Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Wildcatdad on March 05, 2014, 06:46:24 PM
-
Ok, I hate to do this, but I feel War Thunder has a better damage model in some areas. For instance, if our wings get holes in them, they aren't affected, but in WT, you can get massive holes and other damage that effect how you fly and the aero dynamics of the plane. I wish we could have this implemented in the game, not only on wigs, but every where. Just so it isn't all-or-nothing.
:salute
-
if you get holes in the wings doesnt the fuel leak out?
semp
-
See rule #4
-
They added all kinds of new damage modeling to the WWI birds,i was really hoping this was going to be transferd to much better damage modeling for WWII birds,but never happened. :frown:
-
+1
-
I would love to see this. Would certainly be a massive upgrade from the current 'All or nothing' system we have now.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/5CE4kQC.jpg)
"Sir there's a hole in our left wing!"
Quick! To the nearest CV!
(http://www.abload.de/img/b17-crash4oqre.jpg)
UHHMERRICAAAA
-
cool I see a bomber nearby with awesome skin and i see another bomber a couple thousand yards away with skin that my 5 year old granddaughter probably created.
merrica is also far sighted. just so you know.
semp
-
They added all kinds of new damage modeling to the WWI birds,i was really hoping this was going to be transferd to much better damage modeling for WWII birds,but never happened. :frown:
I think they were experimenting with it. Who knows they might be up to something. :aok
-
cool I see a bomber nearby with awesome skin and i see another bomber a couple thousand yards away with skin that my 5 year old granddaughter probably created.
merrica is also far sighted. just so you know.
semp
buwahhahahahahahaha
erm....thats the image that shows damage to your plane. FYI
-
cool I see a bomber nearby with awesome skin and i see another bomber a couple thousand yards away with skin that my 5 year old granddaughter probably created.
merrica is also far sighted. just so you know.
semp
lol dafuq you talkin about? I swear sometimes I think you only come on the BBS when your drunk.
-
lol dafuq you talkin about? I swear sometimes I think you only come on the BBS when your drunk.
Either he is always drunk or just having fun in trying to negate everything he can see.
-
If he seriously thought that was a plane...
-
If he seriously thought that was a plane...
Yes that would be nice but I think HTC is doing a great job at prioritizing what needs to be done first. Watch and wait. Who knows that might be something comeing in the update. We will have to wait in see. Just like the Tu-2 coming in the last update compared to the Meteor. More people are going to fly it on a daily than the Meteor.
So great job hitech on picking what is more important. Someday I would like to see it thouugh. :salute
-
They added all kinds of new damage modeling to the WWI birds,i was really hoping this was going to be transferd to much better damage modeling for WWII birds,but never happened. :frown:
I was really, really excited for the same thing. I'm guessing revamping the DM for the WWII birds is a non-trivial undertaking. Hopefully it's on the list though... one day.
Wiley.
-
I was really, really excited for the same thing. I'm guessing revamping the DM for the WWII birds is a non-trivial undertaking. Hopefully it's on the list though... one day.
Wiley.
I think they were experimenting with the WWI planes to see the capabilities of their current engine. Then using that information started with the new terrain engine that they are working on now. Perhaps we will see in the near future an even more technical damage model for airplanes.
-
IIRC, Hitech has said something in regards to all damage having aerodynamic or other effects to the effect of "Do you want the first ping to win every fight?"
-
I think they were experimenting with the WWI planes to see the capabilities of their current engine. Then using that information started with the new terrain engine that they are working on now. Perhaps we will see in the near future an even more technical damage model for airplanes.
They might want to put a bit more work into the one that they have in WWI now. It's a nice damage model and everything but every time I take damage in that arena, I get a noticeable lag spike. I don't want that lag spike to come to the MA while I'm already fighting a FR of 10.
-
That is one MASSIVE thing warthunder has over aces high. I have put so many holes in planes that they should NOT fly. Oh well hitech will just throw bs at us
(http://forums.watchuseek.com/attachments/f17/816925d1347237086-one-frog-rule-them-all-bust-your-wallet-gwf-t1030a-1-tommy-lee-jones-implied-face-palm.png)
-
lol dafuq you talkin about? I swear sometimes I think you only come on the BBS when your drunk.
for somebody who prides himself in being high a lot, you sure gotta easy up a bit. on the first picture, you dont see alittle plane on the left side with a pink wing?
semp
-
If he seriously thought that was a plane...
well it has two wings, a tail, 4 engines. it for sure isnt a duck.
semp
-
semp if you are not trolling....and are being serious...I am surprised you can figure out how to use a keyboard.
just saying.
-
semp if you are not trolling....and are being serious...I am surprised you can figure out how to use a keyboard.
just saying.
sure I can use a keyboard, I'll prove it to you, abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz. now what exactly do you mean?
semp
-
sure I can use a keyboard, I'll prove it to you, abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz. now what exactly do you mean?
semp
that "plane" you are referring to is an image ingame IE part of the HUD..... to show what part of your plane is damaged and how much......
-
that "plane" you are referring to is an image ingame IE part of the HUD..... to show what part of your plane is damaged and how much......
or course I understand that. I can read what you typed just as good as I can type. well except when my reading disability kicks in then I get totally lost.
but it still shows the fact that there's an awesome skin with lots of detail and a crappy picture in the background that my granddaughter could draw. true or not?
you think they would have spent more than 5 bucks on the "hud" as you call it.
semp
-
OMG did your mom have any kids that lived ?
-
or course I understand that. I can read what you typed just as good as I can type. well except when my reading disability kicks in then I get totally lost.
but it still shows the fact that there's an awesome skin with lots of detail and a crappy picture in the background that my granddaughter could draw. true or not?
you think they would have spent more than 5 bucks on the "hud" as you call it.
semp
Okay I am going to call BS on this post. When you said another one a couple thousand yards away you gave it up. You did not think it was to show you damage to your AC in game. You are trying to save face now and I won't allow it. Ink he was serious and not trolling. Now the question is who runs his keyboard for him.
-
Okay I am going to call BS on this post. When you said another one a couple thousand yards away you gave it up. You did not think it was to show you damage to your AC in game. You are trying to save face now and I won't allow it. Ink he was serious and not trolling. Now the question is who runs his keyboard for him.
on my first post i didnt know that it was the hud. to me it seemed like a couple of thousand yards away. as I have never played a game where I see another airplane outside telling me my damage, I just thought it was a crappy display of another plane flying at a distance. when ink explained it to me then I understood it.
but it stills looks like a crappy hud to me that my granddaughter could draw. but you are making a big deal out of a difference of opinion. the damage in the plane looks great. the hud looks like crap. you dont like my opinion. well sorry, but too bad.
if you look at the picture why dont you guys question the crappy quality of the hud display as compared to the actual airplane? and simple they the damage looks great but he hud still needs some work would have been better. but when you show a great damage on a plane then a hud done by kinder-gardens kids, it kind of takes away from your point a bit.
btw hillbly saving face, trolling or showing myself in "glowing lights" in a game where very few people know me is not a high priority in my life, I couldnt care less if you believe me or not. perhaps me not being born in this country sometimes I dont communicate as well as 1/2 of you. but I do my best.
on the other hand you seriously cant come back and post that the crappy hud couldnt be done better specially when compared to the damage done on the main airplane. :salute
semp
-
I think HTC's damage modeling is a better simulation and less gamey than the little cartoon sketch displaying your damage.
(http://www.abload.de/img/b17-crash4oqre.jpg)
UHHMERRICAAAA
A little late to be dispensing chaff XxDaSTaRxx!
-
Okay I am going to call BS on this post. When you said another one a couple thousand yards away you gave it up. You did not think it was to show you damage to your AC in game. You are trying to save face now and I won't allow it. Ink he was serious and not trolling. Now the question is who runs his keyboard for him.
:aok
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rules #2, #4
-
See Rules #2, #4
-
:rofl :rofl
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rules #2, #4
-
See Rules #2, #4
-
Ok, I hate to do this, but I feel War Thunder has a better damage model in some areas. For instance, if our wings get holes in them, they aren't affected, but in WT, you can get massive holes and other damage that effect how you fly and the aero dynamics of the plane. I wish we could have this implemented in the game, not only on wigs, but every where. Just so it isn't all-or-nothing.
:salute
+1 to more realistic wig damage modeling. I HATE when my wig gets damaged and just flies off instead of parting in the middle.
-
+1 to more realistic wig damage modeling. I HATE when my wig gets damaged and just flies off instead of parting in the middle.
Ok, I probably should have checked that.
:salute
-
This is the "Wishlist" forum. It is not the "Take cheap shots at others" forum.
Hmmmm. Come to think of it, we do not have a forum for that. Maybe that is due to us (HTC) not having any appreciation for derogatory, abusive behavior.
If you are looking to get suspended from the bulletin board, just drop me a PM please. It would be lot easier for everyone. Thank you.
-
Yes, yes, yes. Somebody said, "That is the only thing WT does better than Aces High." I beg to disagree. Sure, there's no lift losses on your wing and what not, but all your control surfaces can be blown to bits, and to be honest, the damage model in WT is really quite crappy when you actually take a moment to examine it.
What this guy didn't tell you is the damage to your wing actually adds a random loss to the lift vector. Completely random, I have done several tests where a single hit to a wing with a .303 resulted in greater lift lost than a single 20mm. I have seen the HUD display only light damage, yet your plane flops over like a donkey, and in the reverse I have seen your wing blacked out which according to the game is the heaviest sustainable damage your wing can obtain without it completely falling off, and yet my plane still flew completely straight. Not to mention, if you use mouse controls or even have them enabled while you use a joystick, it complete removes any effects of any lift or drag penalties introduced by damage.
Also, upon close examination there is really no lift loss at all it acts more or less like a massive shift in your trim, forcing your plane to roll in the direction of the damaged wing and has zero effect on acceleration of your plane, climb rate of your plane, turn rate of your plane, or even top speed of the plane, what actually ends up weakening these performance is you having to compensate with rudder or heavy aileron to fly in a reasonably straight line (And this is with mouse aim off) To test this I had a buddy of mine black-out my wing (Maximum damage to wing without it falling off) and use only rudder to compensate for the planes tendency to roll in the direction of the damaged wing. I recorded the climb rate I going through various altitudes, and also the maximum level speeds at varying altitude. I then upped a fresh, undamaged bird of the same variety, and held my rudder in the same position as I had for the damaged plane, and I found the results to be identical.
Fuselage damage in that game has absolutely no effect on the performance of any plane I have flown in that game regardless of mouse aim being enabled or not.
Regarding fuel leaking from the wings if they get shot up. Nope, sorry, they don't even have multiple fuel tanks modeled in that game, in the event that you do procure a fuel leak it will drain from all your tanks regardless of which one technically got hit. Subsequently, fuel only ads weight to a plane in that game, but does not shift its distribution at all.
Wing is either full off or on in that game, no wingtip shooting. But I guess the lift vector thing is a good substitute.
Also, I have seen several single engine planes (Mostly the Zero) be lit on fire, the fire burn out, only to watch them get lit back on fire, burn out, and get lit back on fire a third time while they mouse aim back to base.
The only thing they did right was the oil leaks and control surface damage. Your engine slowly loses power as oil pressure drops, and when you hit nill, it simply seizes up. And as far as control surface damage, sometimes instead of your ailerons falling off, or your rudder falling off, they will simply flap loosely in the air making your plane one hell of a squeak to fly, unless you have mouse aim enabled.
Once the razzle dazzle of that games sweet graphics wear off, you'll be dying to play AH again. This game may be a bazillion years old, but it still kicks the crap out of that highly funded brand new, POS Russian WWII "Simulator"
Oh did I mention all the maps are about the size of one sector in this game?
Oh and they don't even have compression modeled in that game, your wings simply break off at a certain speed, regardless of G's being pulled. Example, all 109s in that game wings break off at 750km/h IAS (~450MPH ), it doesn't matter if you are pulling any Gs when you hit that number, they just snap off. You can literally take a K4, get it to max level speed, but if you enter any kind of shallow dive that brings your IAS over 450, SNAP! Your dead!
The only thing, and I mean the only thing WT does better than AH, is GFX, that's it. Every other aspect is just so god awful in that game. This is why I am still paying 15/mo to play AH rather than play WT for free.
-
They do tanks better, you can NOT kill a medium tank with 20mm's in there, and they do not have instant repairs on tanks.
WT was not my cup of tea flying it though.
-
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=06f_1236040827
Yes killing tiger tanks with .50 caliber was possible and done as much as possible in the late war period
-
Elevators and Ailerons, already have a damaged state that adds drag. You're asking for the fixed wing section to add drag and lose lift with each bullet it absorbs? to do that correctly you'd have to model the damage at the point for the point of impact on the wing. For that you would need a lot more wing objects. not sure it's worth it. :salute
-
Elevators and Ailerons, already have a damaged state that adds drag. You're asking for the fixed wing section to add drag and lose lift with each bullet it absorbs? to do that correctly you'd have to model the damage at the point for the point of impact on the wing. For that you would need a lot more wing objects. not sure it's worth it. :salute
The game already calculates lift along multiple points of the wing (more than there are physical sections that can be shot off) so maybe something based around that?
-
I would especially like to see an improved damage model for propellers. For example contact with trees or water shouldn't always result in a destroyed prop and engine. I have photos of JG53 Emils which suffered only bent propeller tips from contact with the water on low altitude raids across the English Channel. Likewise Israeli P-51's used their props to cut telephone cables and suffered limited (If any) damage. I would also like to see some kind of damage model for bullets striking propellers.
-
I would especially like to see an improved damage model for propellers. For example contact with trees or water shouldn't always result in a destroyed prop and engine. I have photos of JG53 Emils which suffered only bent propeller tips from contact with the water on low altitude raids across the English Channel. Likewise Israeli P-51's used their props to cut telephone cables and suffered limited (If any) damage. I would also like to see some kind of damage model for bullets striking propellers.
The engine damage would be much more important IMO. Idk if the oil leak is all or nothing ot is scaleable - if not, please make it so. The radiator damage modelling is also quite simple for planes with multiple cooling circles (109, later Spits). The radials were known for being very durable. Seen multiple pics about Jugs taking their pilots home with multiple cilinders hit. Is it possible to model this in game with a performance loss?
Contol surfaces: now they are all or nothing. Is it possible to give one hit aileron/rudder/elevator a chance to be jammed in the position it was hit at like the flaps can be jammed?
Flaps: when an extended flap is getting shot off, it effects the flight like it was jammed yet it disappears as it was shot off. Please, fix this.
Making theese stuff to be scaleable would add just as much to the gameplay experience as the new terrain engine. IMO. Others might have other opinions.
-
I agree. The three questions are, is it possible, practical, and how much coading would be involved?
The engine damage would be much more important IMO. Idk if the oil leak is all or nothing ot is scaleable - if not, please make it so. The radiator damage modelling is also quite simple for planes with multiple cooling circles (109, later Spits). The radials were known for being very durable. Seen multiple pics about Jugs taking their pilots home with multiple cilinders hit. Is it possible to model this in game with a performance loss?
Contol surfaces: now they are all or nothing. Is it possible to give one hit aileron/rudder/elevator a chance to be jammed in the position it was hit at like the flaps can be jammed?
Flaps: when an extended flap is getting shot off, it effects the flight like it was jammed yet it disappears as it was shot off. Please, fix this.
Making theese stuff to be scaleable would add just as much to the gameplay experience as the new terrain engine. IMO. Others might have other opinions.
-
Just copy the damage model from Cliffs of Dover. :noid
-
The game already calculates lift along multiple points of the wing (more than there are physical sections that can be shot off) so maybe something based around that?
Thats what I had thought, though I can see Vink's point. Also, I think the engine and propeler issues would be a great addition.
:salute
-
I agree. The three questions are, is it possible, practical, and how much coading would be involved?
Not too much, i guess.
-
I think HTC's damage modeling is a better simulation and less gamey than the little cartoon sketch displaying your damage.
(http://www.abload.de/img/b17-crash4oqre.jpg)
A little late to be dispensing chaff XxDaSTaRxx!
I know. I was just throwing that image in there, making fun of the thread in a way. The damage modeling is good as it is now...
Blimey I really thought chaff would work! :(
-
It is unlikely that any of these additions would be added. Not because of coding issues, but because this is a game not a simulator. When the effect you add take away from the fum a regular PAYING customer has then you start losing those customers.
-
It is unlikely that any of these additions would be added. Not because of coding issues, but because this is a game not a simulator. When the effect you add take away from the fum a regular PAYING customer has then you start losing those customers.
How would a more detailed DM diminish fun? I would really enjoy a gradual DM versus the all-or-nothing we have now.
Wiley.
-
It is unlikely that any of these additions would be added. Not because of coding issues, but because this is a game not a simulator. When the effect you add take away from the fum a regular PAYING customer has then you start losing those customers.
Like I said somewhere around here, what's the difference between having your elevator cable cut by a snapshot and taking a PW from a max-range ack hit? Or a single BB that holes your engine or fuel tank, or jams one of your flaps? You don't think any of those are incredibly frustrating and un-fun?
If we're going to omit EVERY frustrating way to have your plane crippled at the outset of a fight we may as well not have guns at all.
-
Like I said somewhere around here, what's the difference between having your elevator cable cut by a snapshot and taking a PW from a max-range ack hit? Or a single BB that holes your engine or fuel tank, or jams one of your flaps? You don't think any of those are incredibly frustrating and un-fun?
If we're going to omit EVERY frustrating way to have your plane crippled at the outset of a fight we may as well not have guns at all.
THIS!
lots of little cables and parts should be able to get hit,keeping a flap stuck up or a rudder flapping in the wind cause the cable broke.
The only limited ways are planes are damaged is pretty lame and could be much more up to date.
:aok
-
THIS!
lots of little cables and parts should be able to get hit,keeping a flap stuck up or a rudder flapping in the wind cause the cable broke.
The only limited ways are planes are damaged is pretty lame and could be much more up to date.
:aok
I think there needs to be some understanding of the failure modes being modeled, and whether or not they are achievable through shooter effort, or if they are random. In your example above, hitting cable will cause a flap to get stuck. But flaps already get stuck. If you are hoping the damage model will include internals depicting the cables so that flaps will get stuck only when cables get hit, then I propose that would only be worth it if an attacker could effectively aim for a cable with a reasonable probability of hitting it. Otherwise making the cable damage random is effectively the same thing.
So you'd need to break this down into two lists:
1) what failure modes are missing from the current modeling
2) would require discrete affectation or random?
-
I think there needs to be some understanding of the failure modes being modeled, and whether or not they are achievable through shooter effort, or if they are random. In your example above, hitting cable will cause a flap to get stuck. But flaps already get stuck. If you are hoping the damage model will include internals depicting the cables so that flaps will get stuck only when cables get hit, then I propose that would only be worth it if an attacker could effectively aim for a cable with a reasonable probability of hitting it. Otherwise making the cable damage random is effectively the same thing.
So you'd need to break this down into two lists:
1) what failure modes are missing from the current modeling
2) would require discrete affectation or random?
Well, my pie in the sky ideal would be having a down-to-the-rivet solidworks model of the plane that deforms according to the bullets that hit it.
Out here in the real world, I think it might be neat and somewhat attainable if there were some vague outlines inside the body of the airframe that would be damageable, so with the cable example, where the cable runs there'd be a hitbox that if it were struck would result in cable severage. For the engine, have the cooling, oil and maybe electrical systems outlined on the engine block, same deal.
For the control surfaces, maybe have them broken into 3 or 4 segments that would have x number of hitpoints and have the surface's effectiveness scale with the amount of damage on it until it's blown off.
edit: No random stuff at all, other than possibly amount of damage based on distance from the cannon explosion. Whatever gets struck gets damaged.
Wiley.
-
Wiley's got the right of it: Add hit boxes for components IE fuel lines, control lines, additional engine components (superchargers, turbochargers, cylinder heads, magnetos, gear boxes, however detailed you want to make it), oil coolers, etc.
That takes the randomness away.
-
In your example above, hitting cable will cause a flap to get stuck. But flaps already get stuck. If you are hoping the damage model will include internals depicting the cables so that flaps will get stuck only when cables get hit, then I propose that would only be worth it if an attacker could effectively aim for a cable with a reasonable probability of hitting it. Otherwise making the cable damage random is effectively the same thing.
Vink, I've been playing since 2006 and it takes a more elite stick than me to actually aim and reliably hit any target other than the whole plane. What I'm saying is that for most players the damage is already effectively semi-random.
On another thread I proposed that more realistic damage modeling would raise the efficacy of large banks of machine guns that tend to make lots more smaller holes over a wider area vs. cannons shooting fewer rounds that put their damage onto a smaller area. The simpler damage model tends to favor that approach highly. With a more complex damage model two 20MMs would still saw structures off easier than six .50s or eight .303s, but at least approaches involving a larger number of smaller BBs would have a decent chance of doing *something* to debilitate the enemy airplane, instead of poking a lot of holes through it over a wide area to no effect whatsoever. I don't think this approach would make 6 .50s or 8 .303s better or even as good as 2-4 cannons, it will just narrow the edge that cannon birds have.
-
How would a more detailed DM diminish fun? I would really enjoy a gradual DM versus the all-or-nothing we have now.
Wiley.
Your only one subscription,what of the other oh lets say 100 or so that will be bent out of shape because as far as they can see there is no rhyme or reason for the damage they took. Your going to be able to explain to some geek/gamer that couldn't care less if this was a WWII fighter/bomber, or some modern day fighter/bomber Why a certain cable cut will give a certain type of damage and make the plane fly a different way?
Then there are going to be those that "think" they know what they are doing and will inevitably be all over HTC because "I hit such and such a spot and he could still dive and turn with me!!!"
Making a game that is difficult to learn and get good at already, even harder doesn't bod well for keeping subscriptions.
-
Making a game that is difficult to learn and get good at already, even harder doesn't bod well for keeping subscriptions.
Changing the damage model wouldn't make the game any harder. Everyone would still have the same vulnerable spots and the same opportunity to hit them.
Also, if you could make machine guns especially the American .50s more effective (while staying within the bounds of realism), it would probably make a large percentage of players and potential players happier.
-
Your only one subscription,what of the other oh lets say 100 or so that will be bent out of shape because as far as they can see there is no rhyme or reason for the damage they took. Your going to be able to explain to some geek/gamer that couldn't care less if this was a WWII fighter/bomber, or some modern day fighter/bomber Why a certain cable cut will give a certain type of damage and make the plane fly a different way?
Considering the way people slobber all over other games with more detailed damage models, what makes you think the other 99 guys don't want it? I can't recall ever having seen in print someone expressing the sentiment, "I sure wish the damage modeling in this game was simpler." Regardless of whether it was a flight sim or driving game.
Then there are going to be those that "think" they know what they are doing and will inevitably be all over HTC because "I hit such and such a spot and he could still dive and turn with me!!!"
Making a game that is difficult to learn and get good at already, even harder doesn't bod well for keeping subscriptions.
Same guys are already whining because planes don't disappear in a puff of smoke if they go over their maximum speed. I'm sure the game would survive it.
Wiley.
-
Changing the damage model wouldn't make the game any harder. Everyone would still have the same vulnerable spots and the same opportunity to hit them.
Also, if you could make machine guns especially the American .50s more effective (while staying within the bounds of realism), it would probably make a large percentage of players and potential players happier.
It won't make the game any harder, but it WILL increase the frustration level, which in most people takes away the fun.
Considering the way people slobber all over other games with more detailed damage models, what makes you think the other 99 guys don't want it? I can't recall ever having seen in print someone expressing the sentiment, "I sure wish the damage modeling in this game was simpler." Regardless of whether it was a flight sim or driving game.
Same guys are already whining because planes don't disappear in a puff of smoke if they go over their maximum speed. I'm sure the game would survive it.
Wiley.
oh you mean that 1 percent of the player who visit the BBS? :rolleyes:
Again, the people here are a very small part of the very small group of players who plays this game.
Also, I think they want the graphics of the damage to show, like fabric of your ailerons fluttering in the wing, cockpit bouncing around when you have a cylinder or two shot out, wind noise when you have holes in the canopy. That kind of stuff.
-
:salute To wiley and BnZs. you guys put my thought out there better than I could. I like the idea of an internal hit box(es) for the plane. It doesn't have to be complicated, but I feel like internal damage would be more realistic and a good addition to the game.
:salute
-
oh you mean that 1 percent of the player who visit the BBS? :rolleyes:
Yup. Honestly, have you ever seen anyone on any form of communication for a game say, "The damage in this game is too detailed."
Again, the people here are a very small part of the very small group of players who plays this game.
Yup. See above though.
Also, I think they want the graphics of the damage to show, like fabric of your ailerons fluttering in the wing, cockpit bouncing around when you have a cylinder or two shot out, wind noise when you have holes in the canopy. That kind of stuff.
Of course, the two would go hand in hand.
Wiley.
-
Yup. Honestly, have you ever seen anyone on any form of communication for a game say, "The damage in this game is too detailed."
Yup. See above though.
Of course, the two would go hand in hand.
Wiley.
Nope, but of the hundreds I see all day saturday I almost never see anyone say they wish Aces High had a more detailed damage model either.
Basing wishes on posts on the message boards is foolish as it represents a very small percentage of the players. Most of the players playing the game couldn't care less about the BBS because they can't win the game any faster posting on it. Adding more damage detail that effect the flight model would also not interest them as they can't win the game any faster with it.
As it is now people ask for the silliest things because they would think its "cool". Most would have either no effect on the game, or a negative effect to the game. While having the game as "realistic" as it can be would be interesting for a certain point of view, I really doubt it would be good for business. Most people come into this game to "win" and haven't a clue how to fly and fight and don't care, they can still get to the "win" they are looking for. Adding what to them is going to be random damage effects will slow their trip to the "win" and so.... for them.... why bother to play?
Too many people are leaving the game as it is, lets add something to make 20-40 people happy and frustrate the rest. Sounds like an idea business plan to me.
-
Nope, but of the hundreds I see all day saturday I almost never see anyone say they wish Aces High had a more detailed damage model either.
Basing wishes on posts on the message boards is foolish as it represents a very small percentage of the players. Most of the players playing the game couldn't care less about the BBS because they can't win the game any faster posting on it. Adding more damage detail that effect the flight model would also not interest them as they can't win the game any faster with it.
As it is now people ask for the silliest things because they would think its "cool". Most would have either no effect on the game, or a negative effect to the game. While having the game as "realistic" as it can be would be interesting for a certain point of view, I really doubt it would be good for business. Most people come into this game to "win" and haven't a clue how to fly and fight and don't care, they can still get to the "win" they are looking for. Adding what to them is going to be random damage effects will slow their trip to the "win" and so.... for them.... why bother to play?
Too many people are leaving the game as it is, lets add something to make 20-40 people happy and frustrate the rest. Sounds like an idea business plan to me.
The wish isn't based on BBS messages, its based on the fact that I think this is something that will better the game. And, no offense, but you seem to be the only one frustrated by this. :salute
-
The wish isn't based on BBS messages, its based on the fact that I think this is something that will better the game. And, no offense, but you seem to be the only one frustrated by this. :salute
Well I'm glad you spoke up we can all rest easy knowing that you approve so it MUST be the way to go.
I'm not in the least bit frustrated by any upgrade/updates. I have a sick computer that is no where near its limit. This game is the only hobby I spend any money on so when it does come time to upgrade, I just build a new box with the best thats available. I don't say this to brag, just to let you know how little an impact upgrades have on me.
I'm playing "Devils Advocate" here. Looking at this from a business side.... which to those at HTC it is..... doing things to alienate your player base isn't the way to make money. At this point in time the majority of players play this game to win the map. Anything that slows that down is going to alienate those players. 8-10 years ago the majority of players were into the "history" and sim qualities of the game. Additions like these would have been right up their ally. Not today. Today the players are wrapped up in fast action, and pretty graphics. Realism takes a back seat to what the majority of players seem to be looking for. If HTC wants to keep the game growing, eye candy a quick action is whats going to do it. At least until the history buffs start making a come back.
-
I need to apologize, I believe I misread your replies. After rereading the previous replies, I realize what you were trying to say, and I was a bit of an idiot in my replies. On another note, I don't understand how this would make it harder to win or impact the game negatively. :salute
-
Nope, but of the hundreds I see all day saturday I almost never see anyone say they wish Aces High had a more detailed damage model either.
Basing wishes on posts on the message boards is foolish as it represents a very small percentage of the players. Most of the players playing the game couldn't care less about the BBS because they can't win the game any faster posting on it. Adding more damage detail that effect the flight model would also not interest them as they can't win the game any faster with it.
Forum posts are nothing to do with it. People are clamoring for more better graphics. More better DM goes hand in hand with it.
As it is now people ask for the silliest things because they would think its "cool". Most would have either no effect on the game, or a negative effect to the game. While having the game as "realistic" as it can be would be interesting for a certain point of view, I really doubt it would be good for business. Most people come into this game to "win" and haven't a clue how to fly and fight and don't care, they can still get to the "win" they are looking for. Adding what to them is going to be random damage effects will slow their trip to the "win" and so.... for them.... why bother to play?
Too many people are leaving the game as it is, lets add something to make 20-40 people happy and frustrate the rest. Sounds like an idea business plan to me.
Other than your say-so, I have never seen anything to indicate anyone would be frustrated by more detail in the DM. Like I say, show me one game, any genre where the players have stopped playing it because the damage was too detailed.
Wiley.
-
Well I'm glad you spoke up we can all rest easy knowing that you approve so it MUST be the way to go.
I'm not in the least bit frustrated by any upgrade/updates. I have a sick computer that is no where near its limit. This game is the only hobby I spend any money on so when it does come time to upgrade, I just build a new box with the best thats available. I don't say this to brag, just to let you know how little an impact upgrades have on me.
I'm playing "Devils Advocate" here. Looking at this from a business side.... which to those at HTC it is..... doing things to alienate your player base isn't the way to make money. At this point in time the majority of players play this game to win the map. Anything that slows that down is going to alienate those players. 8-10 years ago the majority of players were into the "history" and sim qualities of the game. Additions like these would have been right up their ally. Not today. Today the players are wrapped up in fast action, and pretty graphics. Realism takes a back seat to what the majority of players seem to be looking for. If HTC wants to keep the game growing, eye candy a quick action is whats going to do it. At least until the history buffs start making a come back.
So you would rather have your plane be lifted by flaps that are no longer there? Or things that would normally be damaged be sheered off instead?
I don't think anyone would be upset if we had graduated damage or any improvements in the DM. It's no different than the more challenging flight model between AH and WT. If HTC really thought it was an issue, or didn't know where anyone stood on it. They would probably have a vote on it.
#1 if you want it
#2 if you don't
#3 if you don't care.
I don't want a DM that is stupid-elaborate.. like if you are pilot wounded your controls are dulled by 25% or more, if you black out and come back then it takes a few seconds for you to recover before you can manuver again. Although.. that does sound appealing to me. ... But anyways, I think that the 'all or nothing' damage model we have concerning things like flaps, ailerons, rudder etc, could be changed. And, if HTC was concerned on the issue, then they would have a vote on it.
Meaning no D.A.'s are needed ;)
-
I need to apologize, I believe I misread your replies. After rereading the previous replies, I realize what you were trying to say, and I was a bit of an idiot in my replies. On another note, I don't understand how this would make it harder to win or impact the game negatively. :salute
Look at the players we have playing now, landing gear is too much trouble to land, heck I'd bet most don't even bother to RTB. Creating a more accurate damage model would increase the frustration of players who are just trying to get the job done as quick as possible.
Forum posts are nothing to do with it. People are clamoring for more better graphics. More better DM goes hand in hand with it.
The forum is the only place I see anything about a damage model change. A damage model and graphics have little to do with each other. People would enjoy more eye candy, but would they enjoy it as much if the planes were that much more difficult to fly? How many players do you think take the time to limp home in a plane with half a wing? Very few I'd say...though I do, even killed 999000 in a goon with my pony while I had only half a wing :D
At least now when I lose a control surface now I see it gone, how would you explain to a rookie/gamer that the last hit he took cut the cable to that aileron so thats why his roll rate now sucks.
Other than your say-so, I have never seen anything to indicate anyone would be frustrated by more detail in the DM. Like I say, show me one game, any genre where the players have stopped playing it because the damage was too detailed.
Wiley.
...and other than you say so and a few other here on the board I have never seen anything to indicate anyone would be frustrated by lack of detail in the DM. I don't play other games so I can give you an "instance" and wh would that matter, we are talking about THIS game.
So you would rather have your plane be lifted by flaps that are no longer there? Or things that would normally be damaged be sheered off instead?
I don't think anyone would be upset if we had graduated damage or any improvements in the DM. It's no different than the more challenging flight model between AH and WT. If HTC really thought it was an issue, or didn't know where anyone stood on it. They would probably have a vote on it.
#1 if you want it
#2 if you don't
#3 if you don't care.
I don't want a DM that is stupid-elaborate.. like if you are pilot wounded your controls are dulled by 25% or more, if you black out and come back then it takes a few seconds for you to recover before you can manuver again. Although.. that does sound appealing to me. ... But anyways, I think that the 'all or nothing' damage model we have concerning things like flaps, ailerons, rudder etc, could be changed. And, if HTC was concerned on the issue, then they would have a vote on it.
Meaning no D.A.'s are needed ;)
If I have an aileron shot off I can see that and know that my plane is going to react accordingly. If a cable is shot out no its not so easy..... or are you tied to the text "damage list" that you can gamily bring up?
Vote on it? LOL!!!! This is HTC's playground not a democracy. We pay for admission that is all, we really don't have a say as to what goes in or not. What "you" want may not be what the majority wants and that is where HTC has to make their decisions. I think there are very few who play that would look forward to a more detailed damage model as it would get in the way of the "fun" they have playing the game. As they are the majority, I think that is how things will go.
As an example, I and others hate divebombing Lancs. To me a heavy bomber was built and designed to get to an operating alt well above 10k and level bomb targets using the site provided. However the majority of players get their giggles divebombing towns and camped spawns. While I, and a number of other players would "wish" something was done to stop this. However, I KNOW this is a game and it is in the best interest of HTC to keep as many people happy as they can and so retain as many subscriptions as possible. I think the change in damage model being discussed here falls into the same category.
-
Look at the players we have playing now, landing gear is too much trouble to land, heck I'd bet most don't even bother to RTB. Creating a more accurate damage model would increase the frustration of players who are just trying to get the job done as quick as possible.
The job they are trying to get down is generally shooting down the other guy's plane. More things to damage is also more ways for them to do that. Also, players probably find getting pilot wounded/killed, getting control surfaces, or getting their whole damn wing shot off frustrating. Should we eliminate that too? Maybe we should just turn off damage like in the TA so players don't get frustrated. Or maybe planes should just get a big "health bar" like fighting games and simply go POOF when they take enough hits. That is the logical implication, if complexity in the damage model actually is frustrating to players.
People would enjoy more eye candy, but would they enjoy it as much if the planes were that much more difficult to fly? How many players do you think take the time to limp home in a plane with half a wing?
Undamaged planes would not become more difficult to fly. Damaged planes are ALREADY difficult to fly. Ever try flying with your vertical stab shot away? Mighty damn difficult. Your argument is based upon the assumption that getting your plane damaged can be frustrating, but that is true no matter what damage model is used.
At least now when I lose a control surface now I see it gone, how would you explain to a rookie/gamer that the last hit he took cut the cable to that aileron so thats why his roll rate now sucks.
Probably the same way you explain to him that his engine seized because he took a radiator hit and lost all fluid. Or how you explain to him that he spun into the ground because he lost his vertical stab. Again, the argument you keep trying to use-That players may be frustrated when they take damage and lose fights-applies to ALL damage that we could conceivably model.
As an example, I and others hate divebombing Lancs. To me a heavy bomber was built and designed to get to an operating alt well above 10k and level bomb targets using the site provided. However the majority of players get their giggles divebombing towns and camped spawns. While I, and a number of other players would "wish" something was done to stop this. However, I KNOW this is a game and it is in the best interest of HTC to keep as many people happy as they can and so retain as many subscriptions as possible. I think the change in damage model being discussed here falls into the same category.
Lancs are not allowed to divebomb because it keeps the player base "happy". Lancs are allowed to divebomb because it is within the physical capabilities of the aircraft. Hitech has over and over affirmed his commitment to fidelity in modeling the equipment, and vehemently debunks any notion that the modeling is ever changed for gameplay, making people happy, etc.
-
I will answer this one post from you. You have proving many times on this board that you either do not read the other post in the thread, or just plain don't understand what was written. So for the benefit of the doubt I'll answer you this one time in this thread.
The job they are trying to get down is generally shooting down the other guy's plane. More things to damage is also more ways for them to do that. Also, players probably find getting pilot wounded/killed, getting control surfaces, or getting their whole damn wing shot off frustrating. Should we eliminate that too? Maybe we should just turn off damage like in the TA so players don't get frustrated. Or maybe planes should just get a big "health bar" like fighting games and simply go POOF when they take enough hits. That is the logical implication, if complexity in the damage model actually is frustrating to players.
Where do you see this? I see the majority of players running away from fights. Most often its a single HO pass and they dive into their target on the ground to up and do the same again.
Undamaged planes would not become more difficult to fly. Damaged planes are ALREADY difficult to fly. Ever try flying with your vertical stab shot away? Mighty damn difficult. Your argument is based upon the assumption that getting your plane damaged can be frustrating, but that is true no matter what damage model is used.
And damaged planes will be more difficult to fly but now there will be no visual reason for it, broken cables, fuel lines hydraulic lines, jammed internal linkage.
Probably the same way you explain to him that his engine seized because he took a radiator hit and lost all fluid. Or how you explain to him that he spun into the ground because he lost his vertical stab. Again, the argument you keep trying to use-That players may be frustrated when they take damage and lose fights-applies to ALL damage that we could conceivably model.
Will you have time to explain that to them? Or will they leave in frustration BEFORE they find out? How many people seek out info on the game mechanics now? I'd love to see a page counter on the trainers site, or HTC info pages. I'd bet I get more hits on my cartoon page. I think you would see far to many say the any other types of damage than we have now would be "that's lame!"
Lancs are not allowed to divebomb because it keeps the player base "happy". Lancs are allowed to divebomb because it is within the physical capabilities of the aircraft. Hitech has over and over affirmed his commitment to fidelity in modeling the equipment, and vehemently debunks any notion that the modeling is ever changed for gameplay, making people happy, etc.
Yes the planes are very much capable of that however it wasn't the primary way they were used. Much the same as bringing a CV group with in a stones throw of shore to attack a base. What CAN be done isn't necessarily what SHOULD be done. However that type of game play is allowed because it KEEPS players here and PAYING, not because it COULD be done.
-
Look at the players we have playing now, landing gear is too much trouble to land, heck I'd bet most don't even bother to RTB. Creating a more accurate damage model would increase the frustration of players who are just trying to get the job done as quick as possible.
The forum is the only place I see anything about a damage model change. A damage model and graphics have little to do with each other. People would enjoy more eye candy, but would they enjoy it as much if the planes were that much more difficult to fly? How many players do you think take the time to limp home in a plane with half a wing? Very few I'd say...though I do, even killed 999000 in a goon with my pony while I had only half a wing :D
At least now when I lose a control surface now I see it gone, how would you explain to a rookie/gamer that the last hit he took cut the cable to that aileron so thats why his roll rate now sucks.
...and other than you say so and a few other here on the board I have never seen anything to indicate anyone would be frustrated by lack of detail in the DM. I don't play other games so I can give you an "instance" and wh would that matter, we are talking about THIS game.
If I have an aileron shot off I can see that and know that my plane is going to react accordingly. If a cable is shot out no its not so easy..... or are you tied to the text "damage list" that you can gamily bring up?
Vote on it? LOL!!!! This is HTC's playground not a democracy. We pay for admission that is all, we really don't have a say as to what goes in or not. What "you" want may not be what the majority wants and that is where HTC has to make their decisions. I think there are very few who play that would look forward to a more detailed damage model as it would get in the way of the "fun" they have playing the game. As they are the majority, I think that is how things will go.
As an example, I and others hate divebombing Lancs. To me a heavy bomber was built and designed to get to an operating alt well above 10k and level bomb targets using the site provided. However the majority of players get their giggles divebombing towns and camped spawns. While I, and a number of other players would "wish" something was done to stop this. However, I KNOW this is a game and it is in the best interest of HTC to keep as many people happy as they can and so retain as many subscriptions as possible. I think the change in damage model being discussed here falls into the same category.
What I mentioned is what I was talking about. Graduated damage for ailerons, flaps rudder, and other components you can see, not so much cables and that sort.
I don't see why they wouldn't have a vote. B29 had a vote, ME 410 had a vote. I don't see why changing something that has been asked for a few years wouldn't get a vote. Even though I don't see it causing the uproar that you say it would, and even if HTC thought it would, they would still have a vote to determine if the 'majority' would want it or not.
-
What I mentioned is what I was talking about. Graduated damage for ailerons, flaps rudder, and other components you can see, not so much cables and that sort.
I don't see why they wouldn't have a vote. B29 had a vote, ME 410 had a vote. I don't see why changing something that has been asked for a few years wouldn't get a vote. Even though I don't see it causing the uproar that you say it would, and even if HTC thought it would, they would still have a vote to determine if the 'majority' would want it or not.
In the 11+ years I've been here they have had 3 votes I think, all on plane suggestions. None on game play mechanics.
-
At least now when I lose a control surface now I see it gone, how would you explain to a rookie/gamer that the last hit he took cut the cable to that aileron so thats why his roll rate now sucks.
Unless it's a flap. Then you have to explain to them that even though they can't see it, it's actually stuck in the last position it was in. Makes much more sense. How do you explain to any of these poor, benighted souls that their landing gear has been damaged when they can't see it? How can they POSSIBLY comprehend that their F6F has tail damage when it cannot be seen? Madness! You also can't see gun damage. These people must be so, so incredibly confused every time they log into the game.
Just as a for instance, if there was a control linkage issue with your right aileron, it could conceivably 'not move' when you move the stick. It could also show up in the damage display, to give people an indication that something was damaged on their aircraft.
...and other than you say so and a few other here on the board I have never seen anything to indicate anyone would be frustrated by lack of detail in the DM. I don't play other games so I can give you an "instance" and wh would that matter, we are talking about THIS game.
So you can't. That's ok it was pretty much a rhetorical question anyways.
If I have an aileron shot off I can see that and know that my plane is going to react accordingly. If a cable is shot out no its not so easy..... or are you tied to the text "damage list" that you can gamily bring up?
If it doesn't move, there's something wrong with it. Simple.
Wiley.
-
Ok, I think I'm starting to see Fugi's point, but I still don'y get how it would make it harder/frustrating? Having more things be damagable, progressive damage, or even just plane effects from damage won't make it harder. If people don't RTB now, why would a better damage model make that more/less likely? I still don't get how this would negatively impact the game?
:salute
-
Ok, I think I'm starting to see Fugi's point, but I still don'y get how it would make it harder/frustrating? Having more things be damagable, progressive damage, or even just plane effects from damage won't make it harder. If people don't RTB now, why would a better damage model make that more/less likely? I still don't get how this would negatively impact the game?
:salute
I honestly think graduated damage with the graphics to go with it would be more intuitive for people. They can see 1/4 of their right aileron is missing, the aileron doesn't work as well as it did when it was undamaged. There are holes in their left wing, it doesn't work as well as it did when it was undamaged. The internal stuff on the engine or control systems I could live without, I just think it would be an improvement.
Wiley.
-
That's what I've been wishing for. I just don't get how/why it would be negative? :headscratch:
:salute
-
Ok, I think I'm starting to see Fugi's point, but I still don'y get how it would make it harder/frustrating? Having more things be damagable, progressive damage, or even just plane effects from damage won't make it harder. If people don't RTB now, why would a better damage model make that more/less likely? I still don't get how this would negatively impact the game?
:salute
It's a frustration thing, I'm thinkin'. I find the occasional pilot wound or engine oil hit to be a different challenge altogether. An oil hit may keep me in the fight for a bit since I generally fly Corsairs and they can last. A one ping head-on pilot wound with a base nearby becomes a fight/flight for survival to me. We're talking no damage to the plane but a single round coming through my canopy and grazing me. I'll break from the fight and land, if possible. Some may say, 'Well, that doesn't happen often.' It happened to me seven times in a row one night. I shoulda logged and bought a lotto ticket, perhaps. Imagine if one ping control surface cable hits compounded that. Now if we're talking about coding such (a joy and a breeze to do, some seem to think) and reducing the randomized percentage for each type of debilitating single hit (does anyone really think damage is truly subsystem targeted in this game?) - eh ok. But is it worth the wish to have that much time get in the way of even one new plane model (or ship or new terrain graphic, etc.)?
-
(does anyone really think damage is truly subsystem targeted in this game?)
Um... Yeah, I do. The subsystems aren't outlined in any major detail, but if you hit the spinner on a D9, it takes out the radiator. Shoot pilot with .45, pilot wound/kill. It's pretty evident.
But is it worth the wish to have that much time get in the way of even one new plane model (or ship or new terrain graphic, etc.)?
I'd say yes, going hand in hand with improved plane models/graphics. It's an improvement to gameplay, which to me is a much better improvement than a new ship or terrain graphic because it makes every aspect of the game different and better IMO.
Wiley.
-
Um... Yeah, I do. The subsystems aren't outlined in any major detail, but if you hit the spinner on a D9, it takes out the radiator. Shoot pilot with .45, pilot wound/kill. It's pretty evident.
Hmmm. So you are certain that subsystem hits aren't part of a randomizer algorithm modified by angle of attack? What is that based on other than 'pretty evident' perception? (You haven't seen the threads where someone complained that they took a rad hit from behind, I take.)
I'd say yes, going hand in hand with improved plane models/graphics. It's an improvement to gameplay, which to me is a much better improvement than a new ship or terrain graphic because it makes every aspect of the game different and better IMO.
Everyone has a right to one. My opinion is that it's not as critical as, say, upgrading the 3d models of all the planes and vehicles.
-
Unless it's a flap. Then you have to explain to them that even though they can't see it, it's actually stuck in the last position it was in. Makes much more sense. How do you explain to any of these poor, benighted souls that their landing gear has been damaged when they can't see it? How can they POSSIBLY comprehend that their F6F has tail damage when it cannot be seen? Madness! You also can't see gun damage. These people must be so, so incredibly confused every time they log into the game.
Just as a for instance, if there was a control linkage issue with your right aileron, it could conceivably 'not move' when you move the stick. It could also show up in the damage display, to give people an indication that something was damaged on their aircraft.
So you can't. That's ok it was pretty much a rhetorical question anyways.
If it doesn't move, there's something wrong with it. Simple.
Wiley.
Remember, I'm player "Devils Advocate" here. Personally I'm all for anything HTC does. I've been here for almost 12 and a half years and have seen ALL the changes. Some I like some ehhh not so much. But it all works out in the end.
The point here is from what I see of todays players.... and I'm talking about those in the game, NOT the mouth pieces we all love here on the boards :P me included! This type of damage model isn't something they "look" for, to them it's just going to be "awww crap, my plane isn't flying right!" followed closely by "I wish HITECH would fix these bugs in the flight models".
Most players are NOT into the aspect of flying and fighting in a WWII era fighter. I'd bet most would be happy if they looked like boxes as long as they were detail, pretty boxes. To them it's just a tool to get to the "win" they are looking for and at this point the "win" is joining up in a big group to roll an undefended base as quickly as they can.
-
Hmmm. So you are certain that subsystem hits aren't part of a randomizer algorithm modified by angle of attack? What is that based on other than 'pretty evident' perception? (You haven't seen the threads where someone complained that they took a rad hit from behind, I take.)
I've seen plenty of threads. One specific, I can't remember who, but it was his pet peeve that the dora took a lot of funny angle rad hits. He tested it with a jeep and a .50 and discovered it was the spinner that caused rad hits, which could be struck from some pretty wide angles. What are you basing your statement on?
Everyone has a right to one. My opinion is that it's not as critical as, say, upgrading the 3d models of all the planes and vehicles.
I'm all for it. I just don't like the fact that a plane can absorb dozens of MG rounds splashed across the entire airframe and still fly factory fresh. Anything we put in here is just noise anyways. HTC has their priority list and their plans, and the only reason to post anything in the wishlist is to possibly give them ideas, not change their minds.
Remember, I'm player "Devils Advocate" here. Personally I'm all for anything HTC does. I've been here for almost 12 and a half years and have seen ALL the changes. Some I like some ehhh not so much. But it all works out in the end.
The point here is from what I see of todays players.... and I'm talking about those in the game, NOT the mouth pieces we all love here on the boards :P me included! This type of damage model isn't something they "look" for, to them it's just going to be "awww crap, my plane isn't flying right!" followed closely by "I wish HITECH would fix these bugs in the flight models".
Most players are NOT into the aspect of flying and fighting in a WWII era fighter. I'd bet most would be happy if they looked like boxes as long as they were detail, pretty boxes. To them it's just a tool to get to the "win" they are looking for and at this point the "win" is joining up in a big group to roll an undefended base as quickly as they can.
I don't agree with that assessment. If you put two airplane games up, one that had minecraft-style graphics where you shoot the box shaped wing until it falls off, and then put it beside a game that had a photorealistic airplane shedding little bits of metal as it was gradually sawed apart by bullets, and they were both using identical flight models I think you'd have far, far more 'average gamers' wanting to play the second one.
If anything, I'd expect the game would be far more popular if they upped the detail on the DM with graphical effects to match it and dumbed the hell out of the FM. I sincerely doubt that'll ever happen though.
Wiley.
-
I've seen plenty of threads. One specific, I can't remember who, but it was his pet peeve that the dora took a lot of funny angle rad hits. He tested it with a jeep and a .50 and discovered it was the spinner that caused rad hits, which could be struck from some pretty wide angles. What are you basing your statement on?
Rounds hitting the spinner causing radiator damage is not an example of the radiator subsystem being specifically target-able. Do you think all spinner hits result in radiator damage? If that's the case, we'd actually be better off with a random algorithm. It would be easier to code and you may well get all sorts of other detailed damage out of it. Make ... the ... percentages ... low.
-
Rounds hitting the spinner causing radiator damage is not an example of the radiator subsystem being specifically target-able. Do you think all spinner hits result in radiator damage? If that's the case, we'd actually be better off with a random algorithm. It would be easier to code and you may well get all sorts of other detailed damage out of it. Make ... the ... percentages ... low.
Yeah, it is, and yes, by his testing, hitting the spinner damaged the radiator every time, no matter the angle. We can quibble about what it should be, but from what I've seen and read, whatever gets hit takes damage, not some random chance for a hit on the 'engine zone' to either take out the radiator, oil, or whatever.
As I stated earlier, I think the best solution is to have the critical components at least roughed out in an outline, damage to whatever you hit should cause damage to whatever you hit. Random is stupid. I'm not fond of the radiator taking damage off the spinner either, just FYI.
Wiley.
-
Arlo, I am all for the updated models and new things for me to pilot and drive, but I also have to agree with Wiley on the point that randomness isn't an upside to this game. One-hit pilot kills happening just because of their angle of attack, or spraying all over an airframe, not hitting that sweet spot, and the plane gets away, is not what I want. Granted, the game is amazing as-is, but it's these sorta things that I can't stand. :salute
-
Arlo, I am all for the updated models and new things for me to pilot and drive, but I also have to agree with Wiley on the point that randomness isn't an upside to this game.
No one is even talking about "random" damage effects. No one here has been saying "Ok, now roll 1d20 for damage effects." Where do people get the idea that we're wanting random effects?
Everything that can get damaged inside the airplane, whether it's fuel, oil or control lines, the oil coolers, port-a-potty, fuzzy dice hanging from the mirror, WHATEVER, would have a specific collision detection box associated with it. If the box is hit, that component is hit, just like any other system damage on the aircraft. It would be no more random than guys whose gunner already relies on spraying a bunch of bullets and hope a couple pings find something sensitive. All that WOULD be changing is that there would be a few more sensitive bits than there are now.
-
No one is even talking about "random" damage effects. No one here has been saying "Ok, now roll 1d20 for damage effects." Where do people get the idea that we're wanting random effects?
Everything that can get damaged inside the airplane, whether it's fuel, oil or control lines, the oil coolers, port-a-potty, fuzzy dice hanging from the mirror, WHATEVER, would have a specific collision detection box associated with it. If the box is hit, that component is hit, just like any other system damage on the aircraft. It would be no more random that guys who spray a bunch of bullets and hope a couple pings find something sensitive. All that WOULD be changing is that there would be a few more sensitive bits than there are now.
That's what I meant, sorry. I like the whole collision box for almost everything inside and outside of a plane idea. I guess that's what I was going for.
:salute
-
I will answer this one post from you. You have proving many times on this board that you either do not read the other post in the thread, or just plain don't understand what was written. So for the benefit of the doubt I'll answer you this one time in this thread.
I read and understand what is written. And then I explain fairly clearly why what is written is wrong :devil But I suppose this passive-aggressive pansyism is the sort of response that can be expected from someone who carps endlessly at other players on 200 when the fights don't go his way. :D
-
I read and understand what is written. And then I explain fairly clearly why what is written is wrong :devil But I suppose this passive-aggressive pansyism is the sort of response that can be expected from someone who carps endlessly at other players on 200 when the fights don't go his way. :D
LOL!!! what a loser. As I said I shouldn't have bothered answering you, you have proven my point. Congratulations.
-
LOL!!! what a loser. As I said I shouldn't have bothered answering you, you have proven my point. Congratulations.
You opened the ball on the ad hominem front, I merely responded in the best possible way to such garbage, by accurately describing its source. Although I don't bombard 200 with constant whining like you do, I do watch it sometimes, and from your running commentary it seems that everyone is always playing the game unfairly with poor little Fugi. :devil Alas, if no ever told you it is unbecoming and unmanly to resort to personal attacks just because you lose at a game or a discussion, it is probably too late for you to learn now.
-
Why don't you two just shake hands and play nice now.
Yes, that's better.
- oldman
-
Why don't you two just shake hands and play nice now.
Yes, that's better.
- oldman
*Shrug* I myself would have preferred to keep the discussion confined to ideas about the damage model, but after finding myself waylaid by ad hominem love muffinery from this king of BBS+Channel 200 rant-whines against other players, I can hardly be criticized for responding in kind.
-
Everything that can get damaged inside the airplane, whether it's fuel, oil or control lines, the oil coolers, port-a-potty, fuzzy dice hanging from the mirror, WHATEVER, would have a specific collision detection box associated with it.
And what I'm saying is that if a spinner = radiator then all damage is currently calculated on surface hits. That means no true modeling of internal components. That means either something entirely new to code or dividing up the surface more (or randomizing hit locations with more pieces of pie to represent more components to hit or multiple types of reaction in a specific area).
I might imagine how wonderful it would be if each individual projectile of mine or the other guy acted just like real life and every rivet and bolt of my ride did the same upon impact or explosion but I always think first the value versus the work (I'm just built that way, ptp). I'm not that much into micro-detail. Then again, I was of the same mind regarding environmental graphics.
-
And what I'm saying is that if a spinner = radiator then all damage is currently calculated on surface hits. That means no true modeling of internal components. That means either something entirely new to code or dividing up the surface more (or randomizing hit locations with more pieces of pie to represent more components to hit or multiple types of reaction in a specific area).
I might imagine how wonderful it would be if each individual projectile of mine or the other guy acted just like real life and every rivet and bolt of my ride did the same upon impact or explosion but I always think first the value versus the work (I'm just built that way, ptp). I'm not that much into micro-detail. Then again, I was of the same mind regarding environmental graphics.
Ok, thank you for not going at other people, and instead put your thoughts down in a way that didn't condescend or intentionally hurting someone. Now I understand your thoughts, and, while they are different thenn mine, I respect them. :salute
-
See Rule #4
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y&feature=player_detailpage#t=74
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y&feature=player_detailpage#t=74
Absolute perfect description of what happens here on a daily basis.
-
Absolute perfect description of what happens here on a daily basis.
No it doesn't. :bolt:
Wiley.
-
Absolute perfect description of what happens here on a daily basis.
(http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/9965/hitoverhead.gif)
-
See Rule #4
-
i like the idea... but i dont think that it was fully processed i mean what does "more damage modeling" actually mean well...bb's would be alot more effective.. 12 gun hurri's would get real popular and already unstable planes would become... glass
and people would just spray you run away and wait for you to screw up and die
it is hard to say for anyone to say.. what can be flown what can be saved and what is fatal...
As im sure many people here have seen this pic...i find it has a valid point just because in someones mind they think"it cannot fly" there is someone who can make it fly
(at least control it may not be combat worthy..)
(http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/nose/nose5.gif)
(http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/unresting/b11ae892-e6f7-4b71-b178-925f6280e0e9.png)
this is a picture of a b17 i took into a furball 8 guys jumped me 7/8 went down 1 made it back i went threw and highlighted all the damage despite having landed with just over 1min of fuel... it was not exactly easy to bring it back but if the plane above..made it back...i think id be disappointed if even though despite the damage that plane took i would not be able to make it back because someone deemed that my plane was "no longer fly-able" in there eyes...also i think this is perfectly clear..that there is more then "all or nothing" modeled and... flying with 30% of your plane in the ocean is plenty hard enough... alot of people can hardly fly without a stall limiter on...or without auto take off...
and also on that note i believe only real noticeable difference you would easily see each time.. is maybe a bit of pull to one side/slower speed from added drag(but i do not know as i have not flown in a plane that got shot up)
so i have to say -1 because what we got works...it gets the job done... and keeps the game fun its not to serious..but serious enough at least our tanks/planes dont have Health bars and our p47m's dont break the sound barrier...as long as it stays that way...im good with damage model..except for flak/engine hits/pilot wounds
-
Im either way on this issue. The DM we have and its effect against the overall FM is just fine as it is.
ONTHEOTHERHAND
I too think it would be a novel idea to flesh-out the subsystem aspect as a possible addition to the DM we have now.
(disclaimer)
Ive been around awhile so i at least am not worried about changes to the game. Been paying a Decade. I will remain paying until HTC closes its doors.
DM update with Graphics update...i would be a grinning happy camper.
else wise im just a happy camper :aok
:salute
:angel:
-
See Rule #4
-
i like the idea... but i dont think that it was fully processed i mean what does "more damage modeling" actually mean well...bb's would be alot more effective.. 12 gun hurri's would get real popular and already unstable planes would become... glass
and people would just spray you run away and wait for you to screw up and die
it is hard to say for anyone to say.. what can be flown what can be saved and what is fatal...
As im sure many people here have seen this pic...i find it has a valid point just because in someones mind they think"it cannot fly" there is someone who can make it fly
(at least control it may not be combat worthy..)
(http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/photos/nose/nose5.gif)
(http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/unresting/b11ae892-e6f7-4b71-b178-925f6280e0e9.png)
this is a picture of a b17 i took into a furball 8 guys jumped me 7/8 went down 1 made it back i went threw and highlighted all the damage despite having landed with just over 1min of fuel... it was not exactly easy to bring it back but if the plane above..made it back...i think id be disappointed if even though despite the damage that plane took i would not be able to make it back because someone deemed that my plane was "no longer fly-able" in there eyes...also i think this is perfectly clear..that there is more then "all or nothing" modeled and... flying with 30% of your plane in the ocean is plenty hard enough... alot of people can hardly fly without a stall limiter on...or without auto take off...
and also on that note i believe only real noticeable difference you would easily see each time.. is maybe a bit of pull to one side/slower speed from added drag(but i do not know as i have not flown in a plane that got shot up)
so i have to say -1 because what we got works...it gets the job done... and keeps the game fun its not to serious..but serious enough at least our tanks/planes dont have Health bars and our p47m's dont break the sound barrier...as long as it stays that way...im good with damage model..except for flak/engine hits/pilot wounds
WTG on that 17 run, I've had a similar experience
(http://i1344.photobucket.com/albums/p659/XxDaSTaRXx/ahss32_zps7c430c5b.png)
-
Well I mean, honestly, A P-51 with a missing flap for example should fly differently than a P-51 that has just taken off. It just bothers me when I get a big hole in my wing and I continue to fly almost perfectly fine
-
Well I mean, honestly, A P-51 with a missing flap for example should fly differently than a P-51 that has just taken off. It just bothers me when I get a big hole in my wing and I continue to fly almost perfectly fine
Hitech has stated many times the damage model goes farther than you see...
-
Well I mean, honestly, A P-51 with a missing flap for example should fly differently than a P-51 that has just taken off. It just bothers me when I get a big hole in my wing and I continue to fly almost perfectly fine
a p51 with a missing flap flies different than a p51 with no damage.
semp
-
Well I mean, honestly, A P-51 with a missing flap for example should fly differently than a P-51 that has just taken off. It just bothers me when I get a big hole in my wing and I continue to fly almost perfectly fine
If a P51 flap is damaged while deployed, it flies similar to having that flap frozen in that position.
So now if you retract the other flap, you're going to want to land real quick.
This happened to me in F4U and I had to deploy other flap back to 2 notches to even be able to fly.
In this situation the plane isn't any good for anything.