:x :x :x doesnt solve Belials lag issue :D wtg Pyro :salute :salute :rock
You guys are moving in the right direction here. Getting better.
Would you consider allowing the gunners on bombers to have the same ability to aim as the tanks?
Not a big GV guy here (so take with a grain of salt).
But
Not sure how I feel about the automatic transmission. Seems kinda like a step backwards from realism into a "lets make gameplay easier for the sake of easyness (sp)"
I do dig the new gunsights +1
Will you still be able to go to the drivers position? I always thought of the different positions having their pros and cons. The drivers position gave you the capability to maneuver and drive but lacked 360 visibility. Gunner had basic directional steering control, smaller field of view but you could obviously shoot. The Pintle/ TC position gives the best view, basic steering, but only a small gun if any. That seemed realistic.
I understand that what your doing is mating the different positions into a single operator (we the player being the sole handler of any 1 vehicle) and it makes sense but isn't the best gv driver the player that can master these different positions and make them each work together in the most efficient way?
It kinda looks like we will soon have the capability to drive a gv in an augmented F3 mode... -1 for F3 gv mode (sorry I'm sure i'll get flamed here)
I do want to close with a big + to HTC willing to try new things and continually updating and adapting the game.
-Climber
If there is a commander position on the vehicle, then there is no driver's position. We're also pulling out most hull gunners and just slaving that position to the coax so that it fires along with your coax if you're aiming within its field of fire. It's a really big deal to us if we can skip modeling the interior of tanks. That takes the biggest chunk of development time on tanks but doesn't add a commensurate value. Not doing an interior on a tank makes it way faster to kick out new tanks.:aok truly out did your self :cheers:s with this one!
You also won't be able to take on a second player as a gunner if your vehicle has a commander position. Vehicles that have a commander's position will basically be anything with a tank sight.
Gunner's in planes will use the new system too.ok very cool.
Pyro first off i would like to say thanks for the video update, to me that's first class and better than any writing info, hope you do more of these videos on your work in progress, it gives us customers tidbits to keep us going and makes us feel part of the team, good job <<S>> the mods to the tanks look very cool, only question though, will the transmissions all be auto or will there be a choice manual or auto, i do like the option to Taylor my speed by what gear I'm in during battlesYou can change your speed just by not hitting the W key as much...he does it while driving so Manual transmission isnt needed.
Not doing an interior on a tank makes it way faster to kick out new tanks.
Who's the stud narrating?(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000187240/polls_dog_humping_a_womans_leg___92041_3956_827739_answer_3_xlarge.jpeg)
If I understand correctly in modern tanks this is called as a Hunter-Killer capability, in other words the ability of the commander to «slave» the main gun through his E/O devices, either day or IIR scope.
If I understand correctly in modern tanks this is called as a Hunter-Killer capability, in other words the ability of the commander to «slave» the main gun through his E/O devices, either day or IIR scope.Im sure there is stuff like that...we use joystick control 50 cals now on MRAPs and stuff.
It's a really big deal to us if we can skip modeling the interior of tanks. That takes the biggest chunk of development time on tanks but doesn't add a commensurate value. Not doing an interior on a tank makes it way faster to kick out new tanks.i like the idea of more tanks! :x
It's a really big deal to us if we can skip modeling the interior of tanks. That takes the biggest chunk of development time on tanks but doesn't add a commensurate value. Not doing an interior on a tank makes it way faster to kick out new tanks.Then by al means skip it! Very much looking forward to what you guys have come up with for the GVs. And the youtube thing is great for giving us game news. I'm all giddy here. :x
Making it way to easy, but it ought to be fun.
Fred
Pyro How about a key to lock the guns' movement while the key's pressed, e.g. if you want to only look around for SA and keep the turret pointed at a target or aimed exactly to hit a distant target?
The view system is still live and sits on top of all this so you can still look around without moving the turret.
The view system is still live and sits on top of all this so you can still look around without moving the turret.
It looks terrific. :aok But I have to admit that my slow brain got confused by this last post. I thought in the commander position the gun funtions was slaved to the view system. But it sounds like theyare seperate. Yet there is a gun-barrel view. So when you're in teh commander position, do you toggle between view and commander-gun-control view, with the option to move to the gunsite for more acurate gun control? If it a lengthy explanation, I can just wait til it comes out. :saluteit's shown in the video...watch it closely
it's shown in the video...watch it closely
I actually think the current system is artificially hard in many ways. The new system I think will do a better job of representing crew operations than we currently have. On top of that it sounds like it will speed up the development cycle on new GV's which is good thing. :)
I am curious about speed control, without manual trans.
So, if I release the accelerator (W key) before I reach speed to change a gear, what is the response? Steady speed? Speed increases to the Max for that gear? or continues to grab speed and change gears?
Also, have you tried the trans out on steep down hills? Wondering how that all will work without the gearing (brakes) that we are accustomed to.
I am curious about speed control, without manual trans.
So, if I release the accelerator (W key) before I reach speed to change a gear, what is the response? Steady speed? Speed increases to the Max for that gear? or continues to grab speed and change gears?
Also, have you tried the trans out on steep down hills? Wondering how that all will work without the gearing (brakes) that we are accustomed to.
These are really questions that can be answered when the model is actually here. Mostly things that I hope are important to you all also.
:salute Pyro, HTC Staff.... give yourselves a raise.... you can take it out of JunkyIIs bank account ( :uhoh he's gonna be out of the country for a bit, I know where he hid the keys )
;) JunkyII best wishes bro. Hopefully, the advances in wireless will have you in touch with us over the next year. :cheers: I hope that you and all your mates get back to us soon, after a little muscle is flexed of course :D
Honestly, that's rubbish and will be the end of GVing for me.
Honestly, that's rubbish and will be the end of GVing for me.really, and you know it's going to be that bad without ever having experienced it...a miracle.
We're also pulling out most hull gunners and just slaving that position to the coax so that it fires along with your coax if you're aiming within its field of fire.
Well done video and very well presented. My compliments.
Not sure Im keen on the joining of the gunners though as I like to save my hull gunner as a gun of last resort.
couple of questions.
Will the hull gun now be taken out of action when the other guns are damaged now?
And will you be able to fire from the commanders position?
You can change your speed just by not hitting the W key as much...he does it while driving so Manual transmission isnt needed.
Pyro did you mean to slip up and say the Tank destroyers were coming to Aces High? :D
M18 = Next GV I got $5 on it :devil
Hull gun still functions as before with the exception that it now can be fired from the commander or gunner position with the fire secondary key.Thats what I wanted to know thank you
HiTech
I am curious about speed control, without manual trans.:salute Thank you
So, if I release the accelerator (W key) before I reach speed to change a gear, what is the response? Steady speed? Speed increases to the Max for that gear? or continues to grab speed and change gears?
Also, have you tried the trans out on steep down hills? Wondering how that all will work without the gearing (brakes) that we are accustomed to.
These are really questions that can be answered when the model is actually here. Mostly things that I hope are important to you all also.
:salute Pyro, HTC Staff.... give yourselves a raise.... you can take it out of JunkyIIs bank account ( :uhoh he's gonna be out of the country for a bit, I know where he hid the keys )
;) JunkyII best wishes bro. Hopefully, the advances in wireless will have you in touch with us over the next year. :cheers: I hope that you and all your mates get back to us soon, after a little muscle is flexed of course :D
I hope that there is a way to map gear positions, because sometimes it is very advantageous to just creep ahead in low gear.
Otherwise, this is going to be HUGE!!! Way to go HYC!!! <S>
Honestly, that's rubbish and will be the end of GVing for me.
I hope that there is a way to map gear positions, because sometimes it is very advantageous to just creep ahead in low gear.
Otherwise, this is going to be HUGE!!! Way to go HYC!!! <S>
It works exactly like cruise control on your car with an automatic transmition.
Push w to accelerate to xxx speed then let go, it stays at xxx speed, go up hill it will down shift if need to hold speed . Turn hard it will down shift, then up shift when it can. It will even creep at 2 mph.
I.E. all you must do us push w to speed up s to slow down.
HiTech
So the FOV advantage of the M4s will be gone? No more shelling from 12 miles?
That sucks if true. :(
So the FOV advantage of the M4s will be gone? No more shelling from 12 miles?i hope you're kidding... :huh
That sucks if true. :(
Ummm... not kidding but may have the range off. Its probably closer to seven to ten miles (far beyond icon range). M4s rule the roost right now. Panzers and Tigers... not at all.
i meant the "that sucks if true" part chalenge...it's about time impossible ranges got yanked from tanks.
No thats not true. The actual Shermans were used in this way so its as if you are asking for less realism. It is true they were ranged by observers but we dont have those.
Can anyone (Hopefully Pyro or hitech) give me a rough idea of when we will get this new system?
No thats not true. The actual Shermans were used in this way so its as if you are asking for less realism. It is true they were ranged by observers but we dont have those.indirect fire...nowhere near as accurate as the laser guided sighting in ah...no further than 3 or 4 miles...absolutely not 10...tanks were and are front line troop support weapons...that means close range, not 10 miles behind the lines firing like artillery...3000 yds with the sighting systems used in ww2 vintage tanks was a very good shot.
I bet they say....
"2 weeks"
:D
indirect fire...nowhere near as accurate as the laser guided sighting in ah...no further than 3 or 4 miles...absolutely not 10...tanks were and are front line troop support weapons...that means close range, not 10 miles behind the lines firing like artillery...3000 yds with the sighting systems used in ww2 vintage tanks was a very good shot.
keep in mind the 76mm main gun on the m4 sherman was a modified field gun that had an effective range of about 3.04 miles...then they shortened the barrel by 15 inches which reduced the performance a little.
It's sounding like I won't be able to shoot at planes with my pintle gun while leaving my turret aimed in another direction anymore. It also sounds like I won't be able to fire only my pintle or only my hull gun. And if all the guns are slaved does that mean the machine guns fire when I fire the turret and vice versa?
It looks cool but I guess I'll take a wait and see attitude. I for one will miss the interiors too.
The arcade part of me likes it, but the sim part of me hates it.
Immersion will suffer, unless you guys plan on Commander positions that can turn in and turn out. I think under fire an exposed Commander would want to protect himself.
I have very mixed feelings about these changes...
because the difficulty makes it worth spending time in learning the different positions.Ya, I spent a LOT of time in the bow gunners position, and I really really enjoyed it. I would have enjoyed being in the loaders position too. Think of all the fun we could have had.
Ya, I spent a LOT of time in the bow gunners position, and I really really enjoyed it. I would have enjoyed being in the loaders position too. Think of all the fun we could have had.
Nope. from a game perspective (AH is a game remember) these changes will make GV'ing less about thinking and plodding along and more about getting to the nub of a fight and being able to maneuver and fight in battle more effectively.
If everyone really wants their gear changes, hey HT, why not map E and Q to gear up/down and make it a toggle?
If there is a commander position on the vehicle, then there is no driver's position. We're also pulling out most hull gunners and just slaving that position to the coax so that it fires along with your coax if you're aiming within its field of fire. It's a really big deal to us if we can skip modeling the interior of tanks. That takes the biggest chunk of development time on tanks but doesn't add a commensurate value. Not doing an interior on a tank makes it way faster to kick out new tanks.
You also won't be able to take on a second player as a gunner if your vehicle has a commander position. Vehicles that have a commander's position will basically be anything with a tank sight.
Any idea if we can install our own custome gunsites?since it appears that at least the German sight is a mechanically working gun sight (the range marker actually moves within the optics in-game) I would hazard a guess that the answer is no.
Is there a Reverse?
I assume that ostwinds, wirblewinds, M3's, M16's, lvt2/4's, jeeps etc do not have "commander positions"
Does this mean they will be driven from the driver position?
Can we assume the Ostwind & Wirblewind will have the same drive control as the panzer? and the LVT the same drive control as a "tank"
Can we assume that the M3, M16 and Jeep will still have gears, will they then get a throttle (sometime) or will they just get a throttle and an auto box? or just an auto box?
is sight gaming using the pge down/up and view adjustment now at an end?
All ground vehicles drive exactly the same.
HiTech
Thanks for the reply........and the reverse?hold down the "s" key
three letters come to mind... WoT.... :rolleyes:lol...i don't think it's going to be that bad...at least there won't be satellite and laser guided artillery.
All ground vehicles drive exactly the same.[/color]
HiTech
HiTech
three letters come to mind... WoT.... :rolleyes:
Another thing is that Pyro mentions that by not having to model the insides of the tanks, they can 'crank out' more tanks in no time flat! I don't like that at all. That's another thing about Aces High that I love... their attention to detail. I love looking around the inside of the tanks! I know it serves little functional purpose but it greatly adds to the immersion of everything. To me, this seems like yet another sellout move.
<snip>
I just hope the HTC is careful about choosing their path. It may start with tanks, but I'm concerned that it may eventually come down to all the planes looking like this, after all just imagine how many models of planes they can crank out if they don't have to model the cockpit and the internals of the planes!
(http://i56.tinypic.com/2cok2nr.jpg)
So then what next.. we start adding ground troop battles? I mean, with the new tanks things are already starting to feel FPSish... so might as well go all the way, right? Don't get me wrong... I'm not necessarily against AH having a FPS part to it, rather I'm actually interested in the idea! I probably wouldn't play it myself that much, but hey if it brings in a lot more business then why not? I'm just afraid that we'll be sacrificing what makes AH special in order to make it happen.
First, to HiTech and everyone involved in this GV update as well as all of the development that goes into further and further refinement of the video game airplane CRACK you dealers keep on selling us addicts..... I gotta say :rock :rock :rock
I think the notion that this change is "dumbing down" the GV game is hogwash. If anything, it is a lot more in line with what we have in aircraft that have more than one crewman, i.e. bombers, where F3 and "fire all" put the eyeballs and trigger fingers of many guys under the control of one person.
This change does nothing more than make it more realistic in that you're more accurately modelling what the tank commander had at his disposal, i.e. a CREW, who did things at his command, as opposed to him having to magically beam himself out of one location within the vehicle and into the other location.... How many WWII tanks were operated by one single man?
Look, the same basic rules still apply..... you may be able to traverse your turret from the commander's position, but if you're rolling up on an enemy tank laying in ambush, you're still dead meat. You STILL have to jump to your main gun position to fire the main gun, as I understand it that cannot be done from the commander's position. Yes, you can bring your main gun to bear somewhere close to a target identified from the commander's position without getting in the main gun yourself, but in real life would the tank commander have seen a target, scrabled down to the inside of the turret and began rotating the turret himself? Heck no... that turret would be moving as soon as he saw a target, upon his command....for those of you concerned about realism, consider the joystick as the tank commander's way of telling the main gunner what to do....
This is a huge improvement as far as I'm concerned. I say kudos to HTC!
:cheers:
HAHA that was my exact thought as well!
I tried WoT and didn't much care for that interface at all. I much preferred the realism of the tanks in Aces High.
"Realism"??? Being able to perform only 1 function at a time in a crew served gv (albeit being able to turn while in CT position) is a bit limited. The new style will allow more realism imo, because the CT is now in command.
I'm torn about this. On one hand, it will lessen the learning curve a bit and may bring in people from FPS games (and WoT). More subscribers is obviously a good thing because it is job security for HTC's staff, and game security for us customers. On the other hand, it feels kind of like a 'sellout' decision on HTC's part.
Actually, the new sights are going to create a longer learning curve. No longer will each tank have the same zoom and same reticule. This is more involved than most think.
Another thing is that Pyro mentions that by not having to model the insides of the tanks, they can 'crank out' more tanks in no time flat! I don't like that at all. That's another thing about Aces High that I love... their attention to detail. I love looking around the inside of the tanks! I know it serves little functional purpose but it greatly adds to the immersion of everything. To me, this seems like yet another sellout move.
I can understand liking the internal eye candy in gv's, but I cant remember the last time I sat and tinkered with the internal views of a tank. It is not needed any more than the internal views of a plane (think bomber fuselage). I think it is a SMART move on HTC's part.
Personally, I feel kind of sad that things have to be 'dumbed down' in order to bring in the next generation of players. Yes I know it has to be done, after all we're not getting any younger here, however I don't know it just seems that there must be a better way without going down the path of 'making this just like that other game'.
See my first reply. This update is not going to dumb down anything. It is going to make the interface more simple, but all the mechanics will still need to be learned and executed. With having to learn the numerous and very different tank sights, it will no longer be the "grab and go and use the same-same sighting system" as it is now.
I just hope the HTC is careful about choosing their path. It may start with tanks, but I'm concerned that it may eventually come down to all the planes looking like this, after all just imagine how many models of planes they can crank out if they don't have to model the cockpit and the internals of the planes!
Again, you are going the wrong direction with your concerns, imo. The update is going to diversify the gv game, not standardize it. The only thing they are standardizing is the interface.
I think it could also potentially increase the possibility of "close" GV battles now too, as you will now be able to fire while still being able to see where you're going. And your ability to aim will still be better using the optics, so sitting still is still going to be an advantage to aiming.
Not really. I always liked to take a Sherman and park it right next to a tree with low hanging branches. From the commanders and/or pintle position all I could see were tree branches but from the main turret I had a clear field of view. That capability will now be lost and I'll have to park in the open.
Not really. I always liked to take a Sherman and park it right next to a tree with low hanging branches. From the commanders and/or pintle position all I could see were tree branches but from the main turret I had a clear field of view. That capability will now be lost and I'll have to park in the open.
No No No No. :bhead
I think the way it was, was absolutely fantastic, maybe add the pivot for some tanks, but come on. just keep it the way it was. There was no need to change it. This new addition is REALLY going to drag me away from GVing.
Why? what is it you do not like?
It is not that they do not like, but that they do not have the ability to understand.......
Ummm... not kidding but may have the range off. Its probably closer to seven to ten miles (far beyond icon range). M4s rule the roost right now. Panzers and Tigers... not at all.you're kidding right? The reason the Tigers cant do what they used to is because no one knows that a tiger was a STAND OFF WEAPON and not a close infighter like the m4s and panzers. they were meant to sit 2K-3K back and shoot everyone out in an open field. I was near a spawn last night (actually not camping the spawn itself) and i got 32 kills in a tiger and went home to land em. just because i sat 2,000 yards off and picked the enemy off before they got to me
you're kidding right? The reason the Tigers cant do what they used to is because no one knows that a tiger was a STAND OFF WEAPON and not a close infighter like the m4s and panzers. they were meant to sit 2K-3K back and shoot everyone out in an open field. I was near a spawn last night (actually not camping the spawn itself) and i got 32 kills in a tiger and went home to land em. just because i sat 2,000 yards off and picked the enemy off before they got to me
Im talking about long range shelling Bar. A tiger cannot raise its barrel anywhere near far enough. An M4-75 cant kill much of anything right? But at 6 miles (10k) you can saturate an area with HE and with 100 rds that means four hangars if you have perfect ranging. Hopefully this will not change with the new setup.it should be fine still from what the video showed.
Not really. I always liked to take a Sherman and park it right next to a tree with low hanging branches. From the commanders and/or pintle position all I could see were tree branches but from the main turret I had a clear field of view. That capability will now be lost and I'll have to park in the open.
Still a long way to go before I will ever play again.
It is not that they do not like, but that they do not have the ability to understand.......
Whoa whoa whoa, listen here buddy......I completley understand the point. But why change what is already great? The GV battles are phenomenal. I don't see a reason to change it. A little respect would be nice too.
My comment wasn't directed at you specifically, but generally... I've read a lot of comments here by people saying that they don't like the changes and think it is "dumbing down" - and the comments they make about what "is and is not" are factually incorrect - such as the comment above that the view from inside the turret would be gone.
The GV aspect of this game could be made a lot better, and I think the changes are a HUGE step foward. I say don't cock yer leg and pi$$ on them until you've tried them.
I think its taking away the gv portion of the game. Its kinda like 'hey! Lets go into the commander position, oh i see something! Lets put our joystick on it and shoot without getting into the turret!!'
You have fired the main gun from the commander's position?
When your in the commanders position, what the circle? Looks like a smaller gunsight.
If you look in the video, that circle follows your joystick input, and has a red indicator on it showing what angle (degrees) your turret is rotated to. The turret will follow that circle, but it is not a gunsight, and you cannot fire the main gun from the commander's position while looking through that circle. You STILL have to jump to the main gunner's position to aim and fire the main gun.
really? Then what is the point of the whole Commander position?
OK, so you put joystick circle on the tank, quickly go to turret, fire, then return to comm. position?
So essentially point and shoot. Thats how i see it still. I understand what your getting at with the lag time, but i still think its degrading the tank warfare.bet ya a month of ah that after 2 weeks of messing with it every day...you will change your mind. :D
bet ya a month of ah that after 2 weeks of messing with it every day...you will change your mind. :D
So essentially point and shoot. Thats how i see it still. I understand what your getting at with the lag time, but i still think its degrading the tank warfare.
So essentially point and shoot. Thats how i see it still. I understand what your getting at with the lag time, but i still think its degrading the tank warfare.I see it as more of the tank commander saying "Target, Sherman, 9 o'clock, 2000 yards, AP", with the from-the-commander view slewing the turret to an approximate lineup, then jumping to the gunner position to do the actual targeting.
So essentially point and shoot. Thats how i see it still.
I understand what your getting at with the lag time, but i still think its degrading the tank warfare.
"Realism"??? Being able to perform only 1 function at a time in a crew served gv (albeit being able to turn while in CT position) is a bit limited. The new style will allow more realism imo, because the CT is now in command.
I just feel that AH already has a nice balance of 'realism' vs. 'playability'. I still maintain that this will flip the balance a bit towards the wrong side of the fence.
Actually, the new sights are going to create a longer learning curve. No longer will each tank have the same zoom and same reticule. This is more involved than most think.
Maybe... maybe not. It will be interesting to see how it plays out though. Yes I see your point about the different reticules, however there is still the "F3" like mode, and the simplicity of the WASD+Mouse.
I can understand liking the internal eye candy in gv's, but I cant remember the last time I sat and tinkered with the internal views of a tank. It is not needed any more than the internal views of a plane (think bomber fuselage). I think it is a SMART move on HTC's part.
I don't necessarily disagree with you there and they are correct in that the internals are 'pretty much useless' as far as gameplay is concerned. It still feels arcade-ish and cheap to me though. At this point they might as well remove the ability to look behind you in gunner positions of planes as well, as they are 'pretty much useless' as far as gameplay is concerned also. Why even model the inside of the bomb bays? I'm seriously concerned about the quantity vs. quality thing.
See my first reply. This update is not going to dumb down anything. It is going to make the interface more simple, but all the mechanics will still need to be learned and executed. With having to learn the numerous and very different tank sights, it will no longer be the "grab and go and use the same-same sighting system" as it is now.
WASD/Mouse? How is that NOT dumbing down things? Aim and click.
Again, you are going the wrong direction with your concerns, imo. The update is going to diversify the gv game, not standardize it. The only thing they are standardizing is the interface.
You are correct that moving this kind of thing to planes is kind of on the absurd side.. at least right now any way. My post about that was deliberately exaggerated to get a point across, but it is still a valid point that has to be made. How long IS it until HiTech is willing to resort to WASD+Mouse and graphics cuts for planes as well? It almost feels as if we'll be playing two separate games at this point. A 'relatively' realistic flight sim, and a FPS 'unrelatively' unrealistic Tank sim. At least the operating characteristics of the two were previously 'well matched' with each other, but not any more?
I disagree entirely. You're still gonna be in your turret most of the time when the shooting starts. I'm fairly confident if you're in the commander's position, by the time you see the enemy GV he's already in his gunsight lining up on you.
If the main gun can be fired from the commander's position, then this will be extremely 'gamey'. If not then maybe it won't be so bad. What I got out of the demonstration video was that any gun could be aimed and fired from the commander's position (albeit without the reticule). I can see people getting very good at gauging a target's distance without even needing the site, and they would completely change the entire tank game within AH.
My point still stands, though.... no offense intended, but you guys were complaining about something "degrading the tank warfare" that you didn't even have a firm handle (and in some cases, even a clue - i.e. firing from the commander's position, the idea that there is no more turret position, etc)on how it will work.
It's not that we are complaining about it so much as wondering WHY these changes are being made, when the tanks are already really, REALLY good as it is. On our lists of complaints, tanks are pretty much on the bottom. Yeah I know and understand that HiTech isn't running a democracy here, but it just seems funny that HTC decides to post a demo video of this on Facebook (and youtube) and change something that no one has really even mentioned... and that that change uses the same WASD commands and similar targeting methods as WoT. This tells me that HTC is going after a piece of WoT's pie! And maybe that's great! I'm just afraid that they will forget what this game is about and end up turning it into something that is just like "That Other Game".
Do yourself and the guys at HTC that have been working on this a favor and try it and actually see if you like it before you whizz all over their hard work. :aok
You've made a good point there and who knows? Maybe I'll fall in love with the interface once I try it. I don't see it as 'whizzing' so much as constructive criticism, but whatever. You can't expect any real change to be made and some people not be against it...
So essentially point and shoot. Thats how i see it still. I understand what your getting at with the lag time, but i still think its degrading the tank warfare.What is the "degrading" difference from reality? The TC would be up there guiding the turret's position.
At this point they might as well remove the ability to look behind you in gunner positions of planes as well, as they are 'pretty much useless' as far as gameplay is concerned also. Why even model the inside of the bomb bays?Bad comparison. The gunner positions can't be boiled down to fewer number of position like the driver position in tanks. Hence the need to still have what the gunner sees - bomber fuselage innards - modeled.
WASD/Mouse? How is that NOT dumbing down things? Aim and click.Using the word "dumb down" as in the above quote is a style over substance fallacy. How is simplifying airplanes to combat trim not "dumbing down"? Not streamlining air combat that way is a "burdensome" realism feature as HT points out.
I just feel that AH already has a nice balance of 'realism' vs. 'playabilityHow was (is) it realistic for the TC to effectively teleport away from TCP into driver seat to start engine, and then teleport to gunner to move turret to spotted enemy bearing, then teleport back to TCP (all the while losing a real TC's situational awareness while zapping around the tank's inside) to resume TC duty?
I'm seriously concerned about the quantity vs. quality thing.See above. Are you as much concerned about the increased quality of ground combat thanks to a richer set of tactical elements (ie unique, non-redundant ground vehicle models) IE "quantity" ?
WASD/Mouse? How is that NOT dumbing down things? Aim and click.Another wrong point and soon you might be copping out of argument because there's so many things you've said quoted and refuted, but nonetheless these things are wrong: Do you, in reality, use a joystick to swivel and elevate your head and eye sight? The reason mouse look as has become the rock solid gold standard in FPS type games is simply that it's the best analog to human behavior. Track IR already made SA "point and click" in the cockpit, so what's wrong with giving GVers this streamlining as well?
How long IS it until HiTech is willing to resort to WASD+Mouse and graphics cuts for planes as well? It almost feels as if we'll be playing two separate games at this point. A 'relatively' realistic flight sim, and a FPS 'unrelatively' unrealistic Tank sim. At least the operating characteristics of the two were previously 'well matched' with each other, but not any more?in bold- Where is the evidence for this specific thing? Show evidence for this trend or admit you made it up... There's no hints anywhere anytime that airplanes will go to WASD. You're comparing planes and GVs like they weren't apples and oranges.
I just don't quit know how I feel with incorporating Arcade-Style antics with AH as it is now.All things considered you're missing the point.. The only detrimental change is not having tank insides modeled for their immersion value.
I'm just afraid that they will forget what this game is about and end up turning it into something that is just like "That Other Game".To be like WoT, AH would have to have some genuine "dumbing downs": No ballistics, including a gawd awful dispersion system that literally makes some shells fly out sideways for "gameplay balance" concerns. No physics. A magic reticle that instantly tells you what damage you'll cause by pointing at various points on target vehicle.
One question: Can we get the German ranging system put into ship's guns too, so you can keep the crosshairs on the target when elevating for extreme range?You can do this to some degree already. Move the ship gunner's head position, and use F8 pan mode to point the camera at the crosshair without having to zoom out.
(I'd also love it if you could launch individual destroyers in the dueling arena for some cool ship-to-ship actions).That'd definitely be fun.
Maybe... maybe not. It will be interesting to see how it plays out though. Yes I see your point about the different reticules, however there is still the "F3" like mode, and the simplicity of the WASD+Mouse.
I don't necessarily disagree with you there and they are correct in that the internals are 'pretty much useless' as far as gameplay is concerned. It still feels arcade-ish and cheap to me though. At this point they might as well remove the ability to look behind you in gunner positions of planes as well, as they are 'pretty much useless' as far as gameplay is concerned also. Why even model the inside of the bomb bays? I'm seriously concerned about the quantity vs. quality thing.
If the main gun can be fired from the commander's position, then this will be extremely 'gamey'. If not then maybe it won't be so bad. What I got out of the demonstration video was that any gun could be aimed and fired from the commander's position (albeit without the reticule). I can see people getting very good at gauging a target's distance without even needing the site, and they would completely change the entire tank game within AH.
One question: Can we get the German ranging system put into ship's guns too, so you can keep the crosshairs on the target when elevating for extreme range? .
You can do this to some degree already. Move the ship gunner's head position, and use F8 pan mode to point the camera at the crosshair without having to zoom out.That'd definitely be fun.
Alright, im getting your point clearly, but i don't see the point for the whole mouse to look around thing. Its the same as a hat switch?
And what happens when you pull up the clipboard to check something? Will moving the mouse move your turret?
Alright, im getting your point clearly, but i don't see the point for the whole mouse to look around thing. Its the same as a hat switch?No; the hat switch is instantaneous jump to that view, and the turret doesn't slew to follow.
And what happens when you pull up the clipboard to check something? Will moving the mouse move your turret?As the narration in the video says, when you pull up the map, it uncouples the mouse, and it goes back to being a mouse pointer until you put the map away.
Once upon a time I played a game called Battlefield 1942: Forgotten Hope(mod). In this game I would almost always drive tanks whenever the map had them. When driving the tank you used WSAD + mouse to aim and fire the main gun. The view system had an internal view that gave you a viewport + gunsight as well as an external view with no sight. There were no internal details modeled and you couldn't turn your head inside the tank. Basically it's an almost identical system to what HT is doing.:aok battlefield is fun
Why do I mention this. I played that game for 4 years almost every night driving tanks. Why? It was fun as hell! I hope that this new system will bring back some of that fun.
Once upon a time I played a game called Battlefield 1942: Forgotten Hope(mod). In this game I would almost always drive tanks whenever the map had them. When driving the tank you used WSAD + mouse to aim and fire the main gun. The view system had an internal view that gave you a viewport + gunsight as well as an external view with no sight. There were no internal details modeled and you couldn't turn your head inside the tank. Basically it's an almost identical system to what HT is doing.
Why do I mention this. I played that game for 4 years almost every night driving tanks. Why? It was fun as hell! I hope that this new system will bring back some of that fun.
If the main gun can be fired from the commander's position, then this will be extremely 'gamey'. If not then maybe it won't be so bad. What I got out of the demonstration video was that any gun could be aimed and fired from the commander's position (albeit without the reticule).
You can fire from the commander position. But it really is not that much of a difference. The circle you see is the ENTIRE gunner view.
I.E. you can not really aim the gun out side of point blank shooting.
2nd the only difference if you could not fire from the commander is press 2, press fire, press 1. I.E. almost instantaneous but more of a pain.
WOW. I did not get that AT ALL from the video, and was under the impression that the main gun could only be fired from the main gunner's position in the turret.
I know that you're right, without jumping to the turret position and using the gunsight to fine tune tha aim it will be next to impossible to hit anything that isn't very very very close... but still.....
big -1 there in my opinion. :(
I'm ecstatic about everything else. I guess I'll have to wait and see.
Booo for firing from TC position.
Driving around running ad gunning. What is this an M1A1?
Everything else looks good though.
Hmmm sorta like having a gunner that doesn't have to look through his sight to aim and fire his weapon.
I guess that's HiTech's point... he can't really "aim" the main gun while in the TC position, you can only get it close... you still have to be in the sight to zoom in and actually put rounds on target (unless you're extremely lucky with a chance hit from the TC position).
Hmmm sorta like having a gunner that doesn't have to look through his sight to aim and fire his weapon.
Yep kinda unrealistic.
My point is that there will be people that are going to get good at using the TC position to aim and fire from.
So essentially point and shoot. Thats how i see it still. I understand what your getting at with the lag time, but i still think its degrading the tank warfare.
HTC Staff - What type of FPS hit can we expect from this view system? TrackIR/FreeTrack/TrackNoIR all come with a hit to frames and I suspect this system will follow along their lines.
HTC Staff - What type of FPS hit can we expect from this view system? TrackIR/FreeTrack/TrackNoIR all come with a hit to frames and I suspect this system will follow along their lines.
The new system lends TOWARDS realism and does nothing to dumb it down.It does dumb things down a bit, but for the better. Just like Combat Trim is a net positive.
HTC Staff - What type of FPS hit can we expect from this view system? TrackIR/FreeTrack/TrackNoIR all come with a hit to frames and I suspect this system will follow along their lines.
Not clear if you mean that, but pretty sure HT said that throttle axis couldn't map to vehicle throttle.
Now I'm lost.
There are not any brakes or throttle control.
There is W go faster, and S go slower.
Brakes are applied if needed and throttle is applied if needed.
5Point no you can not map a throttle to a throttle in a tank , because there is not a throttle in the tank.
You could map buttons to accelerate and slow down though.
I found the throttle on the stick works great for range setting on German sights.
HiTech
Hmm sorta like saying to your gunner. "FIRE?"
Not clear if you mean that, but pretty sure HT said that throttle axis couldn't map to vehicle throttle.
So the CH throttle mouse works as a "button" hat switch too? Mine is an actual "axis" joystick.
I will be using my Saitek profiling program on my X-52 to set my throttle to work as key presses for gv's after the update. :)
There are scripts that allow you to program key commands or macros to the mini-stick, such as script I have that I used to turn my mini-stick into an 8 way hatswitch. While you can use the mini-stick to program the throttle, you can also use the slider on the Pro Throttle...
I like it - it adds some realism from the standpoint that firing while moving (yes, I know, its not overly common, but I do it) will be easier - I've had left/right mapped to the rudder for awhile. The zoom in/out with pre-sets will take some getting used to, I mapped my zoom to the throttle slider on my stick.
The new sights with ranging - I've been asking for those for ages.
A long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I played Panzer Commander. It was, for its day, a tremendous game. I remember the sights being exactly what AH is headed towards now, although back then they actually blurred the target to simulate the focal range.
All in all, I think its great. I don't get much value from the interiors, I'm usually too busy trying to avoid getting shot to notice the scenery on the insides of the vehicle.
But I agree with everyone else - a Tiger shouldn't roll over on its back when it encounters a tree. Down with the killer bushes.
J
Soooo, if you are in the commanders position, does that mean I can bail from my aircraft and walk up and kill your tank commander with my .45?
You pretty much got it. We thought about doing that but decided it took far more away then it added. I.E. started going into the nuisances realism realm. How do you model things like a quick duck? How do you model the other crew replacing the commander? The simple fact is you have 1 person taking the place of 3. Some give and take must happen to have a realistic over all model at the expense of some detail realism.
HiTech
Will he survive B25H 75mm HE rounds exploding on the armor while his head is sticking up?Do you have a problem with fun? lolz
Will he survive bomb concussions from near misses?
Can I target his head from a manned ack to stop his tank?
I can drop those ack rounds onto a tank out to 4500 yards. After all he can drive his tank up to my manned ack position and kill me with his pintel popgun.
Soooo, if you are in the commanders position, does that mean I can bail from my aircraft and walk up and kill your tank commander with my .45? I mean he has his head out of the tank from the way the film looks. Or does he have a super duper gamey indestructable god's head? If there will be no gunner ride on's and it's only the commander, shouldn't a HurrI be able to straff the guy and kill the tank by giving him a pilot wound?
Will he survive B25H 75mm HE rounds exploding on the armor while his head is sticking up in commander mode?
Will he survive bomb concussions from near misses?
Can I target his head from a manned ack to stop his tank? I can drop those ack rounds onto a tank out to 4500 yards. After all he can drive his tank up to my manned ack position and kill me with his pintel popgun.
Why would it be any different than it is now?
Your head can be in the same position now. How many people drive a tank buttoned up now?
Semantics.
wrongway
It's like being able to rudder-turn buffs from the gunner position
Yay I will finally be able to map the throttle keys to my stick throttle easily!!! Always wondered why it was never tied to the throttle in the first place. :)
Same here. PT boats are but never understood why rest of GVs weren't. Next we need to look at fuel consumption... :salute
If we campaign for slower and more accurate speeds for off road terrain, then we slow everything down.Unless the campaign includes a few roads added to terrains between any spawn and its objective.
The tanks could have a separate fuel modifier like the Komet's.
Unless the campaign includes a few roads added to terrains between any spawn and its objective.
Ha.. But on the face of it it's a pretty simple addition. It'd really be too bad if they couldn't do it. I'm not convinced they couldn't.
We used to have terrain that rough. It's vague memory now that I think harder about it, but I'm fairly sure you couldn't go full speed. It was very choppy riding.
Who remembers the little white rocks of death? :lol
We used to have terrain that rough. It's vague memory now that I think harder about it, but I'm fairly sure you couldn't go full speed. It was very choppy riding.
the original AKPizza map was like that, couldn't go full speed because of the washboard terrain in the canyons.
ack-ack
I understand that it is impossible to accurately model how it was in real life, but I always thought that it should be programmed so that GV's should be able to go faster on a paved road than on unpaved terrain. Maybe simply impose a 10% speed penalty when not on the pavement. Not a lot, but enough to entice people to stick to pavement whenever possible...
the original AKPizza map was like that, couldn't go full speed because of the washboard terrain in the canyons.
ack-ack
totaly ruins it in my opinion.whats next?external views in fighters?
totaly ruins it in my opinion.whats next?external views in fighters?You? Unhappy?
I understand that it is impossible to accurately model how it was in real life, but I always thought that it should be programmed so that GV's should be able to go faster on a paved road than on unpaved terrain. Maybe simply impose a 10% speed penalty when not on the pavement. Not a lot, but enough to entice people to stick to pavement whenever possible...They'd also need to change the supply convoy trucks so they don't blow up tanks when they rear-end them, then...