They flip because of the pivot point being too high on the exported models. The only way to fix that is to re-export every variant and recode it. These are not tanks I exported or coded.

However, at some point, we should go back and try to fix them. The alternative is to play with the inertia values, but I am not sure that will give the best results.  Re-exporting them may be the only answer.

That gearing up thing reminds me of the boost button IE shift? How about this: When you normally use the tank, it goes forward at walking speed at most. Then by pressing the shift key it gears up and off we go at the top speed of the tank. This would also mean this: normal walking speed, less sound, harder to detect. Top speed, HUEG ROARING SOUND, easier to detect by ear.

I don't think this is possible with the tank engine.. This is a feature of the airplane engine, but I don't think the code exists within the game engine to use this kind of feature with the tank engine.

It would make life super easy - but it's not that simple, or (you guessed it) it would have been done from day 1 sort of thing.

Paasky did write a rox tutorial on Object porting though check this out >
http://www.bfewaw.com/archive/index.php/t-26060.html

While this CAN work, when it comes to porting statics, if we overlook the obvious issues with scale between BF2 and BF1942. The texture overhead is dramatically increased with the above method in that tutorial. You also don't always get good results either.

On top of the above.... BF2 does have a limit in the size in mb's of total textures upon a map. Also, depending on the textures and number used on a static.. You can end up with three times more in texture size than really needed. This leads to performance issues. This is why alot of mods did not port statics from BF1942 into BF2, as it is better to make the static from scratch the right way, instead of taking short-cuts that do not give good performance.

Why were things changed? Map size, addition of more plane types. Just general opinion of the dev team and testers at the time. Sure, view distance is/was a factor, but back in 2.15, the airplanes were VERY fast. This was great, but in reality, it made it much harder to add new plane types that were going to have to be even FASTER than the current planes that were in the mod build.

You can't have airplanes that go so fast that they cover one side of the map to the other in a second or two. That would not be realistic. When the airplanes were going fast, they required a different control setup. When we slowed them down, it called for a complete recoding of all the airplanes from the top on down.

Hence, why things changed after 2.15.. We added more planes and that required us to also change how the planes worked.

Now in regards to rudder settings.. Most of the airplane are very, very similiar.. When I say similiar, they are the EXACT same settings or at least are the same settings down to perhaps acceleration of the control surface movement. The acceleration of the control surface may be the only factor that is different. Therefore, there is not much to change on this part of the airplane. Keep in mind that the rudder is NOT what turns the airplane initially, rudders just help the quality of the turn. Ailerons are what turns the airplane. However, depending on bank angle, in real life and not game land. The rudder does more. (I should know, I fly airplanes for a living.)

Anyway, pivot points of the airplanes are all very similar. At least when it comes to the airplanes that I coded and exported into the mod. Thus, control surface movement does have a great affect upon how the airplane flies only subtle changes are needed to make a difference in the manners of one plane to the other.

Take for example.. The P-47 and FW-190.. Two airplanes that share alot of common code between them. If one were to look at the rudder and even elevator of the two airplanes. You would see that they are VERY similiar in code. Same goes with the ailerons of the two airplanes.. Exact mirrors of the two, with the exception of either max speed or acceleration of how the surface moves. Other than that, the numbers are equal. Both defelect the same amount and both have the same lift values.

Therefore, when you guys say that "X" airplane out performs another. There is truth to that, but it is as it should be. Perhaps, what really needs to happen is the airplane types need more balance as to what appears on a map fighting one another.

Granted, I won't rule out that the .50 cal projectiles need some more oomph and kill ability, but I do know that the airplanes in their flying ability are in the ball park of where they need to be. In how they performed in real life within the conditions we are trying to portray here in FH2.

You know guys.. It really doesn't matter what the plane physics are or were. Why?  Because no matter what we had or what we did. It would not be right for the majority of you or anyone for that matter.

If you search these forums, you will see many, many threads about airplane physics. Same goes for tanks, handweapons and just about every facet of the mod build.

There is always groups of people or indviduals who don't like some aspect of the mod or game. We try to cater to the majority, not the minority in what we do and how we have developed the mod build.

As for the airplanes, I have hours upon hours tweaking on them and playing with them trying to find the best overall balance that I can. On some, I have probably done well and on others, I have probably missed the mark and need to do more.

Most of you seem to forget the basics of internet games. Some probably have never even thought about that aspect of it. Many of you are newcomers to internet based online games. By newcomers, I mean, you have only been playing online for a few years, not the last 15 or so like some of us old guys who started playing back when online games were very crude by todays standards.. When you had to lead your targets by two of three sizes of your target to effect a hit.

Remember guys that this is an internet based game. Everyone's experience will vary. Just as no two people have the exact same computers, internet connection or even perhaps control setup. Therfore, how do you balance or make things work the same for all the users of the end product? You can't as there are far too many variables that are beyond the control of us developers.

How do I setup the response rates of the airplanes, if one player has all his settings in his controls maxed out and the other player has his set to the center or neutral? Does the player with the higher settings have an advantage over the player who's settings are nuetral? Yes, he does. His machine is going to be more responsive than the other guys.  Why, because the controls are setup for the average player and are setup to give good response at neutral settings. This is because the majority of players don't change a portion of thier settings.

Now, I am sure I am going to hear that 30 or 40 of you have all their settings maxed out. You probably do, but again, you guys may not represent the total cross section of the players who play FH2, just a portion of them who happen to visit our forums. I can't build the planes just for 30 or 40 people with maxed settings, because if I do that. Those who have neutral settings are still going to be in the same situation against those with maxed settings.

Same goes for the guy who plays the mod 15 hours a day, every day in the same things. ie.. Airplanes.. He's going to know what he can and can't do and he's probably figured out where he needs to shoot the other guy or how much to lead his targets to get those quick kills. How can I balance him into the mix? I can't do that very well.

How about the guy who is playing with a top of the line, brand new super computer on a 26" or 28" monitor? How about the guy who is using his LCD 52" TV? I can assure you that SIZE here does matter as the higher the resolution, the better your accuracy in hitting something.

Do we penalize these guys or reward them? Do we build the game for the experienced or the average Joe? Do we reward those who have deeper pockets to buy the best of the best every other week, because they can or do we just make a product that will run and work well on the average players computer?

Anyway, Yes, I can go back and tweak on the airplanes some more. I could even make them all equal in speed, control response, etc. I can even bet that even if I did that. Someone would still say that "X" airplane is better than another one. That "X" airplane can fly faster, turn better and generally out perform another one.

Why? Because of the opinions. Each and everyone of you guys has one and each and everyone of you guys has an idea of how YOU think things should be. That is why we have these kinds of threads and these kinds of posts.

Again, I can rework the airplanes some more. I can see if I can find a better balance between them all, but in the end, I don't think anything will matter much, because there are too many variables that I can't control and too many opinions that all believe that things should be a certain way, even if they are in fact, already equal..

Glider wont probably be flyable its surely going be static in some map in the future.

BTW has anyone noticed that crusader AA fires faster when you just tap the fire button really fast as it fires 2 rounds at the time. Just tried it on local server, might be I am just dreaming though.

Dreaming..


Horsa Glider IS flyable in FH2... I coded it to fly.. However, it is not on any map(s).

Quote from: Neighbor Kid on 18-05-2010, 13:05:34

...when driving over bumps the gun sights get knocked out of alignment.. ...

^ this has never happened to me before. After the bump passes the sights are back to normal, that is why I don't think that this is possible to code into a vehicle after being hit. I could foresee a shader fogging up the sights similar to the low health shader of a soldier, but that wouldn't be connected to a hit on the turret.

The sight will move and then come back after a set time. It is setup to simulate head movement. I am not sure we can code in sight movement from when a round hits the tank.  I don't know of any settings off hand that would allow this to be coded in to be tied to the projectile.  As the current shake is tied in to vehicle movement, not the projectiles.

The other consideration is, how do you then define what would cause a shake or not? Would it be any round hitting the tank and if so, how much deviation and for how long should the effect last? Should it be the same for a set class of projectiles against a certain class of tanks or mass of weight of tanks?

Even if possible. While a neat idea, it in itself, opens up a whole new set of standards, with a big change in gameplay and balance of how things work and function.