Scarper

Administrator
  • Content count

    10,850
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    119

Scarper last won the day on February 3

Scarper had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

42,886 Outstanding

About Scarper

  • Rank
    Marshal of the Air Force
  • Birthday 12/11/1960

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

131,739 profile views
  1. In January, an additional 438 users were permanently banned for using third-party modifications in violation of the user agreement - use of prohibited modifications. (EULA). Recently, we introduced a system of reports based on replays. With its help you have not only reported suspicious players but also you have improved the modification detection algorithm. Such an algorithm is based on a machine learning system which allowed us to detect almost all remaining players who use forbidden modifications (even if they had not yet been reported). The specific patterns that we used are based on the difference in behaviour of a player who uses only “fair” information (real visibility) from the client and a player who also has server-side information on his monitor (such information contains more data). We have implemented this algorithm in a very conservative way, in order to avoid false positives. Every suspicious player was also checked by our employees after he had been detected by the program. We will continue to improve our algorithm and will make sure that your gaming experience remains comfortable. The War Thunder Team
  2. Ok, I have been trying to compile something over the last few days, please note this is not my specialty and I have been enlisting assistance from various sources - including FryingTiger who has made a career out of research military specs and history. Let's re-visit the initial document upon which the change to the beloved M60 occurred - On this document you can see 3 things on the front page (apart from the title and authors/artists) A- This is a receipt stamp, to those unacquainted with rubber stamps, a physical ink soaked stamp is embossed on original paper documents - This shows receipt of a document by the receiving dept - in this case, a British department using the correct vernacular when in Britain of "Armour" school, there are many of you out there that think that having both Armour and Armor on the same document is proof of fakery, no it isn't, it is sop (standard operating procedure) for documents shared amongst allies, and yes both the US and Great Britain are allies. You can see the initial destination the label - B (another old fashioned paper copy modus operandi) - The address clearly states - St Marys Cray, Orpington, Kent - Guess what? that's in the UK - a little known ally of the US. Note also C- The date- 1972 - this is relevant as we will see in the information shown in the publication Armor - Jan Feb 1972 below: This publication, which interestingly enough, is the first issue of the year named a series of magazines that are still being published today for Defence experts, specifically, the US Army, anyone who has served may recognise it. This publication can be tracked back to 1888. It refers to the completion of upgrading in the M60 tank stabilization systems ready for delivery in August 1972. Our document, directly made by Chrysler, is the analysis of this update. The following images, and they are very detailed in terms of anything we have had before or elsewhere, demonstrate exactly that change and it's effects. Now let's move on to further support that the original document is in fact genuine - The following image is also gleaned from the manufacturers (Chrysler) and is part and parcel of the same extensive Aberdeen training grounds tests that took place. You will notice that the schematics bear pretty closely out the details set out in the document first referred to by our developers. Unfortunately, we cannot find an image of the front cover of this publication, but it is clear it refers to the correct turret system. The M60 original turret design submitted for updating by the US Army. Some further documentation we have available (below) points to the a1 and a3 models using exactly the same turret. Finally, if you doubt the validity of our documents, as an example of information we have available please see below. In summary, one major issue we have with convincing you, the viewing players, is the lack of "official" documentation "you" can find on the internet. Please note, these vehicles are still in use today and it is not unexpected to have difficulty in locating reliable information in open locations on the internet. Google can not find everything as much of it has probably not even been digitally reproduced. We (Gaijin) are not in the business of falsifying information, nor are the Russian community determined to destroy your tanks or aircraft (and boats when they come) at least no more than our community here. They too are WT players and, like yourselves, interested in improving the accuracy of our vehicles in game. We have made a rod for our own back by not having overall overall vehicle armour in play, and thus any errors or cyclical astonishment in changes made, create even more outraged opinion that sometimes is just plain wrong. A further consideration, and this is in reference to some of you guys contacting Chrysler; whilst it is a valid route to take, please remember that most of the guys you initially contact will be oblivious to Chrysler's history in armoured warfare and may not connect to what you are looking for. It should also be noted that much of Chrysler's historical documentation will not be likely archived in a format (digital) that can be instantly grabbed, eg in the bad old days we only had paper copies and that's a lot of digital archiving required. Chrysler's management also amalgamated with many other motor factors in the 90's (Merged with Daimler-Benz)and lost the majority of it's shareholdings and ownership to a more robust for the time leadership thus making much historical information difficult to obtain. I am not saying you won't get it but I am sure it would be more difficult as a result of the upheavals. I have spent far too long on this chaps, far far too long and sometimes, we have to trust the development team as they are not out to nerf the US and spend vast amounts of their own valuable time getting the best references available, I don't mind doing this now and again, but I really cannot afford to spend this much time on a single vehicle (nor can anyone else). If there are issues with the specs in terms of the detailed and authoritative information we already have at our disposal, please do point them out to us, because we want to get it right too. Now, Clay (FryingTiger), an old friend and colleague of mine will add some relevant details and observations from some in game tests he and I made to clarify the situation. He is qualified with researching and commenting on historical issues you guys have as he has spent his life (after being a Marine) dealing exactly with issues and investigations like these.
  3. We have finally announced the introduction of Naval forces in War Thunder and we are receiving a lot of questions at the moment. The most popular question is “Why do you not plan to introduce player-controlled Capital ships? ”. Let us clarify this a little - the Naval part of the game is in the early testing stage and players haven’t seen what it actually is yet, plus some things change during a test - with your help and feedback we will together define the future of naval battle development in War Thunder. I'll start with an important clarification: in the video you saw the naval combat at the testing stage. More to any player lucky enough to not touch the existing ships in the game, but now we have something to be proud of, and we are preparing for the closed beta to get it to you as soon as possible. However, it hasn't reached that yet and we are already beginning to gather your impressions, comments, and of course, ideas, we can all then, together determine the path that will continue to develop to become, a player managed fleet in War Thunder. For ease of discussion, I will divide the explanation on the main points, each of which we'll later be able to discuss this topic. Several reasons why we are focusing on the “smaller” fleet. 1.How to play? It is clear that game play for very big ships is different from game play in tanks or aircraft. Such a huge and unwieldy ship must have an appropriate battlefield and adapted mechanics. Cruisers can easily battle against other cruisers, what will make a head to head battle until the first hit, where the hit ship will just die slowly without any chance to strike back. No health points, no instant repair, only big ship which slowly sinks to the bottom and a player that can only watch while his ship is destroyed. This game play will bring a dubious pleasure, but it is realistic, because large ships are destroyed in this way. What about action in the locations, they need to be equal to fighting units - the players need time to re-group the ships and prepare for battle. But with dozens of minutes convergence alone, during which everything could end even before it begun - some wild hit from a distant gun, without aimed fire as there is no line of sight, yet the defeat is already quite real, and it’s over. As for interaction with other types of vehicles, here-in lies some further difficulties. In locations that are suitable for the interaction of different types of vehicles, these ships don’t just rotate on the spot so they are unusually vulnerable just to small torpedo boats. At the same time we can not afford to change the characteristics of these ships, we can not increase their speed and agility, as then it will be required of the lighter vehicles also. What is the outcome of these changes? Totally unrealistic battles, to the extent that a generic bomber will simply not be able to catch the ship, such a boost would be needed to the characteristics of the ship to allow it, for example "a cruiser" to have slim chance in escaping from under the enemy shots. The main issue is, Assume that the average time of battle in WT will be about average time of battle in real life but with a wee bit subtracted because our players dont want to keep their vehicles in one piece. You can think of the Battle time of "each" vehicle from the first shot fired, or the time that the enemy was sighted - This is also true for air battles, it is true for tank battle and it will be true for naval battles IF we are determined to keep the physics and damage model reasonably close to realistic. So, at sea, with higher tonnage, the truth is that the average battle is MUCH longer than an hour, even for 1-2 vs 1-2 ships. whilst in real life, it never was shorter than 20 minutes - so it will be in WT. When 20 minutes is longer than average battle in any mode, it is still OK for Naval Forces, But an average of 2-3 hours for a battle is generally more than average player will subscribe to. We made it and we played it - but you do not have to trust us. Just use common sense - realistic physics with reasonable scenarios will cause realistic battle duration's (or maybe a bit quicker, but this is only about a players interest in getting to the action quicker, taking risks, not something else) Aircraft, tanks, bang - whack, bang - whack caboom, Ships, bang, ....bang......bang.....(silence) splash splash, splash (incoming) etc etc, it isn't the same, not by any stretch of the imagination. I see Battle of Britain used as an example of a long air battle, it wasn't a single engagement, battle of the bulge - again wasn't a single engagement - aircraft, tanks, SMALL ships - short lifespan in terms of single combat in our game, large, heavily armoured capital ships, long lifespan in single engagements (unless you are really lucky like in rl) Nope at this stage it just doesn't make sense. 2.Mechanics Even small motor gunboats could have a crew of more than 30 men and this is not a small number, with our “craving” for realism large ships will not fit into the dynamics of game battles. Even huge vessels are extremely vulnerable to aircraft and they had very complex tactics, including reconnaissance, protection, long range combat and even rules to their movement do not comply with the gameplay - fighting for frags and rewards. Capital ships move so slow that they cannot dodge ANY hits at the distance they are fighting at. The only possible solutions are either boost their speed x5 at least so they can dodge or limit the shooting distance. But even if we boost the speed x5 (making it equal to the slowest aircraft) that won't solve the problem of shooting beyond visible range.but still it is possible that one ship can destroy another with a lucky shot - e.g.Bismarck vs. Hood. Two shots fired, battle lasted 30 minutes, hood sank in 3 Maps could be made bigger but that would involve hours and hours of travelling only to get taken out in the first few minutes of contact, there are a few of us who would be happy to do that, but there are just too many that wouldn't. 3.Economy Ships DO take longer to sink, even one lucky shot can take a whole ship out of action, without destroying or damaging critical modules. Even with critical damage it would take hours for a capital ship to sink. Thus without simplifying damage model to a HP system or the like there will be no game play at all How can you count kills? In reality destroying one capital ship could take hours and hours, and, sometimes seconds - in case of ammunition explosion. With smaller vehicles it is clear - destroying an enemy brings greater rewards, damaging an enemy also brings rewards or can take several hits to destroy an enemy. With ships that have crews of over 1000 men for example, it is much more complex. It is exactly the same for the economy and research and development - even if we ignore big crews with a great variety of functions and qualifications and hundreds of different modules, there is still the question “how many millions of “lions” should a torpedo bomber receive that has taken down a capital ship with a lucky strike? For such battles we would require a significantly redesigned game mechanic - a completely different gameplay. 4 Imbalance in Nations As we know, and let’s be honest about this, not all nations had a heavy warship fleet that could match the opponents at the time. There would be nothing up front that could appear in the development of the tree and compete on equal terms with their opponents unless we use small ships to begin with. We aim not only to give you the very existence of warships in War Thunder, but also to create highly interesting gameplay as well, which would fit into the overall concept of the game, allow each player the participation of all types of equipment in a single battle. The US, Great Britain and Japan had indisputable superiority over the USSR in the number of aircraft carriers, which immediately deprives the USSR of this class of vehicle from the beginning - and yet it happened not because of the technical backwardness of the Soviet Union, but for the simple reason: the Soviet Union had not experienced a great need for these ships, because the main fighting took place both on land and in the air. The same can be said for Germany, their naval power was not the greatest at the beginning of our time frame. But how do we explain that to the many players across the world who still want to be the best? Make no mistake, many players use the soviet and German nations in game. At the same time, small class ships were common to all nations, and here they are just perfect for most of the current vehicles represented in War Thunder lines of development. 5.Specialty One more issue is that vessels such as battleships were used very selectively, battles lasted for hours and even days and often ended with an enemy retreat or not being destroyed. Moreover ships such as the “Yamato” or “Missouri” were unique in their class, and definitely, players wouldn't like to wait in the queue because the single e.g. “Yamato” for the current battle has already been taken, or dozen of battleships in one battle without a supporting fleet will be a clumsy and easy target for aircraft. Most importantly - CBT is your chance to share your ideas that may affect the naval battle development process in War Thunder, in reality this is quite a leap for our game and we should remember that the reality of ship combat is very rarely reflected accurately in any game, join the test, give us your feedback and suggestions and we will create a mode that many will enjoy, not just a few! In summary, this isn't a definitive no, but an invitation to help “Steer” the development so as many of us as possible can get enjoyment out of this unusual game mode, you know it makes sense. Please check out the latest announcement from Gamescom that can be found here:- Smooth Seas Warriors. Please feel free to discuss it below.
  4. Some quotes from the past discussions to keep you acclimatised. Previous Topics (merged) When discussing in this topic - keep it constructive, civil and on Topic! Do not break the forum rules! You have been warned.
  5. Can we request that all Mac users post below their:   System Configuration System Settings Game Settings FPS Results in from Benchmark in game (Berlin)   Thanks in advance.   o7