WineCape

There is a suspicion that you would have changed it to "Junior Member" akd. Trying to fool us with your retirement age, senhor senior?

As stated by akd, it was an ongoing discussion during testing pre-release. Charles did tweak some code due the testers reporting that firing on the move was too accurate. If memory serves, it was pre-release/Beta 29. Here was the data presented to Charles after said tweak: Tests were conducted at 800m (I still have the parameters for those who care). PzIV(H)'s vs M4A3's. The conclusion, after running over +/-350 tests, regular experience, tanks facing one another head-on (smaller target), with the MOVE command plotted on all non-stationery tanks, tarred road/flat surface, ideal weather conditions, unbuttoned tanks, were as follows: -- GERMAN Mobile tankers, shooting @ USA stationery tanks = 95,7% misses -- GERMAN Stationery tankers, shooting @ USA moving tanks = 52,1% misses -- USA Mobile tankers, shooting @ GERMAN stationery = 85,7% misses -- USA Stationery tankers, shooting @ GERMAN moving tanks = 53% misses Further observation during the beta was also as follows: -- Moving tank ROF is roughly half the firing rate of a non-moving vehicle (mobile vs stationery shots attempted) -- Noted if a stationery tank fires @ moving target, the vast majority of firing results were initial misses (up 3x misses) before a hit was registered for the stationery tank. -- Tests clearly shows a moving tank has roughly a 5-15% chance of hitting a stationery head-on Sherman/Mk IV 800m away --The odds indicate a stationery tank has roughly a 50% chance of hitting a moving, head-on Sherman/Mk IV 800m away As can be seen, the above specific test was not done with both sets of tankers moving and firing. Does it need further tweaking for this specific instance? Is the current miss % too low for the above specific test and needs further tweaking. If both sets of tankers are moving and firing, we should expect even a higher % misses ceterus paribus. Charles have the answers and the means to effect it one way or the other, or to keep it the same. Nothing was nerfed DieselTaylor. As regard to a manual, I have this interesting titbit: Furthermore, from TK-525 Operation & Maintenance of the Gyro-Stabilizer. Chassis Group, Tank Department, The Armored School, Ft. Knox, KY. (2-16-44-500) -The gyro stabilizer took at least 5 minutes to spin up before it could be engaged. -Once it was spun up, the gyro stabilizer could not be left running for extended periods of time because of wear and tear on the system. -Before the gyro stabilizer could be used at all, it had to be calibrated. This process took a trained gun crew about 20 minutes to accomplish. -Calibration of the gyro stabilizer had to be performed at least daily, and more often under conditions in which temperatures were very low, very hot, when they changed much during the day. -Fine tuning the calibration could be done only when the main gun was fired. -Depending on many variables, fine tuning might require the discharge of one to three rounds on average. -Once the gyro-stabilizer was fine tuned for HE rounds, for example, it had to be retuned to use a round of different weight like shot or smoke.

Ketonur, Some of your issues you mention are valid (and already posted/mentioned as remarked by some helpful posters here in this thread), and are already fixed in the Release Candidate v1.01 that I have in my possession (e.g. tree issue and the infantry firing at unbuttoned enemy TC's from too far a distance to have a realistic chance of killing/damaging something, to name but a few of the 70+ changes/issues -- and counting -- already fixed by the 2 programmers). Some issues are still being worked on, and some will stay "strange behaviour" issues for various reasons, either because they are statistical outliers in the game, or they are not fixable, or that it will be too difficult to fix without unbalancing other in-game mechanics, or too low in priority given other more serious issues at hand etc etc.

Diesel, The "all flaws" were quote-marked not because I alluded you said it, but simply to show there are no game designed that does not have ANY flaws, by definition. Some are issues, some are serious issues. Some less so. Some single issue is enough to ruin the game for some. This does not mean in any way that there are nothing wrong with the game, or that, despite the highlighted issues by some here on the forum, we are coloured in as "fanboys" just because some take exception -- by way of humour -- to the way the complaint/message was delivered (alluding to foul language). As fair as I recall, we are all adults here, and we should behave like adults in delivering our issues/messages. Alluding to foul language in your posts in delivering that issue is disrespectful, no matter how valid your issue, perceived or real. I speak for myself, but I do read the forum and carry issues over to the Beta forums as posted here, and judging by my specific Beta forum I visit/have access to, certainly other testers do the same. If we don't aknowledge your post(s), it may well be for several different reasons, or simply we have missed it. But we cannot aknowledge each and every post and all issues, as you stated, the small BFC core team are just that, small. And they are already overloaded with various tasks. There are, admittedly, numerous posts highlighting certain issues under a general/specific opening thread, and we do read them. And in this way forum members do help as a starting point for some issue. Rest assured, despite my drunk TC-driving-over-the-wire comment, I will test the issue at hand and will carry it, if need be, over to BFC who will slot it as high/low priority as they see fit. Regards.

Mom says fingers.

Not really John. Sometimes, against our better judgement -- and Mom's warning not to -- we still want to tease feed the troll through the cage railings so as to be entertained.

Actually, we all wanted clown cars in CMBN, but we got voted out by the programmers. And I personally wanted cowbell, but Steve was dead set against that folly.

By your definition it appears any in-game issue not working as either intended, or forseen, implies flawed. Ahem, so by what normal/desirable process do you then suggest should BFC go about ironing out the issues that you regard as being flawed? Test another 240 months to cut out "all flaws" for it to be a normal/desirable process? Or the fact it's "desirable" for Charles to drink while programming, and thus not a normal reason for BFC to release such a flawed product on the market?

It could be that your tank driver was drunk and saw the wrong double row of fences? Drunk TC's are modeled at times.

Prepare for months, that way anything less is a bonus, not?

With only 3 months simulated/abstracted in the first module, you have only 1/2 a guess.

The patch will change that.

Add to the graphic department personnel so that Dan does not get overworked, reason; Any extra decals for even higher immersion factor: -- different and higher degree of deformable terrain/units depending on state of repair/damage/ -- more variation and improved, higher degree of lifelike soldier animations: (eg. onfire tank crew bailing out at speed, more varied death animations) -- higher quality and varied impact/explosion sequences and impact graphichs -- tracks left behind on soft ground due to tanks traversing -- higher degree of graphic animations for various size buildings taking damage and collapsing.

As stated by c3k, BFC has recently looked at tree placement and fixed it: trees remains precisely consistent in placement each time you load/play a particular scenario.

No, it will in all likelihood fix your colour blindness.

In part, it may also be a penetration display text issue you gents are seeing, as Charles has recently changed some armor penetrations display texts in the patch. For example, the penetration texts reported as through a vehicle's main gun mantlet won't be reported as a hit on other locations.

This needs to be looked at. You still have the save file? If not, I'll devise some scenario.

Indeed, that should be the caption of Gpig's handiwork.

I repeat. Do a 'few' more test samples on the AT-gun crew hitting that enemy tank's gun before you can deduct there's NO outlier statistical result at work here wrt the turret aiming point of the AT gun. You cannot make any conclusion(s) from your results by doing only a couple of tests, unless I have missed your sample size. Maybe there is a problem in that gun% hit is too high given total to-hit shots on a hull-down tank's turret. If the protruding gun encompasses, say for example 20% of total turret, but hit% samples show, say 90% gun hits over a bigger sample, then obviously it's too high to be realistic, whether there are any documentary historical proof for such incidences or not. BFC will then, in all likelihood, investigate. Create some firelanes [i have such a Beta Test multi-lane scenario if you need one; you just need to populate it with hull down positions and the appropriate units] and run some more tests to get a higher sample. I would have done it for you, but my patch test priorities are not the same as yours; time-wise and focus. Regards.

Were are working on it as we type.

Dear Almighty God. Not the Bren Fry-pot thread again. [Hi Mom!]

Is this thread an issue list for certain mechanic(s) in-game that is not working correctly, or as it should, or a wish list for features not yet programmed? There is a subtle difference, notwithstanding the fact that some here are defining their sought-after features, not yet reflected in CMBN, as an 'issue.'

Run some 'more' tests to see if there is a trend of such results or not, so as to make at least some limited observation wrt the high percentage gun hits compared to other hits on the turret.

Indeed, +Prestige Points to George, Jaws, Jon, Mark et al for their labour of love, as well as the Beta testers, young, old, new or veteran. We're humbled and feel honoured to be part, and to be trusted with, Battlefront's flagship in some small way.

Only the non-scary bedtime stories were read to finalcut.