Friday Update, February 24, 2012

[addman]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

Let's see how many posts we can get up to with continued retorts, but with the addition of a 'let's get back on topic' chaser as a white wash.

ha ha

lol! I was thinking the same...now let's get back on topic!

[bw_wolverine]

I'm happy with the addition of the tank stuff. Like many have said, it's obvious that it was supposed to be part of the game. I doubt the people working on it would have much to do with new content for the flight part anyway, so I doubt there's any resource 'suck' going on with its continued development.

Even if there is, well, I'm still enjoying the game, and the only MAJOR problem I currently have with the game is the crashing, which should be (fingers crossed) solved by the impending patch dealing with the graphics.

I would add that the idea of a tanks vs target / planes vs tanks mission in mulitplayer could be a ton of fun; where the players on the one side are using tanks and anti-air vehicles and have to reach and take out a ground target and the planes have to take out the tanks before they reach the target. Very different experiences. Variety in gameplay is a great thing, on my opinion.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

Let's see how many posts we can get up to with continued retorts, but with the addition of a 'let's get back on topic' chaser as a white wash.

You noticed that too

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by III/JG53_Don

Did I miss something regarding the tree collision? Because B6 answered to my statement on page 4 (that we now need tree collision for sure) the following:



From my understanding this means, that they are far from releasing a patch with tree collision at least in nearest future.

You are absolutely correct. Some people either misunderstood the original comment (which is fine), or they are trying to sneak in some irony about often-repeated subjects that will end up derailing the thread (which is not fine at all and i'm onto it, just in case)

Originally Posted by Sutts

Wouldn't a solution to this problem be tree settings as a server parameter? Different servers would support different tree densities and everyone would be on a level playing field then?

Also correct. Something similar happened ages ago with the detailed clouds back in the original IL2: people with higher detail clouds lost sight of contacts in them much easier than people with low detail clouds.

The solution was even simpler, the server admin would just post a message on the forums and a similar one in-game at regular intervals: "please use low detail clouds to ensure you are not at a disadvantage". Of course everyone used low detail clouds. When everyone's hardware caught up, the issue disappeared.

In our case, we can simply do with a minimum enforced level of detail: the server should force low forest density as a minimum (eg, users can still set forest to medium or high if they want a prettier picture, but not turn it off completely and sidestep the common boundary of the playing field in terms of collisions and visibility), just to have some trees around, while the players can be informed via on-screen messages that they should use the server setting and not higher if they want to remain competitive.

Find me one person in this forum who, given a choice, will fly with forest on high if it gives the other guy an edge

In other words, problem is pretty much solved on the player level anyway thanks to competition, and the more people try to paint this as a problem, the more i'll just have to keep reminding them of how such "problems" can be solved with the flick of a switch and have been repeatedly solved in the past, as long as someone is not hung up on making things harder than they really are

If the new graphics engine also manages to ensure that a minimum spec system is able to run with forest set to low, there won't even be a case of "sorry, can't join server XYZ". Server admins want to populate their servers, otherwise they are a waste of rented bandwidth. You think they will run forests on highest detail until the majority of their potential players have the hardware to keep up with it? I'm not so sure.

In fact, history has again shown that server admins do the exact opposite, they cater to their players: back when i used to occasionally fly IL2:1946 on Spits vs 109s there was a guy who had connection problems. The server admins would relax the ping restriction just so that one guy could fly (and good on them for being good sports and doing so), because empty servers are useless servers.


Now, in terms of the recently emerging back and forth...please cut it out both sides and try to control yourselves a bit. I don't want to have to delete 10 pages of off-topic posts again, so do me a favor and stick to discussing the update and not your opinions about other members

[priller26]

Bring on the game

[Zoom2136]

Originally Posted by RCAF_FB_Orville

Thanks for the update, but I have to say I've never played these ground type shoot em ups and have no interest whatsoever personally. If I did, I understand there are good tank sims etc and the like already on the market.

That said, looks ok for what it is (arcadish apparently) , might be fun for five minutes I'll concede, and I can definitely see the plus points in hopefully bringing in more revenue etc. I am not opposed to it as such, so long as Flight Simulation is paramount ; some people seem to be excited about it, and that's fine.....personally I couldn't care less, and its not for me.

Just be prepared for a future deluge of 13 year old 'Panzerkinder' laughing heartily whilst they blow up your flight of 109's on the ground, in a coordinated 'pincer troll assault'.

Online Chat: 'HAHAHAHAHA.....I blew up dat fuel depo and Trukz coz U thought I was on your sides U NOOBZ.....KA-BOOOOOM!!! HAHAHAHAHA.....I pwned U all, all UR planez 2......LOLZ, ROFLCOPTER....HAHAHAHA' (etc etc)

You get the picture.

Anyway, look forward to the patch, and hopefully correct performance data and ceilings etc for all aircraft both blue and red, correct octane fuel (or option even), AI working properly, working AA etc which is all I'm bothered about....but that's just me, and my opinion...so don't jump on me lol. Cheers. I'm glad that good progress has apparently been made on FPS and performance, we'll see.

Should be soon hopefully, looking forward to it.

Well it's better than... O for f?&k sake they cancelled COD... due to lack of funding...

Get over it... money talk and bullsh1t walks....

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Originally Posted by Zoom2136

Well it's better than... O for f?&k sake they cancelled COD... due to lack of funding...

Get over it... money talk and bullsh1t walks....

Of course its better than what you wrote, which I can't repeat because 'disguised' profanities earn you infraction points (well done).....'Get over' what? I'm just articulating what I'd like to see from upcoming patches, like many others. I'm sorry I do not share others apparent zeal for jeeps etc, but as the French say...C'est la Vie, and to each their own. *shrugs* .

Yes, money is important for development too, which might be why I bought the most expensive edition at the time (C.E.) to help out. Quid pro quo, though. Not unreasonable to expect a product which works properly in return, which I am boundlessly confident will be the case, and look forward to it. We are all fans. I think its obvious from my post that I'm looking forward to the patch and supporting CoD, one year on and being considerably patient, all told. Kindly 'Get over' yourself, pal.

Cheers.

[Vonte]

I don't know about you guys, but I think the patient has been in labour far too long. Time to induce the birth pretty damn quick before we all die of asphyxiation from holding our breaths for so long!!

+1

[MoGas]

Anybody knows, if there are any plans for the pacific campaign too?