when the game was being developed and someone said "Gee wouldn't it be great if people could drive around and fight in tanks!!!"
Bet he's STILL buying beers for the team for coming up with that idea!
-
Not too long ago I was in a panzer and was firing at an M3. He was broadside to me about D1600. I fired an AP round at it and it bounced off the hood of the M3. I didnt think that was possible, but the second shot took out its track, third killed it. The reason its track got knocked out was that I hit it right at the track. Other then that in GV's, I havent really had much trouble in them. I for one make a lot of 1 shot kills in Gv's. From my experience its where you have to hit the enemy at to make the most damage. Turrent shots usually take out the turrnet. If the first one dont do it, the second one usually does. And this is when im in a panzer. If I am in a tiger, 1 shot usually does it for me to get a kill on an enemy. I have been able to get 1 shot kills in a tiger from D600 to D4000 to D5000+, all from proper ranging (which isnt easy!) I have cable interenet connection, so I wonder if your connection/lag/ping time will have an effect on firing on gv's?
-
"...] if your connection/lag/ping time will have an effect on firing on gv's?"
Not likely; this is speculation, but the FE-dependent collision system for planes is a good one against netlag, it should probably be the same for GVs as it is for planes' weapons.
From about 150-400yds I've landed about three 88mm HEs on the top of a running (away) M3's rear panels, at an angle, but anyway, hard to imagine a vehicle like an M3 surviving three HE explosions like those.
Either a bug, or shells punching through without detonation are part of the model. Hard to tell with only two graphics for all impacts, and no official word on what is or isn't modeled in the DM.
-
Never understood why people bother with GV's ever since their first introduction, so many aspects of it that are complete waste of time.
If your looking for a land war go play WW2OL it's far superior in that regard.
...-Gixer
-
there not a hole waste they give me some thing to shoot at in my IL2
i dont care what people say the IL2 is king gun killer of tanks
just have to ask were ostwins that deadly in real life as they are in here
-
Originally posted by simshell
there not a hole waste they give me some thing to shoot at in my IL2
i dont care what people say the IL2 is king gun killer of tanks
just have to ask were ostwins that deadly in real life as they are in here
Always had more fun shooting down fighters thinking they were going for an easy kill when in a IL2 myself.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by simshell
there not a hole waste they give me some thing to shoot at in my IL2
i dont care what people say the IL2 is king gun killer of tanks
just have to ask were ostwins that deadly in real life as they are in here
na, the hurri mkiiC is the best ;)
normaly, if you get it right you can get 2 gvs with one bomb then another 4-6 with the cannons :D
-
The G 10 30 mm aint no slouch on the GV's either.
-
suppose, but it cant pull out of dives too well... and doesnt carry eggs either ;)
-
Eggs?Posh.Who needs em:rofl
-
Originally posted by DrDea
Eggs?Posh.Who needs em:rofl
i suppose, they just get assists...its whoever can get the most hits from bullets that kills ;)
-
But then again a Heavy Stuka can be a beautifull thing:lol
-
Originally posted by DrDea
But then again a Heavy Stuka can be a beautifull thing:lol
in your sights ;)
-
Originally posted by hitech
Moil, how about you give just a little thought about posting what you wish with out the comments like "thats sorta lame".
Comment like that mostly make me not respond to a poster.
The resone is because tank gun's are treated differently then hi rate of fire machine guns. Is somthing that can be added to AHII.
In the future do not excpect me to respond if you continue to post in a method simalar to you last one.
HiTech
Hmmm does this mean you can't have any critisism about the game? Only comments that PRAISE the game? Whats the point of a forum if you can't express your positive AND negative feelings on a subject? What he said about running over a piece of wood in town and getting killed is true. When was the last time you heard of a real tank running over a piece of wood and blowing up as a result of it? A vehicle that could knock over trees and drive through houses get blown up from running over a piece of wood?
-
Ripper your welcome to critisize, a post like yours is perfectly acceptable. It is realy just the difference in how you post somthing. One is constructive, the other is belittling.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by 68Ripper
Hmmm does this mean you can't have any critisism about the game? Only comments that PRAISE the game?
Hmmm, what do you think? Oups, I am out of line again, sorry.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
na, the hurri mkiiC is the best ;)
normaly, if you get it right you can get 2 gvs with one bomb then another 4-6 with the cannons :D
actually one ah2 comes out the hurri2d will be the best as it now fires both 40mms simultaniosly (i just hope they fixed the 40mm's damage modelling...ive landed 2 rounds of 40mm on a b17s wingroot without much effect...though the third shot had the desired effect)
-
Well I agree that Horn knows exactly where to hit a Tiger with a Panzer to kill it in one shot. He did it to me yesterday. Didn't see him at all so I don't know what distance it was though.
I do know though that a HE shell from a panzer aimed at the Tigers tracks disables it rather easily, too easily to be realistic in my opinion. But hey, what do I know.
Not sure why we are debating AH 1 though, it's been stated that development work has stopped completely and in this thread Hitech/Pyro have intimated that in AH 2 the damage model will be different.
Let's see what the future brings,
wipass
-
mabey this will end this seemingly endless debate! but i doubt it
quoted from the ah home page:
High fidelity air combat is the heart of
Aces High, but it doesn't end there. In addition to
flying a multitude of aircraft types, players can
also man vehicles, boats, amphibs, gun batteries,
and ships. :aok
-
Hoping the damage model is fixed in AH2.
Yup there are a few glaring flaws at present i.e.
1) AP rounds bouncing off M3s at less than 800yrds, kinda funny unlees hes carrying troops. Solution, use HE you only have to get them close to kill an M3.
2) Panzers v Tigers - From the size at d1200 or less usually a 1 ping kill or at least a turret disable. Solution, Tigers are long range killers, don't let anyone get close to you.
3) Tigers v Tigers - Admitedly this seems more of a crap shoot, if you get hit a few times time to use a supply up or grab a new one. Just sitting there letting the other guy hit ya isn't going to work.
4) Anything v Armour - Seen an M3 kill a Tiger, been killed by an Osty in a Tiger. Solution same as 2, don't let them get close.
5) Invisible tanks - Usually due to lag when guy spawns.....Except - GV city, all 3 sides have reported tanks "winking" in and out. No idea, server overload, graphics overload?
Finally hope to see more Ltars real soon, they are crunchy on the outside, soft on the inside and good for my perkies! :)
-
I still go back to my original question....
Can you film GV avtion and does anyone (in Aces high) even care about it....?
Earlier this evening watched a tiffie pork a V base...pretty good clue some folks will be coming...was already near spawn so I camped it...got hit by a pz that shot me 3 times before he uncloaked...he was stone cold invisable...just like the ones in tank town...and his turret when he appeared was pointed right at me 90 deg from tank alignment. Now I was looking right at him from less than ~1200 out...no way I missed him.
Since I've been assured that the quality of code is up to par with the rest of the program:rolleyes: I'm certainly baffled by this otherwise undocumented feature of romulan...er german tanks....awful glad the romulan warbirds arent out....yet;)
-
I never have any problem with invisible gvs.
The reason some may not care is there have been 100 threads on gvs in ah. The topic has been beaten to death and most folks who normally maybe interested in gvs have said everything that needs saying in the many other threads.
-
Do a search on Panzer 4... or just do a search with my name and look for GV threads.. I've done plenty of ranting about the GVs for the past 3 years.
-
There's strange and frustrating things in the GV models, that's for sure. I've been in a Tiger and hit a panzer at ~1200yds 4 times in the side before he found me and 1hit killed me through my front armor.
Distinguishing head from tail isn't that hard at max zoom on the main gun out to 3200-3400yds. You can see which direction the turret is pointing in relation to the hull.
On hit sprites.. there's the little flash with the tracer bounching off the target for a richochet, then there's the big flash for a hit. But not all hits penetrate, so even though you hit it you didn't hurt it. Only way to tell the difference, currently, between a penetrating hit and a non-penetrating hit is to guess you didn't penetrate because of no damage on the target. Maybe change the hit sprite for a hit that doesn't penetrate.. make it an off grey color instead of the same as a regular hit sprite? HT how feasible would that be? Might cut confusion down some.
I understood it to be that the armor wasn't really hurt if a hit didn't penetrate it, and the only that really mattered was if you penetrated or not. Maybe some of the problem comes from the hit box (or whatever) on the GVs extends some parts where it shouldn't, like the glacis being extended past the sides. Once upon a time, sitting on the runway in a pony with a squadmate to my left and a little ahead, I killed myself firing my guns. His wingtip was barely visible on the edge of the screen, but the tracers went out from my guns and ended in hit sprites, as if his wing was invisibly extended about 5-6ft. Something kinda like rounds being intercepted by invisible walls from destroyed buildings. /shrug
I'm hoping that discussion like this will help improve the GVs in AH2. They can be alot of fun, but sometimes they're down right frustrating, like being in a tiger and hitting a panzer in the side at ~1200yds and not doing anything, then getting 1hit killed through your front armor by the panzer. And it happens 3-4 times in a row if you keep coming back.
-
I have filmed gv action before. But by the time I get around to looking at the films I already forgot why I even recorded it. I think it has to do something with the lag though if you see a shot and nothng there. I am pretty sure I have killed gv's and i wasnt seen yet, especially where there is a lot of action going on.
-
Originally posted by CavemanJ
On hit sprites.. there's the little flash with the tracer bounching off the target for a richochet, then there's the big flash for a hit. But not all hits penetrate, so even though you hit it you didn't hurt it. Only way to tell the difference, currently, between a penetrating hit and a non-penetrating hit is to guess you didn't penetrate because of no damage on the target. Maybe change the hit sprite for a hit that doesn't penetrate.. make it an off grey color instead of the same as a regular hit sprite? HT how feasible would that be? Might cut confusion down some.
Caveman, that is AWEsome idea, and probably 'splains much
Beyond that, WHO aims for certain parts of a tank at 3000 yards? Its all ya can do to hit the fediddlein thing---have traded shots with other panzers in such situations, ping..ping...ping....nada---then it SEEMS like i was one-pinged into tower (the opposing guy will say he has several sprites, tho i didnt hear any: if ya are firing about same time as that round hits you, your gun sound blows away the damage sound, and you are unawares. Gv's here are frustrating as heck, but have more positives than negatives--as much as the hack me off, Id quit AH if they werent here.
-
bj229r, you can aim for parts at and above 3k if you are precise enough.
-
hmm..HOW big must monitor be to do this;
-
the joystick matters more, but I'd been using 1280x1024 or even 1024x768 for a while when I used to damage or kill tanks way out of sight range.
-
Im at 1024x768 on a 17 inch screen, and I can hit certain areas on an enemy gv out past 3K easy
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
Im at 1024x768 on a 17 inch screen, and I can hit certain areas on an enemy gv out past 3K easy
i too used to be able to do this, but the center spring on the Saitek X45 sucks... i cant have smooth movements anymore :(
maybe i should make them little dials on the throttle part for GV / Bombsite aiming... would that be possible?!?!
-
Not really sure. I figure as long as it can be successfully mapped its possible. Would be neat if it could.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
i too used to be able to do this, but the center spring on the Saitek X45 sucks... i cant have smooth movements anymore :(
more evidence that that js is a [SIZE=40]POS[/SIZE]
You could map the dials to be pitch and roll, I think AH accepts multiple axes, but not the inverse, multiple functions.
-
Originally posted by moot
more evidence that that js is a [SIZE=40]POS[/SIZE]
You could map the dials to be pitch and roll, I think AH accepts multiple axes, but not the inverse, multiple functions.
agreed...i mean, when your dads saitek EVO which is 1/3 of the price of the X45 feels better, and works better, you know theres something wrong.....
I want the Evo stick, with the X45 throttle....that would be good
-
that's what I did.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
agreed...i mean, when your dads saitek EVO which is 1/3 of the price of the X45 feels better, and works better, you know theres something wrong.....
I want the Evo stick, with the X45 throttle....that would be good
Hope you like re-calibrating cause you will be doing plenty of that with the EVO. I know I have one and several players I know do also. Other than that it's a good stick, Just wish they had continued with the Saitek Cyborg 3d Gold, now that was a good stick!
-
Originally posted by 68Ripper
Hope you like re-calibrating cause you will be doing plenty of that with the EVO. I know I have one and several players I know do also. Other than that it's a good stick, Just wish they had continued with the Saitek Cyborg 3d Gold, now that was a good stick!
Evo is fine here.... :confused:
-
I think it's fine the way it is. What do you think TopGunZ?????????????????????????????????
Seriously,practice makes perfect here. Also, learn to accept the game for what it is. Everybody experiences these anomiles from time to time. Work around them and choose your fights more wisely.
Back to Villas Boucage!!
-
Try some Metamucil or prune juice Overlag.
-
Wish we had the option to use keyboard keys for fine tuning tank gun aiming. Would be most helpful. A flight optimized stick is just too darn sensitive when you are zoomed in tight on the tank gun sight.