what am I doing now?

[BUFF 8]

Skater: imho you should identify who's throwing the first flames (who came up with th issue in this thread) and go after him via PM. Otherwise it'll happen again.

If it happens again we'll take action as need be whether that be a talking to, locked thread, temporary suspension etc.

I would much rather that people realise that they are being watched & acted like sensible adults though ...

[Skater 0]

Skater: imho you should identify who's throwing the first flames (who came up with th issue in this thread) and go after him via PM. Otherwise it'll happen again. I'll bet on it. It's just a suggestion from a old fart.

 

I like to discuss history, even conspiracy theories, alternate scenarios, etc... in a polite way. It is possible, depending on the quality of the participants. But this thread was a nice sort of developer diary and we all should keep it this way.

 

Mothman, my post was not directed at any one person in particular, but to all involved. Keep it on topic, and keep it civil. Alternate theories, as long as they are plausible, are fine, but we do not need to star a flame war or a name calling match.

 

-Skater

[Mothman 0]

Thank you guys. All I was saying is that the member who setup the bait and brought the issue of an alternate and "flamable" theory (while totally being off topic) was not an argentinian, and you clearly looked annoyed by the theory rather than by the off-topicness of the issue.

 

You must understand that while people like you may be sensitive about such theories, because of a relative served in the Invincible (to mention an example) or whatsoever, other people are sensitive as well because people they know or maybe themselves lost a couple of friends during that controversial mission (to mention the same example) or whatsoever.

 

I know it won't be easy to moderate a bunch of argentinian and british "kids" in a game forum about game set in a quite recent anglo-argentinian conflict, but... the picth should be that this is a gaming forum and that's it, instead of condemning "conspiracy theorists", "revisionists", or whatever you want to name it.

 

Just my 5 cents. Blame the fisherman, not the fish who takes the bait. Not that you actually blamed anyone, but it's more effective if you warn the fisherman.

 

Now I would like to know what Thunder Works is doing now. When's the public beta? Or demo? Any aproximate idea?

Edited December 8, 2005 by Mothman

[Berkut RnR 0]

No british version of the war is funny to me. I have to read it, listen, analyze, study and after comment, but I insist, there isn't version cause laugh to me.

This isn't the thread to discuss if the invincible were seen, scratched, hit, damaged or sunk, but it will be very interesting to discuss it in another trhead.

 

Now I would like to know what Thunder Works is doing now. When's the public beta? Or demo? Any aproximate idea?

 

Yeah!

Beta or Demo will be a pleasure newness!!

Edited December 9, 2005 by Berkut RnR

[AWL_Spinner 0]

Just a suggestion but it might be worth pruning these off-topic posts out of this thread (this one included!) as it was (and is) good to have access to a developer diary and comments of a development nature. People can discuss this stuff in another thread if need be but I'd hate to think the devs might stop posting in here!

 

For what it's worth I think this forum has been saved from flame wars by it's relative obscurity but as more interest in this product arrives and more people start looking (especially after a demo gets released) it's probably going to need some pretty active modding.

 

It's a hugely interesting conflict to sim for exactly the same reasons it's a contentious subject (outcome uncertain and wholly reliant on military tactics utilising very finite resources; in recent memory - not even one generation old compared to three or more for WWII, etc.).

 

Just wait until people start flying the demo and you get all the "Seawolf is undermodelled!", "Ship DMs are porked!" whines!

 

I just really want to see this sim completed, it could be HUGELY absorbing :)

 

Regards, Spinner

[+Dante-JT 6]

Now I would like to know what Thunder Works is doing now.

 

I'm doing Port Stanley city, focusing on harbor and jettys at this very moment. Ariel is working in Oerlikon 35mm AAA cannons in the vicinity of Goose Green. Steve is staring at the JT's source code - his next step is colision detection for object's collections and swap for a 'destroyed' mesh version - this means cities can be levelled.

 

Just wait until people start flying the demo and you get all the "Seawolf is undermodelled!", "Ship DMs are porked!" whines!

 

these two are indeed undermodelled at the moment: Sea Wolf doesn't even exists and ship DMs are indeed horrible now (one hit box for whole ship, awful - hopefully ships will be collections of hitboxes like airplanes, this is next priority for Steve after statics colision code.)

[scary_pigeon 0]

thats because you've not worked out how to mod the scripts to make an aircraft behave like a boat. though unfortunately aircraft dont yet have gun turret capability. but yeah - errosion via little bullets will sink these ships 1 bit at a time.

Edited December 8, 2005 by scary_pigeon

[scary_pigeon 0]

 

im looking forward to flying this one too. favourate plane in IL2 was the IL2 - i can imagine IL2 moments.

[ECV56_PaulTen 0]

im looking forward to flying this one

Me too

[DamienB 0]

but yeah - errosion via little bullets will sink these ships 1 bit at a time.

 

One thing the sim would do well to model is just how difficult it is to sink a ship. A single Exocet certainly won't manage it, though it may well be an effective kill in that the ship is removed from the fight. Bombs need to be in pretty specific spots to cause enough damage too and we all presumably know of the issue the Argentines had with fusing - until the BBC World Service kindly let them know that their bombs weren't going off...

[scary_pigeon 0]

of course i joke about that, erosion by bullets - its just the more advanced stuff isnt implemented yet.

[+Dante-JT 6]

One thing the sim would do well to model is just how difficult it is to sink a ship. A single Exocet certainly won't manage it, though it may well be an effective kill in that the ship is removed from the fight. Bombs need to be in pretty specific spots to cause enough damage too and we all presumably know of the issue the Argentines had with fusing

 

DamienB, could I kindly invite you to help me with historical specs on ships DM? I'm pretty sure our system (when advanced stuff is done) will be pretty much capable of checking damage by ships compartments (hull divided in a number of 'hitboxes', bridge in another number of hitboxes, masts and weapon turrets also individually damageable) because the system already does very well in checking if a aircraft received a bullet role in a wing and the wing should break apart from fuselage or if the entire airframe should desintegrate due to a direct hit by missile.

 

So, as a starting point, would be nice to have a placeholder T42 or T22 for first naval DM tests, with:

- a certain number of hull compartments (I wish to know what are more sensible to bomb damage, what compartments can be sealed, and so on)

- the bridge (how the structure is divided for breaking apart or colapsing due to heavy damage

- how the ship resists to fire hazards - and where are located magazines, fuel and other incendiary compartments that could make the ship explode and sink in one blow like the HMS Antelope or WWII HMS Hood.

 

Any help will be appreciated. :)

[scary_pigeon 0]

did a little bit of freestyle coding - nothing important so far as it turns out i've got to attend a hockey party later.

 

I played with the camera a bit trying out the zoom in when turn technique.

 

i saw the effect quite well playing 'live for speed' earlier. What i did was manually zoomed out during the straight sections and the zoomed in for the turns - currious if that would enhance and combine different benefits of different zoom levels towards feeling of speed and excitement.

 

the idea is that when you zoom out you see objects you move a more in the edges of the screen so there is more movement on the screen when driving forwards but zoomed out than zoomed in driving straight.

 

but this situation changes when you do donuts or hard turns. The amount of pixels a tree or some other object off the track moves when you turn 45 degrees is less when zoomed out than when zoomed in.

 

so i zoomed in for when i had the car turning and zoomed out for straight.

 

i then thought, aye aye? what if i do that in jet thunder and program zoom to be affected by sustained yaw/pitch motion?

 

and this is the result:

 

http://www.thunder-works.com/media/zoomturnlow.avi

 

the effect is slightly overdone and i havent decided if i am going to keep it or not. the idea is to give both impression of speed when flying straight, and impression of turning when turning hard. note the textures in use are not current, dante needs to send me at some point a big update.

[Incendiary Lemon 0]

really like the sound of that

[PG_Raptor 0]

Scary, that would be a really cool effect. You just need to find a happy medium. Obviously, like you said, it is way too exagerated, but if you mix a much more mild version of that with the headshake that looks into the turn, that would be awesome.

[scary_pigeon 0]

i never implemented look into turn as thought it was bad idea - i think i will add it today or someday to see what it looks like. all these effects can be scaled down.

[AWL_Spinner 0]

Looking good! Just out of curiosity, are you guys building this with TrackIR 6DOF support off the bat?

Edited December 11, 2005 by AWL_Spinner

[scary_pigeon 0]

yes, natural point were nice enough to send me a unit. unfortunately i have trodden on it - the thing that sits on your cap - but the idea is definately have track ir 6dof in the game.

 

it is not in at the moment because i havent yet managed to get the code to work. I will though. that is something fun i might do today.

Edited December 11, 2005 by scary_pigeon

[DamienB 0]

DamienB, could I kindly invite you to help me with historical specs on ships DM?

 

Wish I could but I'm afraid that sort of information is still well and truly secret...

 

- how the ship resists to fire hazards - and where are located magazines, fuel and other incendiary compartments

 

...particularly that!! Type 42s, in particular, are still in service...

[AWL_Spinner 0]

Dante-JT,

 

Might be worth you sticking a post up on the PPRuNe Military Forums saying what this project is and can anyone lend a hand with unclassified details. Stick a link on it to this site to show you're not some crank and you never know!

 

There are a few serving and ex-RN aviators on there. You might draw a blank as Damien-B suggests but then again there's a lot in the public domain which isn't classified and might make this a more accurate and enjoyable sim.

 

Also there's a fairly hefty community of military nerds on the IL2 forums...

 

Regards, Spinner

[+Dante-JT 6]

Dante-JT,

 

Might be worth you sticking a post up on the PPRuNe Military Forums saying what this project is and can anyone lend a hand with unclassified details.

 

Regards, Spinner

 

 

Thank you! :) Seems a very interesting forum...with a 67-pages discussion on Sea Jet (our beloved Sea Harrier) amongst other Harrier discussions... I will give it a try later, although I don't know how would be the best approach there.

[AWL_Spinner 0]

Ah yes, the Sea Jet thread! Many a mention of the Falklands/Malvinas conflict in there and lots of discussion of ship-bourne capabilities against air/missile threats too. One for a rainy afternoon!

 

Whilst on the subject of that forum, it might also be of interest to note that John Farley (very famous test pilot and a world authority on the Harrier) posts there under his own name - if you have any flight model questions or specifics about vectored thrust, nomatter how technical, try a post in the Flight Testing forum on PPRuNe - you'll more than likely get a response.

 

Regards, Spinner

[DamienB 0]

Stick a link on it to this site...

 

...and get banned for 'advertising'...

[+Dante-JT 6]

...and get banned for 'advertising'...

 

 

Yeah that's what I've tought - and why I didn't posted anything there yet. :)

[AWL_Spinner 0]

Seriously, you're not going to get banned for advertising!

 

It's not as if you have a product anyone can buy at present, is it! Just say you're doing your research as you'd like to ensure maximum authenticity. Worst that can happen is you'll get ignored!

 

They're generally a friendly bunch, by and large.

 

Out of interest do you have access to any current or ex-Harrier / Mirage / A4 pilots for your flight model testing?

 

Regards, Spinner