This member has provided no bio about themself...
No offense taken at all. We actually had dialog with Renegade X much earlier, and did some experimentation on UDK ourselves after seeing their successes (porting assets, testing some gameplay, etc).
In the end we decided against it for a few reasons, but have taken the time to re-evaluate the option now and then. Seeing the UE4 SDK demonstration got us excited actually, and if there is a "UDK 4" we'll definitely play with that... although it will likely mean starting from scratch in terms of the gameplay mechanics.
That one I linked was supposed to have the option to skip it. I don't have a handy version of the current launcher build you can simply extract, but I'll try to get one up sometime. Please end a PM to Danpaul on our forum as he is responsible for the launcher and its installer and may be able to help.
It was developed on a Windows 7 system and many of our test team use Win 7; if you are having trouble please post your error messages on our forum.
It's a unified launcher shared by all of our projects. If you're trying to download Apocalypse Rising, I'm sorry to say that it is still only available to our internal testing team.
We've actually got a newer installer available that was intended for use by those with .NET4 problems. Try this slightly different one out:
Swing by our forum if you're still having trouble please
So is this cancelled, then?
There indeed are a few of those :)
We've had this feedback from several people so far and might look into making those changes, but we don't want to make it TOO complicated (although apparently there's an audience for more sophisticated damage models due to games like WoT and Warthunder).
It's like a train set, a hobby more than a product.
We're sort of between releases right now, so there aren't tons of players.
Always get the latest, but the new launchers are not ready for Mac quite yet.
Pretty low, like Windows 2000+
All clients can see it
Uploading a new launcher to hopefully fix the .NET 4 installation issue for you guys; at the very least you'll be able to just install .NET 4 by yourself if the new installer is unable to install it.
The whole aircraft in general is pretty poorly "armored" so right now, nothing's considered particularly weak. This might change going forward, but that's the thought process for now.
I hope it'll take it into the present! No decision yet on if TSR or AR will make use of these changes.
Our plans now include a full installer going forward, stay tuned, we're testing a new build for TS:Reborn literally right now so hopefully you should have it soon.
We're reviewing this right now since we know we have lots of Mac fans.
To clarify what's happening, a ".NET Profile" is not your account/login/userinfo in that sense of the word "profile," it is an "installation profile" that describes a subset of the .NET Framework.
You may be familiar with some installers that have installation profiles like "Full" or "Light" or "Custom." The Microsoft .NET Framework has the options of either Full or Client. Because we do not require the full profile, the installation ensures you have a working copy of the client profile instead.
The installation/repair/handling (and naming) is poorly handled by Microsoft's installers.
As a side note, beginning with .NET Framework v4.5, Microsoft redesigned the deployment options such that there IS no client profile -- every deployment gets the same full set of libraries.
I think the firing rate might come down a little more for Medium/Heavy tanks compared to what you see in the video. It is pretty important to let people retaliate when attacked, after all. Don't worry about the numbers given in this update, they're just to illustrate the system. We're working with the testers to get a good balance on it right now.
People who love to bunnyhop are going to be very, very disappointed and will probably slam the "disagree" button hard when they see next week's update :)
It's OK for people to agree/disagree, but unfortunately the ModDB system hides posts by default if they are disagreed with enough. Since not everybody wants to make a post to say they agree/disagree they just use the +/- buttons.
We're not looking to do a whole physics/penetration model here, just certain spots that are "weaker" than others.
This is not necessarily representative of the ease at which you can destroy a Heavy Tank.
Swing by our forum for technical help
We're working on changing that so it'll run better on modern machines, take advantage of multi-core processors, and offload some of the work to the GPU where it belongs.
We're sorry but that's got to be a really old CPU.