Jump to content

Skwabie

Members
  • Posts

    603
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Skwabie

  1. Well debating about "modding" of CM itself is quite moot, as the developer has stated firmly many times that CM has to stay closed for profitability, maintainable tech support and a unified customer base. Open modding of games in general however has always been a coin of two sides it seems. It is like... liberal vs conservative computer game politics (too far?) I think the sweet spot is probably somewhere in between. The player should definitely have a choice of choosing his own contents and making up his own rules and systems (or choose not to) but, neither should a player take on the role of a developer in entirety. But if one uses mods one should be fully prepared to tinker with them that is a given. Then again I can think of some cases where it is difficult, one game (won't give name, don't want to upset ppl) uses java code mods, it can be debugged, sure, but way too tedious, more importantly the base game isn't worth the effort. Anyway Bulletpoint I think if the base game isn't good to begin with, it'll be very hard for 3rd party mods to change it. Mods basically enriches content and variety at the cost of stability and ease of use, the latter can be offset by self-debugging from a power user. But mods are helpless to change a game's core design. (i.e. one can mod database, but cannot mod source code). Rather, I look for games that are moddable, but are excellent without mods to begin with. As for JonS I wonder why can't you change Wittmann's skill setting yourself to your liking... or is it simply not an option once the scenario is completed? And about MP it is less of an issue these days, usually if a game supports both competitive MP and modding, an anti-cheat system is put in place.
  2. I've been locked down pretty tight at work time wise and web access wise so can't check the open net quite often. I have disabled the downloads on my mediafire account. It seems the idea of modding is still too... radical for this community. Personally I strongly believe each single player gamer should have a free choice, to play the game he likes the way he likes it, and not subject to the universal/collective rules set by the original game. It is his own time and his own fun. Time and time again there are 20 page forum threads going on, simply because someone doesn't like the existing way the game is set. Hence if such a choice is presented to me, I feel quite obligated to share it with everyone. Secondly, power users can use it to better understand game engine mechanisms, to better test, spot and fix bugs that official fixes may or may not come, a long time later. However, such an action disturbs the multiplayer community, compounded by the fact that CM HvH is strictly competitive, and not cooperative, and probably the fact that the CM community has never had a data/behavior modding culture. I can understand that. It is a pity, but OK. There are enough games out there that I can edit to my heart's content. As for TigerII's armor, my own opinion is that very late war German steel quality is extremely bad and riddled with defects. You can almost hit the tank with a big hammer, and there will be armor spalling and cracking on the other side. Although I never place much credit on the soviet tests, they are known to understate captured german hardware performances even against the western test reports. But hey, that's just me.
  3. Guys thanks for your support, will make a lowered tank commander mod for all RT tanks after finishing my current Blunting the spear campaign re-make.
  4. LOL is a good one! Don't think I thought of it. I suppose one can further illustrate with a ricochet shot hitting and killing nearby infantry. But I suppose once the shot comes into contact with a 2nd entity (infantry, vehicle, etc) it is a new calculation? About the turret armor on the real tank. For me the assumption that there is a.. hole.. behind the mantlet sounds almost absurd. I'm too busy to do extensive research, but also see no meaning in pointless debate. If you guys want to continue I really suggest that definitive proof is provided. About cheating, I've never played HvH nor imagine doing so in the future. If someone's actually bothering to do it, he's risking a whole lot for little to zero gain. The real benefit of lowering the tank commander further down is reducing player micro-managing workload, far as I see. CM's tank commanders are way too insensitive to incoming small arms fire and buttons way too late. I'd even say that this is a universal problem and way more important for a fix from the developer than the armor scheme on a single tank.
  5. uploaded files for lowered commander position. Also nulled the main gun hitbox, so main gun won't be disabled by weapon hits, although it is just an experiment to see if I like it. http://www.mediafire.com/download/mlfdu1d442bm91y/lowered+TC.rar The edits are extremely simple, one can use a hex editor that has a file compare function to find them. Negative... Armor quality, thickness and most assorted other datas are definitely hardcoded. As mentioned, what can be achieved on the 3D model is very limited. But since CM is so very tight on modding, I still find relief that at least something can be done.
  6. weta_nz/Bulletpoint, I'll upload a sample when home. c3k, my bulk of free time has dried up for the moment, statistical testing would've to wait till later. For spotting: what this edit does is lowering the TC's hitbox coordinates -- It looks like defining the hitbox is a primary funtion of the 3d model file. My (hopeful) guess is that spotting points, if there're such things within the game engine, are separately defined and aren't connected to the hitbox position. For TigerII armor: have already tried my best explaining in first 2 posts, and in my limited tests, the results before and after the edit are quite black and white. To summarize: 1000m, 122mm AP__hits on turret front armor___hits on mantlet before edit:________virtually no penetration____100% pen/partial pen, tank knocked out, or if lucky main gun and coax disabled + crew casualty after edit:_________virtually no penetration_____no mantlet after edit, hits scored on turret front behind it, virtually no penetration So to put more bluntly, if assuming game engine is working fine, we would have: thickness of mantlet + thickness of turret front < thickness of turret front. ---> This is false, hence assumption is false. (uhh need some sleep...)
  7. I'm just trying to make a better game experience for myself atm, but it definitely would be nice if it can be properly fixed. I am trying other edits. Without modding tools and locked database what can be done is very limited but, nonetheless it's worth a shot. If anyone recalls there was a fix that lowered halftrack gunner's stance so they are less exposed to small arms fire (I still think Bil Hardenburger vs c3k's demo AAR had a big part to do with it!..). The same can be done to tank commanders. Before: After: I've tested by lowering the commander completely into the turret, and incoming bullets weren't able to hit him. The rare exception is a "Hit: Opening" and the bullet ricochets inside to turret and causes the casualty.
  8. Next: attempted fix. Usually, as we know it, one'd start a forum thread to get developer attention. But instead of doing that, which either ends up with a multi-page debate with no conclusion, or mostly being neglected, in either case the chance of a fix is rather minuscule, and which should I say after doing similar things on various forums over the years has become a very frustrating experience, I decided to do something myself. So armed with a hexeditor, relentless trial-and-error spirit and hours of free time over the weekend, I came up with a solution. The intention and achieved result is simple: to make the game engine think, that there is no mantlet on this tank. Plus a proper coax MG. I will not go into how to do it here, only that it's actually not that hard once knowing which is what in the hex address - The majority of time is spent looking for that (and various different detoured solutions...) And obviously I'd say it is for single player only. The down side of this edit: 1. there will be no hit decals on the gun mantlet. Because far as the game engine is concerned there isn't one. 2. The mantlet area is not impenetrable like the real thing. It is still only 180mm of armor. But it certainly is miles better than the original. Below are screenshots using the edited files. Coax MG: 122mm hits that should've penetrated without the fix: Hit decals have moved to turret front instead of gun mantlet: Mediafire link (forum doesn't seem to allow for direct attaching): http://www.mediafire.com/download/83la473sf58iou1/CM+KT+3D+Fix.rar
  9. So. The Kingtiger in-game seems rather crude. Apart from a comparatively low def 3D model, a lack of data for the coax MG which fires out of the model center instead of besides the main gun, there's another problem. After a few test runs with 8 Kingtiger vs 8 IS-2 at a range of 1000m, I was shocked. The IS-2s seemed able to penetrate Kingtiger turret center front and knock it out. It was more than a year ago when CMRT was first released. At the time I thought it looked like KT's armor was assigned very bad quality. As I absolutely love this iconic tank, I felt bummed and moved on to other games. Friday came and I felt a bit CM itch. So re-downloaded and installed CMRT v1.03. Re-ran the test. Same deal. But this time I noticed, that the turret penetration hits were not on "turret front", but "weapon mount", as the hit texts and hit decals show. And every hit on the mantlet penetrates or at least partial, most of them knocking out the tank, rarely the tank survives but ends up with a destroyed main gun and coax. On the other hand however, hits that are on the "turret front" proper, either bounced or only induced armor spalling. Penetration only happens once in a blue moon. Thought this was very weird. There should be 180mm of armor behind the mantlet, which alone should be sufficient to stop the 122mm round. Why is it in CM that mantlet penetrations are fatal? And so I formed the theory of how CM game engine handles the damage modeling in this case. To demonstrate, I first drew a simple scheme of the real tank turret. The orange area is tank internal space and hits into internal is considered fatal. An incoming heavy AP round penetrates the gun mantlet, but is then stopped by turret front armor and the tank remains fine. Next is a picture of how CM's game engine handles the armor scheme. On the real tank, the combination of mantlet + turret essentially creates a "multi-layered", spaced armor. But as far as CM's game engine is concerned, there is no such thing. I believe the game engine only knows that, behind armor, whatever it is, be it turret armor, hull armor or gun mantlet, is tank internal space. I remember doing tests on Tiger I mantlet in CMBN, hits on the mantlet edge would penetrate while others wouldn't in the same test, despite real Tiger I mantlet edge being backed by 90mm(?) of turret front armor - It is the same problem. However, it becomes much more profound on the TigerII, because here we have 180mm of center turret armor, that is omitted by the game engine. Hits on the mantlet would go directly through to tank internal space. What should be an area that is almost impenetrable, has become a glaring weak spot.
  10. kohlenklau/Choppinit question, does this project have support from BF? I assume porting OOB data and maps between Combat Ops <-> CMx2 would need BFC's code support.
  11. The game is released at last. http://yhst-12000246778232.stores.yahoo.net/ruwaddo.html and the new forum section http://nws-online.proboards.com/board/25/rule-waves-discussions-rtw
  12. Manuals are out! http://nws-online.proboards.com/thread/335/rtw-rule-waves-information-downloads
  13. I feel that a in-depth ww2 naval game would essentially be a carrier and naval air simulation. So essentially... not much ship but much aircraft. Action/arcade style ww2 ship games are a plenty tho.
  14. These are all the pics shared by the developer.
  15. I was directed from here to the great naval game "Steam and Iron" by Naval Warfare simulations sometime ago and NWS is now making the next game called "Rule the Waves". It is now in advanced testing per the developer and thought I'd share! http://nws-online.proboards.com/thread/260/rule-waves-information
  16. Unbuttoned TCs and Mg gunners should suffer the same suppression as out in the open infantry. They should duck (button) with incoming small arms fire and unbutton again when the suppression lifts. Atm they only button when the vehicle is hit by large caliber shells with HE explosive.
  17. Asia theater nah... not that popular on the NA/EU market especially on wargames. You can have China go full commie in a few years and set as main antagonist maybe but not yet.
  18. LOL... 'Murica! Otoh at times though, some of the social/economical/political discussians here are not bad at all. Personally I think it's better than BF's games benefic/cost wise. Mil techs, combat doctrines, equipment documents.. nah, seems the knowledge base is just average.
  19. For the layman I suppose it becomes a philosophical difference of seeing is believing, versus taking a leap of faith. For the more tech minded I suppose it is a huge database consisting maybe thousands of data-points driven by a code engine while none of them are visible but to less than some 5 people. 100% correct, balanced and realistic data is empirically impossible, thus prompts the question of... ignorance is bliss, or knowledge is power? For the market driven and resource aware, it then is a question of whether it's worth it to showcase such a system to outlying customers which, of course, has been many times debated and time and time again vetoed. I suppose tis one way to sum this up.
  20. Yep while one can have a good idea of some specific slice of data via repeated testing, the general system is somewhat opaque.
  21. That's finally a TANK vs the Sherman steam-bread.
  22. Me 3. Current emos sucks. But suppose it's all a process of improvement, like the repo move first.
×
×
  • Create New...