Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Dichotomy on February 25, 2011, 01:47:15 PM
-
FYI
-
I've only been away like about 6 weeks now and its cool how much they have added to the game since then!!! I'm about to order my new comp can't wait to be back!
-
FYI
OK
-
Guess the B29 damage model was revised. Will have to try it out in offline.
-
Changes from previous release
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reverted to previous version of our sound API due to some systems getting lockups, most notably those systems running in Win 98 compatibility mode.
Fixed a bug that could occasionally cause a crash when quitting out of an arena.
Fixed a couple of memory leaks.
Revised B-29 damage modeling. Beefed up some things and fires should occur less frequently.
Fixed a bug that would cause some planes to get put into a frozen state if they were operating above their normal ceiling in a lightened condition.
Fixed the compass on the Fokker DVII.
Changed the engine listings for the A6M5 in the E6B to +mm Hg.
A6M5 can now use custom gunsights.
B-29 airspeed indicator in the bombadier's position was out of calibration.
B-29 nosewheel was not displaying correctly when turning on the ground.
Fixed an issue with the Dr1 losing parts from the opposite side when colliding with the ground.
Fixed some issues with the B-29 gun interruptors allowing some firing through certain parts of the plane.
Fixed a texture problem with the G4M and A6M5 that could cause the gauges to show up in a low resolution.
Fixed an issue with troops looking weird if using low detail graphics mode.
Fixed a bug that caused drones not to be able to keep up with the lead bomber when using WEP.
Stay Connected
Subscribe to Aces High News by Email
Copyright © 2010 HiTech Creations, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.
wrongway
-
:rock
-
what are "memory leaks?" I know you mean the ram right? but in what way does it leak? I'm tech savvy, just ignorant to some facts.
-
what are "memory leaks?" I know you mean the ram right? but in what way does it leak? I'm tech savvy, just ignorant to some facts.
They forgot to delete some data pointed by pointers pointing toward a vector of pointers correctly... :noid
-
what are "memory leaks?" I know you mean the ram right? but in what way does it leak? I'm tech savvy, just ignorant to some facts.
I used to know, but I forgot.
-
I think it is sad that when people cry enough about a glamorized plane such as the B29, HTC changes it to their favor. HTC set the "fire" parameters to what they thought was accurate according to whatever standard they used, hopefully on historical data. The fact is the B29 was known to flame up due to a number of issues. This latest patch sounds as if they toned it down. Chalk one up for the whiners.
Funny how the G4M still lights up at the drop of a hat. No change there. That bomber is worthless because all it takes is a single ping anywhere between the engines and the fuselage and up in flames it goes.
-
I think it is sad that when people cry enough about a glamorized plane such as the B29, HTC changes it to their favor. HTC set the "fire" parameters to what they thought was accurate according to whatever standard they used, hopefully on historical data. The fact is the B29 was known to flame up due to a number of issues. This latest patch sounds as if they toned it down. Chalk one up for the whiners.
Funny how the G4M still lights up at the drop of a hat. No change there. That bomber is worthless because all it takes is a single ping anywhere between the engines and the fuselage and up in flames it goes.
The difference with the Betty vs the B29 fires is the B29 had self-sealing fuel tanks and the Betty did not. Non-sealing tanks=flame up, note the zero.
Yes the B29 may have had problems that may have caused fires but the only fires that are modeled in AH is fuel tank fires and the self sealing tanks would reduce the number of times they would get a fuel tank fire.
-
The difference with the Betty vs the B29 fires is the B29 had self-sealing fuel tanks and the Betty did not. Non-sealing tanks=flame up, note the zero.
Yes the B29 may have had problems that may have caused fires but the only fires that are modeled in AH is fuel tank fires and the self sealing tanks would reduce the number of times they would get a fuel tank fire.
:aok
-
I think it is sad that when people cry enough about a glamorized plane such as the B29, HTC changes it to their favor. HTC set the "fire" parameters to what they thought was accurate according to whatever standard they used, hopefully on historical data. The fact is the B29 was known to flame up due to a number of issues. This latest patch sounds as if they toned it down. Chalk one up for the whiners.
Funny how the G4M still lights up at the drop of a hat. No change there. That bomber is worthless because all it takes is a single ping anywhere between the engines and the fuselage and up in flames it goes.
HTC would not make changes to the model to "satisfy the whiners." The HTC crew decided the model wasn't correct and it had to be fixed.
You know what else, The G4M and the B-29 are still... different planes! ahhh
-
I think it is sad that when people cry enough about a glamorized plane such as the B29, HTC changes it to their favor. HTC set the "fire" parameters to what they thought was accurate according to whatever standard they used, hopefully on historical data. The fact is the B29 was known to flame up due to a number of issues. This latest patch sounds as if they toned it down. Chalk one up for the whiners.
Tell me, how do you know it's because of someone whining, and not because HTC noticed something possibly not being right?
And if this little "whining" we seen the last few days is sufficient for HiTech to clack his heels and obey... why didn't he nerf the Spit 16 after literally years of whining und a myriad of threads?
-
If this artical is anything to go by, the B-29 could still use more "beefing up".
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/b29damage.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/b29damage1.jpg)
-
what are "memory leaks?" I know you mean the ram right? but in what way does it leak? I'm tech savvy, just ignorant to some facts.
A memory leak is like a virtual oil leak in your computer. It slowly drains the available memory, reducing the amount of free memory the system can use. Most memory leaks are caused by a program that unintentionally uses up increasing amounts of memory while it is running. This is typically a gradual process that gets worse as the program remains open. If the leak is bad enough, it can cause the program to crash or even make the whole computer freeze.
An example from wiki:
[edit] An example of memory leakThe following example, written in pseudocode, is intended to show how a memory leak can come about, and its effects, without needing any programming knowledge. The program in this case is part of some very simple software designed to control an elevator. This part of the program is run whenever anyone inside the elevator presses the button for a floor.
When a button is pressed:
Get some memory, which will be used to remember the floor number
Put the floor number into the memory
Are we already on the target floor?
If so, we have nothing to do: finished
Otherwise:
Wait until the lift is idle
Go to the required floor
Release the memory we used to remember the floor number
The memory leak would occur if the floor number requested is the same floor that the lift is on; the condition for releasing the memory would be skipped. Each time this case occurs, more memory is leaked.
Cases like this wouldn't usually have any immediate effects. People do not often press the button for the floor they are already on, and in any case, the lift might have enough spare memory that this could happen hundreds or thousands of times. However, the lift will eventually run out of memory. This could take months or years, so it might not be discovered by thorough testing.
The consequences would be unpleasant; at the very least, the lift would stop responding to requests to move to another floor. If other parts of the program need memory — a part assigned to open and close the door, for example —, then someone may be trapped inside, since the software cannot open the door.
wrongway
-
If this artical is anything to go by, the B-29 could still use more "beefing up".
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/b29damage.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/b29damage1.jpg)
Offline, I'm still killing B-29's in a D3A with ease. Setting fuel tanks afire or sawing off wings with 2x 7.92mm machine guns. :lol
-
I've been testing the B-29's ability to take battle damage also. It doesn't feel like the B-29 has been "beefed up" much.
-
If this artical is anything to go by, the B-29 could still use more "beefing up".
As others have pointed out, that particular B-29 was probably very nearly out of fuel.
I don't know if AH models damage to fuel tanks v. the amount of fuel in those tanks.
- oldman
-
As others have pointed out, that particular B-29 was probably very nearly out of fuel.
I don't know if AH models damage to fuel tanks v. the amount of fuel in those tanks.
- oldman
I don't even need to set the fuel afire.
300 rds of 7.7mm (placed between inboard & outboard engine) and the wing of the B-29 will fall off.
-
Ok, did a few Beschussversuche :D
Always shot at close range at the wing, right between two engines. I repeated each test several times.
With the light MGs of a D3A and I-16, it takes ~300 rounds to remove the wing of a B-29
With the 13mm MG 131, I had to use about 80 rds.
A 20mm MG 151/20 will destroy the wing with just over 20 rounds.
With the 30mm Mk 108 I needed ~6 rounds.
NS-37 (Yak T): 4 hits.
Then I tested the MG 151/20 and the Mk 108 vs B-17 and B-24 too (same target spot) and found the number of hits required to be about the same.
By the way, these numbers do match the Relative Projectile Strength table on the Trainer Corps quite well :old:
-
what are "memory leaks?" I know you mean the ram right? but in what way does it leak? I'm tech savvy, just ignorant to some facts.
*dusts off his "C+ for dummies"*
First I assume you understand the two fundamental types of memory in computing? One that keeps memory permanently (such as your hard drive with your family photos stored on it) and one that only exists as temporary and random-access memory that your computer needs to run and process running processes (and that gets "poofed" each time you turn off your machine). This later memory is the RAM or temporary type that the computer constantly is accessing or releasing as it is needed to run it's various processes and tasks and is the cause of "leaks".
The term "leak" is used because picture the RAM physicaly as a bucket of water. As the processer requires memory from the bucket, it sips up what it needs and then when it's done it spits the memory it's no longer using back into the bucket. The idea being in a perfectly programed world that no memory is ever just lost from this bucket, it gets used and when not being used it goes back into the bucket. It gets sucked up, if it needs to be permanenetly stored then the memory gets transfered/copied to the permanenent memory world of the hard drive, then the temporary stuff gets dumped and spit back into the bucket. You start to get a "leak" when this temporary data gets used/called up by a process, but then is unecessarily not returned/dumped back into the bucket when the need for it is done, thus it is basicaly out of the bucket and not getting back in (it leaked out). Enter a memory leak fix, basicaly finding memory that was being sucked up outa the bucket by the processor and then not being spit back into the bucket when the need/use was done.
When a program or aplication, like Aces High, runs a single process (while many many porcesses are simultaneously occuring to generate an operating program) like say keeping count of how many bullets you have left in your machine guns, these processes require/consume a necessary amount of memory from the system's master cache of available/free memory (the bucket). When the process if complete, say you land an no longer need to keep count of how many bullets are left in you guns, the memory that the process was earlier using and reserved for itself should be freed up or reset and returned back to the system's master chache of available/free memory.
It is bad if this doesn't happen, as in my example lets say you land one sortie and then up another plane. Plane #1s ammo count is no longer necessary, but due to a looping effect of upping a new plane (starting a new process) without completely returning and freeing up memory from a previous and now redundant process (such as landing your old first plane and now upping a new plane, you and your system has no need for keeping the previous plane's ammo-count on-hand and in active memory. Eventualy you're on plane #25 for the day, but your system still has inside of it memory being consumed by holding onto those ammo-counts that you had in plane #1, #2, #3, #4, etc. etc..), your system gradualy and steadily looses more and more memory that is not returned when the process is done using it. So eventualy, if it's eaten/leaked away enough memory, you have nothing left in your bucket... now things start getting bad and noticable to the user, first with performance slowing down before it just starts to freeze/crash or random reboot due to a lack suffecient enough memory to keep running.
-
I recorded a short fire test on the B-29, thoughts?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-lp6vjD6P0
-
I recorded a short fire test on the B-29, thoughts?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-lp6vjD6P0
LOL!!
It cost HOW MANY perks!! LOL :rofl :rofl
-
LOL!!
It cost HOW MANY perks!! LOL :rofl :rofl
the last time i checked it said 110 each.
-
the last time i checked it said 110 each.
:rofl
-
I recorded a short fire test on the B-29, thoughts?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-lp6vjD6P0
My thought is that the B-24 is catching fire even more easily. But the B-29 has four locations that can burn in the wing, the 24 only two. The structural strength of the wings seems to be the same (or B-29 beign slightly better). (See my tests above)
-
Lusche,
To quote the article which has been posted around the forum many times: "The Black Widow poured 564 rounds of .50 calibre machine-gun fire and 320 rounds of 20mm cannon shells into the staggering Superfort". The bird suffered no structural failure, but was in flames. Aces High's version looses a wing after 20 rounds of 20mm cannon shells. :headscratch:
-
Lusche,
To quote the article which has been posted around the forum many times: "The Black Widow poured 564 rounds of .50 calibre machine-gun fire and 320 rounds of 20mm cannon shells into the staggering Superfort". The bird suffered no structural failure, but was in flames. Aces High's version looses a wing after 20 rounds of 20mm cannon shells. :headscratch:
Yes, but I think this is incident on the extreme side of things. If you would base the durability on that numbers alone, hardly any Superfortress would be shot down in combat in Aces High. It makes even wonder how the japanese fighters managed to shot down any B-29 at all.
You can find similar accounts for many other planes, which managed to survive a way greater number of hits then average for their type. The other end of the spectrum was the infamous lucky bullet.
-
I understand, I wish I had more material on the B-29 to comb over.
I pose you this question though, do you feel that the B-29 needs to be beefed up even more, going on both our results?
-
Yes, but I think this is incident on the extreme side of things. If you would base the durability on that numbers alone, hardly any Superfortress would be shot down in combat in Aces High. It makes even wonder how the japanese fighters managed to shot down any B-29 at all.
You can find similar accounts for many other planes, which managed to survive a way greater number of hits then average for their type. The other end of the spectrum was the infamous lucky bullet.
Are you suggesting that one incident is not enough to change the entire damage model Lusche? Stats man! We need stats! :)
-
I pose you this question though, do you feel that the B-29 needs to be beefed up even more, going on both our results?
I don't have sufficient knowledge about construction details and combat report evaluations to form a substantial opinion. I would have expected the 29 to be somewhat stronger than it is know, but that's just kinda layman thinking ;)
-
Are you suggesting that one incident is not enough to change the entire damage model Lusche? Stats man! We need stats! :)
:lol Yes we do need them ;)
-
Yes, but I think this is incident on the extreme side of things. If you would base the durability on that numbers alone, hardly any Superfortress would be shot down in combat in Aces High. It makes even wonder how the japanese fighters managed to shot down any B-29 at all.
You can find similar accounts for many other planes, which managed to survive a way greater number of hits then average for their type. The other end of the spectrum was the infamous lucky bullet.
also lusche i feel like when we think of battle damage and shot down bombers we dont take into account just 1 .303 or 7.92mm round could kill both pilots..from a side shot of course and a very lucky one. so i think many jap b29 kills were just a quick burst into the cockpit
-
Another thing, I don't know how firing directly at the engine can blow the whole wing off from the root.
-
I don't have sufficient knowledge about construction details and combat report evaluations to form a substantial opinion. I would have expected the 29 to be somewhat stronger than it is know, but that's just kinda layman thinking ;)
I don't think anyone does, mainly because there is comparatively little information of this sort available for B-29s.
In the ETO there were lots and lots of B17s and B24s over a span of years. In the PAC there were just a few hundred B29s for less than one year.
In the ETO bomber crews bailed out over land, generally, and those who survived could tell tales. In the PAC B29 crews generally went down in the vast expanse of the Pacific and were lost.
I know that I was very surprised when I read about how the MiGs clobbered the B-29s in Korea. Somehow I had just expected that the B-29 would be at least as tough as the B-17, and that no second generation Bolshevik jet fighter was going to do much harm zinging by at those speeds.
It just might be that HTC has correctly modeled the B29, and we were expecting something else based on information that didn't apply to B29s.
- oldman
-
Another thing, I don't know how firing directly at the engine can blow the whole wing off from the root.
For many of us, it's just an indication of how bad our aim is.
-
Another thing, I don't know how firing directly at the engine can blow the whole wing off from the root.
I think the current damage model is not granular enough
If I'm not mistaken, the wing in AH is basically made out of two large components, housing sub components like fuel tanks and some attached ones like ailerons and flaps. So if your bullets land in an area on the edge, but still within the bounds of the "inner wing", that whole inner wing comes off (and of course anything attached to it)
-
Remember, too, that the wing flying off in AH does not represent a wing flying off in real life. Like the situation with flaps flying off but actually being stuck down, the wing breaking off simply means there was a failure of some sort that would render the wing unflyable, be it actually shearing the wing off or chewing enough of the skin off to make it useless.
-
I know that I was very surprised when I read about how the MiGs clobbered the B-29s in Korea.
- oldman
Those migs were packing 30 mils.
-
2 23mms and 1 37mm.
-
HTC set the "fire" parameters to what they thought was accurate according to whatever standard they used, hopefully on historical data. The fact is the B29 was known to flame up due to a number of issues.
IIRC the historical problems weren't due to battle damage, it was a problem of mechanical reliability of the engine. AH doesn't model those. If it did, you would see KI-84s and N1Ks about once a year in the MA. What they're saying they fixed in the B-29 was the damage model, which I would assume they felt was not historically correct.
-
Are you suggesting that one incident is not enough to change the entire damage model Lusche? Stats man! We need stats! :)
I've only flown the B-29 offline so I really don't know how well it absorbs damage first hand in game but from what I've read from people's various posts, it really seems like people over estimated the B-29's ability to take damage. Honestly, there is really nothing to in the historical record that the B-29 was some type of damage sponge able to soak up whatever was shot at it.
I'm reading the memoirs of a B-29 pilot and his impression of the B-29 was that it was a tough plane but it certainly wasn't invincible and very susceptible to flak, especially when the Japanese started to use rolling flak barrages during the daylight raids. Coming in as low as 5,000ft the flaks tore up the B-29s in the daylight raids.
The author also noted how jealous he was of a flight school friend that flew B-24s because of the Pratt & Whitney engines.
ack-ack
-
IIRC the historical problems weren't due to battle damage, it was a problem of mechanical reliability of the engine.
The Wright engine was also susceptible to fire after receiving damage. One of the issues was depending on the damage (oil leak, etc.) the engines had a tendency to swallow the valves. The stem of the exhaust valves would burn through, the valve head would pop off in the combustion chamber and if it broke a hole in the top of the piston, it would force fuel into the crankcase where it would ignite immediately and once on fire there was no way to put it out. The fire would rage against the wing spar and in about 30 or 40 seconds the wing would fold. A lot of B-29s were lost due to flak because of the engines catching fire and as you can see, very little time for the crew to bail out if they didn't shut off and feather the engine immediately after taking damage.
ack-ack
-
Most everyone knows I am not a fan of the B-29.
I do not think HT makes any changes based on complaints from the user base. They do take into consideration playability issues. The small changes made for playability should not hurt anything and can only be considered a plus for everyone.
HT will make changes supplied by a user if it is based on good knowledgeable information and came from historical charts or tests.
IMHO of course, but that is what i believe. I think they do an outstanding job of it too.