Some old and crusty quotes from CRS

This could be a few different things, but more than likely it points to the route switching that we added with 1.8.4 and have tweaked host side since.

Everytime you despawn we run the route checker to make sure your connect is still within cirtain limits. It is quite probable that some part of that process is failing. That could explain the part about two different spawns seeing two different results. This is assuming that the FPS hit is related to connectivity.

However, this problem being limited to a chipset or system spec item refutes that finding altogether as the route switcher does not care about your processor or system at all...it only requiers a packet stream.

The bottom line is this: We are aware, and we don't know the cause yet. As soon as we find the cause we will fix it, and finding that cause is currently a top priority.I hope this gives you guys the info you're looking for.

Here's an overview on the graphics engine update planned for WWII Online:

We began specifying 'Unity 3D II", a new version of our proprietary MMOG graphics engine, some time ago with goal of providing a next generation look and feel, taking advantage of the newer video card features while seeking performance gains.

Development work has begun on 'Unity 3D II' with a decision to shift from Microsoft's DirectX technologies to OpenGL video standards. This decision was motivated by a number of factors including:

- Streamlining our ability to introduce and immediately implement support for new in-game graphic features (Windows and Mac platforms)
- Enhancing these features through driver and card updates with less development effort
- Releases graphic feature development from DirextX implementation
- Enhance and improve both performance as well as visual quality

Some of the new features slated for 'Unity 3D II' implentation include:

- 3 level multi-texturing for higher detailed terrain and object texturing
- Short range “immersive” ground clutter system
- 3-D volumetric clouds
- Water movement, reflection and alpha
- Fog/Mist
- Sun glare
- Rain, Snow, and seasonal weather
- Dynamic shadows (stretching with light source movement)
- Self-shadowing (objects casting shadows upon themselves)
- 3-D walls on all enterable buildings
- Enhanced texture compression and formatting for performance and quality
- Moving/Waving objects (flags etc)
- LOD-by-type system (More aggressive levels of detail biased by unit type for example:troops see more detailed buildings than aircraft do)

Not all of these features may be included in 'Unity 3D II' and it is likely developed features will be added to the game in stages rather than a single release. As we get closer to firming up the feature set for 'Unity 3D II' we will provide additional information. Initial implimentation of 'Unity 3D II' will simply be the replacement of current DirectX graphics functionality utilizing OpenGL routiens, once that is in place an aggresive development plan will see the above features added as soon as they are completed.

In order to make the move to OpenGL as smooth as possible we are planning to run an open Beta test prior to the public release of the OpenGL client. At this time we are not able to provide the date of the open Beta test. Check back for more news on this.

If you are wondering if your video card supports OpenGL, chances are excellent that if you can run the game now you will be able to under OpenGL. In fact, virtually every video card driver set released in the past 24 months includes full support for OpenGL.

More news on the Beta test and 'Unity 3D II' will be posted as soon as we are able.

You can still shoot stuff down, just ignore score until we get it fixed. If you can't do that, take a vacation, because we're working on it and it can't be done any faster. No, we don't like having to be in this position, but other than working on it, there's nothing else we can do.

You want to yell at us because this isn't good enough ? I understand, go right ahead. Still won't be done any faster, but do what you have to do.

Hope you all read the comments I made about:-

1. RDP is getting a pretty high level overhaul in form and function (being written right now) and will be drastically better in new unit introduction and current unit production as a function of how you get it, when, and how many different types at a time. No details until it's fully drafted and all the loopholes addressed at the design/implementation level. More stuff, greater variety, faster introduction and mutitudes of different paths and consequenxes to choice selection. Like, more than 1 new unit type at a time, and no more fixed cycles.

2. EWS. Yup, a way to track bombers but without all seeing instant radar in every plane, which would be easier to track with but hokey. There is a simple way to provide nearly the same level of feedback but with some intrigue and allowing for the best communications orientated teams to have stellar success and those who don't get organized less success.

We hope to have both of these features into the game with v1.15, but it will be tight so I won't spend any further time chatting about it, better to just get to work and see if it can be crammed into the next release. If not that, a point release to follow.

Yeah, we know it takes too long. It does get done as fast as we can do it though, and that's faster than anyone else is doing this kind of thing, don't forget.

Q: Hey Gopher, are there plans to add in support for Track IR?
A: No. No plans and unless there is a lot more markiting of those products, not likely in the future.

It's not perfect, and it's an old feature.

It was based on medical documentation and some personal positive G and Negative G experiences had by our original Physics programmer (Johnathan Hoof in a T-6) and myself (in a P-51D).

Before I defend it, I want to say two things:

1) The blackout effect we have is the closest I have seen to the blackouts I experienced in the back seat of a P-51D in Mesa AZ doing a split ess, and recovery from a high speed (400MPH) dive.

2) Negative Gs hurt...a lot. While small ammounts are mearly horribly uncomfortable, intense pain comes shortly after that and is usually followed by the body trying to escape the pain (read: get the aircraft into a flight profile that doesn't physically hurt).

Nowthen. One of the real issues here is that stick forces are very difficult to model. What we have is a 3D model flying through a 6 degrees of freedom simulation with accurate forces aplied, and we then insert a model for human blood pressure, and pain (red out effect is really a "pain" function in our model which might spread some light).

I'm not trying to form excuses here, but if you are dying from redout the first place your should look (and the shortest possible solution time) should be the keymapper and your deadband settings. Even if we all thought it was broken to a degree which intimated immidiate repair (which we do not) it would take us a while to re-write it as it is a core function effecting all levels of play (troops tanks, planes etc).

If you are having a hard time with this you owe it to yourself to spend some time looking into solutions through deadband settings . All sticks are different, the max throw vs 100% control input is DRASTICALLY differenet on many sticks, as well, the spring systems can run from stiff to flacid. These elements are the reason you see some folks in here having prblems while some are not. What you are seeing is different hardware profiles working the same software functionaility.

Believe me, I've been in sims a L_O_N_G time.

Back to the top: We will revisit this someday, we want to make it better. And in that revisit we will probably have a mandate to fix the redout without screwing up the blackout too much.

Suggestion: Test offline with your deadbands. Use the tilde (`) key to show your flight info and note your G state during testing.

Thanks~

Mo.

MO wrote:I know I'll get slammed for this, but.

Axis planes are generally more of a challenge. They are in any sim worth it's balls too, because they were that way in "real life."

The first real decent physics loop in a flight sim was probably Eric Parker's Hellcats over the Pacific for the Mac 1991.

We have a rudder/yaw problem in our physics loop and it does bug the hell out of us. We do not have time or resource to dig into the loop too deeply right now, but we do have a plan to try and address it in data. I can make no promise other than we want that aspect of the physics loop to be better.

And again, the Bf109 and Fw190 are not easy planes to master, and yes they WERE less stable than the Hawker, Supermarine, and Curtiss fighters. That's just the truth of their airframe design.

"Give me a squadron of Spitfires"
-Adolf Galland

I think those suggessting certain things are not going to be modeled could well be wrong.

The question is not what, it's when.

We can do 3 planes per dev. cycle MAX, and that's not including the tanks and other weapons that we have to crank out, at 3 per cycle also. That's one item per country per dev. cycle, on average.

Since that's the reality of what it takes to build just 3 items (and it can frequently take longer for a variety of reasons) you must begin to grok that some things are:-

1) A fair way off

or

2) We get more artists

Doc wrote:So, with resources here tight prodcuing what we have planned for the BB box, there are not going to be any bombers put into development for at least the first half of this year. If you think that survivability against "tier 2 fighters" is a reason to model them, even when resources here are tight, well, on a survivability basis, that is probably a very bad assumption.

S! Folks

We realize that you love the game, and want what is best for it as much as we do. Your support through the years has got us to here and we greatly appreciate it. Your concerns are well within limits, and we certainly understand them. Our team here has been going over this release and all the concerns in order to prepare for it. Next week it goes to the publisher, within a matter of weeks we will have our product back on the shelves in the US, and on the shelves for the first time in many other countries. We need this release to be a success. We need to populate the game, and we really want to use the success to expand our team here. We have a lot riding on this release. From the preorders to the actual release, the future production abilities of our game is dependant on this release.

What that means is, if it is successful, we get to expand our team. This will speed up production of the game you currently play and also preparing for the next release and NA. We have lots of stuff that we want to do, and we can do it much quicker if this release brings in a measured success that will allow us to pick up more subscribers to expand the budget.

We realize that some feel that this is not the right time, we have to disagree. We look at where the game is, where the company is, the future plans of the company, and the market. We are releasing to fullfill the needs of our company. We have reviewed everything and the time is now. Our team will have the product ready for release, and it will be a success. We are taking every step that we can including bringing on more rats to do it. Even many of the old rats are lending a helping hand at times. We are ready to release, so while we all have concerns, the focus must now turn to how to make it even better. In only a few weeks you folks will have tons of new green tags out there. They will look at people like Bilton as god, and many more of you. We really could use your help in raising the preorder numbers, and when the new guys get in helping them with the game.

The time for concerns on the release is past, our plan is in motion now. In a couple of weeks some may earn the right to say the "I told you so line." Until then believe in our team. You have seen us get here against the belief of most. You and our team here made it happen.

The game needs your help in the preorder right now. We have had a slow start on them, and need to get them up. This will excite the publishers to put more money behind marketing, and getting more stores to order the box. This is where the help is needed most right now.

We appreciate your concerns, we have them too. Our future depends on success of this release so that we can expand and make thisgame much better at a faster pace. New engines for the game and that will come as it is now, just not as fast as what it would be if we have success from this release.
__________________
--
WWII Online Community Management
Playnet/Cornered Rat Software
badger@playnet.com

In the game now, the person that fires the weapon, throws the grenade, drops the bomb, etc, sees where the projectile hits, and damages what it hits.

Everybody else sees where their computer can best estimate where that projectile hits. You can see this 24x7 in-game by watching one tank shoot at another tank. You see the tank missing the other tank, but then the target tank blows up. This is because on the firing tanks machine, he was hitting the tank.

With an ordnance server, we'd all get messages from the server tracking the projectile (at CRS's location) about exactly where that projectile is.

Now, grenades. When the projectile bounces around after it hits, you get even more disparity between the firing person's view and everyone else's. Imagine if someone threw a bouncing grenade at you and you ran. You ran around a corner, down the stairs and crouched behind a table. You hear the grenade explode upstairs and then you die. This is because, on your computer the grenade bounced off a wall and stayed upstairs. However, the person that threw the grenade saw it bounce off a wall, around the corner, down the stairs and land under a table.

Well, it sucks, and it would happen a lot. In fact, if they added bouncing grenades to the game as the ordnance firing is handled right now...just about the safest place you could stand is directly on top of where you see the grenade land...because that will rarely be where it actually is.

So, CRS made a decision. Grenades will explode on impact until they can set up a server to track all ordnance fired/thrown in the game, where everyone will see it in the same place. The alternative is having cool bouncing grenades that are fun to throw, but resulting in people dying all the time to phantom grenades they don't even see.In the game now, the person that fires the weapon, throws the grenade, drops the bomb, etc, sees where the projectile hits, and damages what it hits.

Everybody else sees where their computer can best estimate where that projectile hits. You can see this 24x7 in-game by watching one tank shoot at another tank. You see the tank missing the other tank, but then the target tank blows up. This is because on the firing tanks machine, he was hitting the tank.

With an ordnance server, we'd all get messages from the server tracking the projectile (at CRS's location) about exactly where that projectile is.

Now, grenades. When the projectile bounces around after it hits, you get even more disparity between the firing person's view and everyone else's. Imagine if someone threw a bouncing grenade at you and you ran. You ran around a corner, down the stairs and crouched behind a table. You hear the grenade explode upstairs and then you die. This is because, on your computer the grenade bounced off a wall and stayed upstairs. However, the person that threw the grenade saw it bounce off a wall, around the corner, down the stairs and land under a table.

Well, it sucks, and it would happen a lot. In fact, if they added bouncing grenades to the game as the ordnance firing is handled right now...just about the safest place you could stand is directly on top of where you see the grenade land...because that will rarely be where it actually is.

So, CRS made a decision. Grenades will explode on impact until they can set up a server to track all ordnance fired/thrown in the game, where everyone will see it in the same place. The alternative is having cool bouncing grenades that are fun to throw, but resulting in people dying all the time to phantom grenades they don't even see.

Q: Will we see the ordnance server in the next 12 months?
A: Can’t say for certain. Player vis limit is considered an order of magnitude more important at this time.

No, an "ordnance server" is actually a host that tracks fire messages, and where everything firing and being fired at ... is in the world.

Right now, your clients do all that and pass it through the host, for delivery to the players involved.

When all combat fire events are no longer client resolved or sent/received with the host acting as the switchboard connecting calls, but instead are host resolved and delivered to both parties with the clients being informed host -> client in both cases, rather than as client -> client via a host switchboard, then you have an ordnance server.

WW2OL was the game that was going to put SFI on the map since it was being made by a bunch of industry veterans and it seemed like a sure bet. They had a fairly big following from some of their previous titles (WarBirds I think and another one I can't remember) and the WWII subject matter wasn't done to death like it is today.

From what I remember, Cornered Rat told SFI everything was on schedule when everything obviously wasn't and SFI believed them without having it's own people verify that everything was indeed done. I also remember the insane number of pre-orders the game had which had stores ordering thousands of copies which forced SFI to start printing boxes, manuals and CD's much sooner than they would normally have. That's one of the reasons there was > 200MB patch at launch time. Also, the marketing materials stated all the features the game was SUPPOSED to have but low and behold, most of them never made it in which could be considered false advertising.

Also, I seem to remember "raw burger boy" was on duty back then and Cornered Rat set up a lame Web page to handle tech support. 90% of the users registered on the SFI forums were created by disgruntled WW2OL players and rapidly, the game was pulled off the shelves by retailers.

The game required something like 512 MB of RAM and SFI refused, so they printed something more reasonable on the box. Unfortunately Cornered Rat stuck to their guns and didn't fix the game to reflect the box...

So, who was to blame.... Ultimately SFI should have verified if what they were putting on shelves met a certain level of quality and they didn't.

"Yes, if we don't have 1945 done by 2004 I'm going to jump off the Empire State Building wearing a WWIIOL hat and bedsheet set."

Doc

KILLER wrote
OK it's been a couple of weeks, I've been in game and out and have come to a few conclusions.

First reasoning that got us where we are.

Joe player, not in a squad, just a noob, logs in for some action. This is the guy we need do convince to pay for the game if it to succeed.

After a few minutes he see a town with an explosion on it, woot! its an enemy town too!!

He spawns in and dies in 5 seconds. He respawns and then sees that there are ten tanks around the depot, blowing anything that moves to pieces. He doesn't even know it's because some guy or 3 snuck in and capped it with zero support, and zero chance to hold it more than the time it takes to cap it back.

So, he goes elsewhere. He sees a friendly town with an explosion icon and says WOOT a fight! and it's MY town, and spawns in.

He spawns into an AB with 7 tanks in it, and everything in sight is blown away as it spawns. He says DAMN that was harsh, I think I'll go somewhere else.

He sees a .ALLIED that says GO TO DINANT AND DEFEND so he does. He spawns in and there's a fight!! WOOT FINALLY! HE actually gets to shoot ONE GUY WOOT!! I GOT A KILL!! within 5 minutes though there's no enemy, so he waits, and waits, and waits... Hmm well I got one short fight in the last hour, it's not all bad but this is boring, every time I get a fight they stop attacking us and I sit for an hour.

And he leaves never to return.

Meanwhile, a small group of guys logs off after moling 6 depots, and getting 200 "regular joe" people camped when they spawn into it and log off happy as little clams while the 200 log off and never return.

And 2-3 squads of ten have precamped 3 towns and killed 4-600 "regular joe" players into the dirt. They have this down to the finest artform, knowing where EWS sets off almost to the pixel, knowing just where to park to get the perfect shots in th garage, to get that last inch of vis into the barrak door, precision defined. I've gone out with you and participated, it's quite impresssive.

While the 4-600 they camped log off once again in dusgust and don't subscribe.

I don't play in a squad, and what I described is what I see in game when I play 90% of the time.

So we've changed it so that sides have to COMMIT to an attack once they start and can't just evaporate and appear anywhere, so that one lil guy can't go take what he shouldn't WANT to take and get 200 people camped.

I know you all understand where I'm coming from, you've ALL been at the recieveing end of it. I know it can be fun, but it's NOT fun for that large group of "regular joe" guys we must gain as customers.

So where are we today.........

Three main issues, I'll take the easiest first.

Attacks with AO's are too hard. I totally agree. Now that we have a fight, the main focus of everything we do until christmas is specifically to make the fights more fun.

This starts with making them shorter, making attrition faster, and lessening a few defensive advantages.

What we are looking at is reducing the number of rifles at a town, and/or increasing the time it takes for them to start resupplying there are just too many for anything but a monster attack to wear down before supply starts replacing them.

So first we fix that, so every battle isn't so long and drawn out. I would expect to see a lot more manual resupply of infantry, but that's ok.

Second, it's been a complaint for a long time that attacks are too hard because defenders get to respawn so close to the objective. this complaint has been around as long as camping has, and has only reduced as a top complaint as more people take up precamping to avoid it.

As well, from the very first reviews and years of feedback, as much as I resisted, the infantry from the FB is just too long a time to combat. Everything I see says so, from the guys who spawn in and despawn if no truck is waiting (and these are regular joe noob, who then never return), to the 20 guys waiting in a depot spawn list for twice as long as a truck ride would take to avoid coming from an FB.

So we're looking at mobile infantry spawns to level that playing field and give attackers a break. I think will make attacks a LOT easier to keep going.

We're also looking at opening up the depots to let more troops out faster to help with both attrition, and making a depot captured on an attack more helpful and valuable, even thoug it ALSO benefits defenders too.


Second problem Squads are feeling disenfranchised.

This is a temporary issue. The plan for AO's is temporary, TOE's with supply lines will follow them as soon™ as we make the changes we need to make to convert attacks to something more fun. If AO's weren't having issues we would be doing this right now.

The entire purpose of a TOE is make a REAL supply line. This will be compose of all towns between the front line TOE and it's parent in the rear. That means a depot taken in that line of towns cuts that supply line, and it has to reroute, if there is no posible route with all open depots then that TOE gets no supply.

The no link no ca rule also goes away with supply lines, meaning a small group can now go ANYWHERE on the entire map and capture stuff. However, if you capture something in the rear, you'll get no spawn unless YOU have a supply line. And yes paratroopers will be in BEFORE this happens. And no Objectives will NOT have to be placed.

You won't have a spawn, but you will be able to take "a bridge too far" and cut supply to help out forces at the front with your operations.

Third problem and this one is a big one.

Everyone wants supply, everyone wants more strtegic play as it makes things more interesting and makes things play out a little differently every map. Not the same old thing every time.

We want a world where players have freedom to play with EVERYTHING. That's the HC's. We've tried a lot of different things with the HC's, we've had good players and bad join up and do their best for all players.

We want function for players to change, to spice things up, to allow for AL aspects ofwar from what to make when, how many, do we take on bombing campaigns, where do the large forces attack etc. This is a dream of a total player controlled world.

This is what HC's are, a representative government by and for the players. It doesn't look like we've hi that goal very well, as too many players do not see the HC's as representing them.

We have a plan for instituting a system in the long run, where players get voted up from the ground up, and have a term limit, but it's a ways out as it has to wait behinf TOE's and supply, paratroopers and such.

We just don't have a good plan that can be done NOW with what we have and at the same time as these other changes. This will though be upermost in my thinking as to solutions to get an HC setup the entire playerbase, or the majority to enjoy, to feel as though they represent them, and to feel is a positive aspect of the game.

SO, THAT is what's on my mind tonight. When we put out AO's I specifically told the HC higher ups that this is their definign hour, their real test as to whether the HC system as we know it will work. I ask that you all, instead of getting nasty and hateful, give them a break, a benefit of a doubt, and TRY to work with them. Also I ask you to CALMLY express what isn't working so I can use that information to improve when we can do so.

I also asked you folks here in these forums o have a little patience when we put out AO's, because as it is such a change, I KNEW a lot of folks would be unhappy and changes would ahve to be made. It's been two weeks, we have changes ready, and the first will roll out next week with the new tanks you'll soon™ be seeing on the battlefield.

I now ask you to try these new changes with an open mind, and give me feedback whethr they are helping and how, and if they aren't enough be assured larger ones are already underway for the next patch.

So that's what's on my mind, and my mind is the largest influence on the development of the game.

Discuss, but PLEASE leave out the hyperbole, keep is calm and reasoned and not exaggerated.

I should write out thoughts and plans like this more often, I don;t do it enough. So fel free to copy this out to squad forums etc. so people can see what's going on, and get a better Idea why we are doing what we are doing.

pittpete wrote:Yeah Killer this worked out well.
Now you have people logging in that run to town get killed or have their FRU camped.
It was a great game when it was squad based and players should've been persuaded to join a squad
This game wasn't made for lonewolfs