Cpt_Inkognito

Member
  • Content count

    2,468
  • Joined

  • Last visited

medal medal

Community Reputation

2,463 Outstanding

1 Follower

About Cpt_Inkognito

  • Rank
    Air commodore

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSZvlDeQq3w&list=PLubWAz8JjmMLtyKrPGh4znxE3m1JXRKJP

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

14,316 profile views
  1. Okay, I take everything back about the Ardennes map. Being somewhat aesthetically pleasing with its rolling hill it is pure ****. Nothing but ****. The gameplay on it is TERRIBLE. It's basically Hürtgenwald, but condensed into only the bad parts about the map and not a single good one. Will insta-quit whenever I get it from now on.
  2. There are some really odd spots in the town indeed. Like the road entering the town from the south which has weird bends and angles on it for absolutely no reason whatsoever, and that's just one detail out of many. So yeah, in the details I think the map is pretty cheaply done and made with little effort, but on a bigger scale I kind'a like the map. A bit too flat on the NW part which limits most play to the town and the SE, but pretty nice nonetheless.
  3. I like how 99% of the examples posted by OP has absolutely nothing to do with the actual suggestion he's making. What does a video of Falcon 4 or DCS where there's absolutely zero third-person/remote camera have to do with this thread to begin with? Does the demonstration of mouse-stick on the throttle to look around somehow hold any relevance over War Thunder, since you can map that exact same control here? Or is it the fact that no other sim in use offers more SA-help than WT does when played at anything else than "please hold my hand!"-settings? I mean... I can see what the wish/suggestion is for, but to actively use the thread to banter about things with zero relevance to the actual suggestion...?
  4. gameplay

    That's certainly an idea, as long as it is fast enough to do since in a tank you are more reliant on sudden changes in engine RPM/torque. Would at least give the "stop & shoot" keybind a purpose.
  5. gameplay

    Had to check again, but you are right. I must have tested it on sand or something where it was stuck driving 14-15 kph. At that speed the stabilizer works. 18kph which it does on harder ground certainly is too much.
  6. aircraft/loadouts

    The "colour" filters are a very real thing. They had various names depending on nations, but if you look in the cockpits of A LOT of planes in War Thunder you can see an orange/yellow/brown glass screen folded down/lowered in front of the reflector sight. What we are asking for is to be able to raise that so that we can use a feature that existed in real WW2 planes for lighting conditions that made the projected sight hard to see. We don't have it in-game. All we have is the "vertical targeting" on/off, but that is a pre-flight setting. The only existing in-combat vertical adjustment is for tanks. What we are talking about is the range adjustment knob on the gunsight which would let the pilot adjust the aiming point (even if it doesn't change how the guns are aligned) to correct for the range to target.
  7. Voted "no", but I'll explain why. The original post and the question are formulated as to if planes should be damaged by the fire. Due to flying that silly close to a plane is extremely rare (you have to keep in mind that fire isn't a think that extends very far from a plane. It is a very local effect) it is a one-in-a-million thing to happen. For 99,999999% of all plane-time this feature would do nothing, and as such it is a wasted feature. Design and development time can be better spent elsewhere. However if we are talking smoke damage it is another thing. Flying in too thick smoke could potentially cause flame-outs in jets or reduce the engine effect in piston-engined planes, and flying in the "oil trail" of a plane would definitely cause some engine fouling. That could be a feature worth looking into, because people fly in the smoke/oil trails of planes far more than they fly within a few meters so that they can take fire damage.
  8. Coming from RB and SB ground forces the different speeds for "cruise control" has always been a pet peeve of mine, but the addition of stabilization was the last drop in that regard. Here the problems and solutions are broken down more in detail: The first step of cruise control (CC1) is too fast and serves no real purpose other than matching the max stabilized speed for Shermans. The problems are multiple: CC1 is too fast for spotting things: When not having a marker over other tanks there must exist a speed setting that allows movement while still moving so slow that it is possible to spot a partially concealed enemy. Moving at 15kph is too fast for that. Somewhere along half that speed (6-8kph) would be more suitable. CC1 is so fast it causes "suspension wobble" when halting: There exists no single speed setting at which a tank can crawl so slowly that there is no mentionable suspension wobble when stopping the tank unless it has modern and fantastic suspension for its weight. Sometimes it is far more important to be able to "stop & shoot" quickly than it is to move quickly. This isn't really an issue for the most modern post-war tanks, but for rank 1-4 it is a very real problem. Reducing CC1 to 6-8kph would mean that pretty much all tanks would have acceptably low suspension wobble during "stop & shoot" CC1 is too fast for tanks who have the "shoulder stop" or other more primitive stabilization: Judging by the speed I managed when climbing hills the maximum speed at least with the British 2-pounder is 8-9kph. Go any faster and the gunner can't keep the unlocked gun stable anymore. It is 100% pointless to have the "shoulder stop" and Sherman/Stuart stabilization if there exists no standard speed setting at which they work. CC2 is too fast for a "stable firing platform"-speed for all tanks with worse stabilization than for example a Centurion. The movement is so fast it causes significant suspension wobble during "stop & shoot", it makes spotting hard, it is too fast for most stabilization, and for 99% of the play-time there exists no reason to at all use the setting. People either use CC1, CC3, or use the W-key. By reducing CC2 a bit in speed, or even adapting it to tanks where so is suitable (for example to 15kph for Stuarts and Shermans where their stabilization still works) there would exist a reason for people to use CC2 during situations where they are willing to sacrifice ability to spot for movement speed, but still want to be able to react fast when they need to. TL;DR: Reduce the CC1 speed to 6-8kph to make it universally useful, and reduce CC2 to speeds that are meaningful from a general "stop & shoot" or stabilization perspective, so that CC2 gives an advantage in some area over CC3.
  9. Fully aware of that issue, but to compensate they could add some actual weighting to the matchmaking. You know... that "quantitative matchmaking" they were talking so much about. If a team more or less full of Tigers is downtiered to meet a team full of BR 4.7 and less (extra vehicles are likely to be worse than the strongest vehicle of 4.7), then the "lower" team would need to be at least 30% (but probably more like 50%) more players to get anywhere close to balanced teams. Or the match shouldn't even happen until an equal number of 5.7 tanks are put into the allied team to actually having something that can pretend like it can fight Tigers on somewhat equal terms. The SP system (if speaking about RB) certainly isn't enough compensation since a single Tiger of 400-something SP is far stronger than two tanks of 190-210 SP. SB and it's just the same, since that mode pretty much is built around "pick the strongest tank or gtfo".
  10. It's sad to see that the matchmaker - a very fundamental feature of the game - still is absolute and utter **** when there isn't an excess of players to choose from, and yet the devs sit and add advanced features onto the game when the fundamental basics still don't work after 5+ years. Just came out of a good example: Berlin with a team consisting of Sherman Fireflies, Avengers, a Cromwell and a Valentine against... guess what? TIGERS! How in the everliving hell is a team consistering of Sherman Fairy-farts and Avengers supposed to deal with an equal-size team made of Tigers? Even if we were a bit blessed by the map in that we can hide among the houses it is still an incredibly super-awful balance, and say we die, and can spawn in a Crusader AA Mk.II, a Churchill Mk.VII, or a Cromwell as a backup, what good is that supposed to do us against Tigers? Especially when the first Tiger with a couple of kills dies and respawns in a bloody Panther (or just an Ostwind, since that too is strong enough to kill 100% of our tanks) ? The matchmaker needs to look at the "starting weight" of teams, not only that they have vehicles within a certain BR range. Horrible ****-matchups like this are extremely common once the player pool starts dwindling in the small hours, and to be frank I rather wait to get into a game than to get into xxxx awful matchups like that.
  11. The usual reason: "Herpa-derpa ding-dong! We're doing changes but we don't know what, and even if we knew we wouldn't bother checking even in the most obvious places if any change affects SB!"