Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - [F|H]Taz18

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
1
Modding / Re: Packing Script
« on: 26-02-2013, 19:02:35 »
Hey deek try search the forgotten honor forums :) sorken made a perfect mappacking script tool :)

Noob :p

Dude you know nothing of how the maps are packed now if you are saying that.

2
Gaming / Re: Crusader Kings II
« on: 18-10-2012, 03:10:37 »
I bought this during the Steam summer sales but started playing only yesterday.

Started as William I just after Hastings and everyone is rebelling ;D

I prefer actually doing the invasion, especially now when you get 8 or 9 thousand free troops and 140 free ships to do it with! Go straight north to York and wait for the Saxons and Norwegians to slaughter each other then pick off the remnants. After that occupy the capital of every county (only need the capital) and after you shove your peace treaty down their throats you can redistribute the land to all the landless Normans you have. Takes a while to do the war that way (took me ~8 years cause I put down a couple of French rebellions) but you end up with a very stable kingdom with which to pummel the rest of the world with!

3
Gaming / Re: Crusader Kings II
« on: 12-10-2012, 01:10:08 »

4
Modding / Re: BfMeshView 2.2.0 released
« on: 04-10-2012, 23:10:40 »
I don't know about the rest of you but the legend for the CollisionMesh is not showing up.

5
Modding / Re: Custom Maps 4 2.45
« on: 18-09-2012, 19:09:01 »
Anyway, the point is none of these have AI support but somebody is working on that right...

I can't speak for the others but not for the F|H (Forgotten Honor) maps.

6
Modding / Re: Custom maps - making NCO kits work
« on: 18-09-2012, 19:09:05 »
Yes, that you pulled them from one map to another without running the packing script would be my first guess!  :P

7
General / Re: Powerful Tanks Become Vulnerable in 2.45
« on: 29-08-2012, 20:08:38 »
In regards to the Sherman, I noticed while going through the files that the NA M4A1 version has less hitpoints (750) than the Western Europe M4A1 (1000) which may explain some of the inconsistency some people seem to experience.

Also the collisions on the early Western Europe one appear to have small plates of armour on the sides (2 on the right, 1 on the left) which is the same thickness as the frontal armour! Or at least, that is how it looks.

8
Suggestions / Re: Forgotten Reality
« on: 28-08-2012, 02:08:06 »
... then PR devs could help us in Campaings

That is not going to happen.

9
General / Re: Powerful Tanks Become Vulnerable in 2.45
« on: 26-08-2012, 22:08:53 »
Angle mod to my understanding is just increasing the armour value of some tanks which have its armour layout sloped. Is this correct? So the 38 mm value of that Chuchill sloped armour in TheTA's post is increased respectively in-game to simulate the slope effect, e.g. sloped at 30 degrees mean that we have to divide it by cos 60, which resulted in 76 mm thickness when being hit straight. Or there exist other modifications that I don't know? E.g. like there is additional calculation of how the shell impact the armour layer? For example, a near 1 degree impact will greatly reduce the penetration rate.

From the News archive:
Quote
When hitting highly angled surfaces from 60 - 90 degrees, the damage dealt will drop accordingly down to zero.

It isn't that tank shells don't penetrate, the damage is adjusted to 0 in all cases.

There is the base damage values which are how much damage a specific shell (ex. 50mmL42-AP-Projectile) does to a specific armour material (ex. 38mm_armor).
There is the Distance Modifier which reduces the base damage values.
There is the Angled Damage Modifier which further reduces the base damage values.


I could be missing a modifier in there that is the jist of it.

10
General Discussion / Re: Inefficiency of the 75mm/L48
« on: 25-08-2012, 08:08:46 »
lol no. not a bit.
77h in a tank.
r u even serious?

Time on the awards site doesn't represent experience as A) the awards have only been around a year and B) people do not always play on servers running the official awards.

11
Well this is my first post on the forum, but any of that maps works in Single Player mode?

Thanks and hello!

No, sorry.

12
noooo not on friday soccer season starts again and my team is playing :( :( damn hard choice

I think you misunderstand, its all weekend!

13
Developer Blogs / Re: The road to Prokhorovka
« on: 20-08-2012, 18:08:05 »
M gonna be acurate but we don have any ?

Check the 2.45 German vehicles.

14
General Discussion / Re: Inefficiency of the 75mm/L48
« on: 19-08-2012, 22:08:39 »
But why is it not a possibility to roll back to older and in my opinion better working systems just for the sake of the spent hours? One of FH's for me really important aspects was the qualitiy. If the quality of an older system is better, why not just use it? Atleast you have gained new experience and can use it for the further development.

Its not as simple as copy and paste or override with old files, other changes unrelated to this could have been made.

The problem with constructive feedback here is, that many of us have no clue about coding and modding in general. So our most important and one of the few ways to give feedback is to show, how it works ingame.

Ok, then don't get into the technical aspect of it. A good example:

Keep the angle mod, increase damage to superior weapons by 11%.

------------------

While someone is arguing how good the current long range damage modifier is, I just have one little question: what's wrong with the old long range damage system?

In 2.4 and previous versions I've seen countless time that a Sherman76 survive a Panther hit frontally in fog range, that is far more acceptable than what it is now.

We just state that we think the tanking system in 2.4 is better than 2.45, and rolling back seems to be the most convenient and practical solution. Sorry but that has nothing to do with the hours spent on it.

Way to not read what's in a post!

15
General Discussion / Re: Inefficiency of the 75mm/L48
« on: 19-08-2012, 03:08:34 »
How much time do you actually spent on the servers and how much time do you spent in a tank to tell me that I tell bullshit? That would be damn interesting mister clever.  ::)

Way to make something personal, there was no need to be an ass.

My experience has nothing to do with this, it was based on the fact that the bouncing projectiles mechanic was disabled, what you see is the effect of the shell hitting. But for the record, since you decided to make this personal I have been around a lot longer than you have and have played with this system longer than you have as well as tanked in general longer than you have.

Now why don't we get back on topic shall we?!

Ofcourse many people are complaining, since things worked better in 2.4. Our suggestion was to roll back the whole system to 2.4 standard because now, we get ridiciulous situations which reward mistakes and punish skill. You can tell me what you want, but you won't be able to change the experiences I made in the past month with the new system in 2.45 and I played quiet alot.

My example with the Panther that gets shot from an exrtemely steep angle from the front shows, that the angle/damage calculation doesn't work in some cases. Because in this case it is equal, wich angle I have. I will kill it from 90 degree with two shots to the side and I will kill him from less than 30 degree with two shots to the side though it should bounce off from the lower angle and melt through from 90 degree and kill the tank. And you will find similar problems on all the other tanks. You can tell me that it got solved, but my experience says just - Nope ... it is that easy.

The problem in FH2 is the too high influence of the angle at close range. On long range I can life with such bouncing shells or reduced damage, but not from 5 metre or even from ten or twenty. The armor of the Cromwell isn't that sloped or thick that a 88 would bounce of from 5 metre. Because according to the earlier explanations would this speak for a too thick armor and that is just not the case. The 88 just deals too few damage at all, thatswhy the armor gets registrated as too thick ingame. Atleast that's the only exlpaination I can find myself. I just tried FH .7 to take a look at the old system and it works better tbh.

Your missing my point, I didn't say you guys were wrong I said you are not making any constructive suggestions (rolling back/reverting is not constructive as it wastes the time spent). Its not your time being wasted here!

A constructive suggestion from what you posted above would be to add an extra modifier that reduces the angle modifier based on distance (don't know if possible).

Or make it so the angle damage modifier only affects armour above a certain thickness (may address the issue with cruiser tanks but I don't know if possible.



I still think doubling the damage modifier (not angle mod, the modifier that determines the damage based on shell penetration and armour thickness) may help with some of the issues you guys have with the current system.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9