This member has provided no bio about themself...
My latest efforts lately was to improve the performance and more importantly to find the reason for the in-mission crashs.
I've been doing stress test of everything that I can remember, but I still wasn't able to pinpoint the real resaon for that.
But since we are talking about that have anyone had a crash in skirmish, or quick action? because I can only find them in scripted mission.
Also, maybe I'm talking way so soon, but there is the possibility of adding something really good *cough*Workshop*cough*
Yes, but it has been slow, still, things are progressing:
I'm still working on other things to make this a good update.
Yes absolutely, the best blueprints usually found only on paper
Like Nergal said, It has no special meaning, it just part of my workflow, I use basic colors in the panel lines to be easier to spot in the darker areas.
The use of different colors is a way to distinguish different layers, this shot was after I've finished the wings.
I've tested some moments ago, yes I can confirm that behaviour.
In the sub objects data it was added a new line, "RadarType=", by default is 0 that means air and ground, 1 for ground only and 2 for air only.
@cegc135, I see, you mean a speed multiplier for each animation
I think it is possible, but the the elevation has to be done in a modeling program.
Hmm.. maybe I do keep the updates to myself in some circumstances, but is not because I don't want to share, usually the reason is either that is not ready or there is still something missing.
Also most of the work lately was trying to find and fix some issues, with reasonable success, but new content has not been added much.
As soon I start having something to show, I'll post in twitter. At this point the best solution I see when that happens, I'll prepare what is ready and release it in the "incubator" branch.
I should have added this aircraft before as this is a easy variant, but thanks to your comment I've decided, I'm going to start making the S/MTD now, it will be a god way to make some news.
@Koeben I also want that special function to happen
Yes, the F-16 and Su-27 definitely need some corrections, the reason there isn't much more variants of those families is because in not comfortable with the base model. The solution is to make them almost from scratch, I've been hesitant to make that step, but for a higher accuracy, at some point I have to make it.
@Nergal01, as for the F-22 I'm not worried, because it is impossible to be 100% as I know that all models have imperfections, either by lack of information at the time, or because I made the wrong interpretation.
True, although not as frequently but I still have a look at anything new.
Sorry, I know you have been waiting for progress, but is still not at point I can safely point out a release date,
It's mostly because the progress is has been slower than before, but I hope to be able to start tweeting new changes/additions soon.
Hmmm, I still don't have a trustworthy ETA that I can provide.
But as for the tweaks in the stealth system, yes I added the minimum detection range to 5km, and all stealth units appear in the map radar.
For weapons, it will add a good chuck, but for aircrafts I really want to this time to finally to add the EF 2000 and RAFALE
I don't think it worth it, it will likely become incompatible with the sound wrapper and other systems, so it most likely would have more issues and instability.
Yes, I will not overlook that, I want all add to all bombers that should have internal weapons bay, including those fictional/concepts models.
About some issues that are unlikely ever be fixed, that is absolutely true.
One of the main structural issue, is how the game was designed and evolved in some points, if I could go back in time I would slap myself for some decisions.
Other problem is the engine itself, as it was made in ogre3D, it carried some strengths and some weaknesses. These weakness become more evident in the latter stages of development , it not as easy or quick to work with as unity or UE4, it also has severe rendering, performance and compatibility limitations and issues, something that more modern engines don't have. (Some of these issues can be bypassed in ogre, but require a lot of man hours and specialization that is very hard to provide in small indies)
I'm not blaming ogre! I'm just really with envy of the tools, capabilities and ease of use of modern engines.
Also, as for devs that bail out if things go bad or not meet the expected sales, maybe that is the "smartest" move for a company and I'm being dumb for still working on it, despite all the shortcomings.
But I like VT and I like the community. I'm sure that I will never be able to make this VT the way I hoped for, but I will do what I can to expand and improve VT.
@Nergal01, if there is people enjoying it, I want to keep updating VT as long as I can. Some update may take longer than others, but they will happen regardless of the reviews.
But like Nichelo, I can't deny bad reviews hurt a little. Of course I accept them and keep them in mind and I also know that I shouldn't let the feelings affect the work, but is true that sometimes a bad review can break the mood for a moment. But I think that's normal for everyone.
I would like that, but there are two things that prevent me to make any "2018 future bomber", I would like to make the B-2 bomber first, since the artistic renderings always make them very similar, knowing the surface of the B-2 beforehand would help me make these representations more "realistic".
But the other reason is far more important, I want to update the B-52 to a high detail model to really consider the possibility of allowing playable bombers.
Nah, the only reason for my lack of posts lately is only because I had nothing interesting to report.
During the weekend, I've seen your comment and I've tried making a material with a standard shader. It's actually not as simple as I was expecting, I actually have to make some changes in the code to allow more compatibility
@John_Silver I also like "Gran Turismo" approach, I think is viable to be done to all models without being too much time consuming, but I don't know if you all agree.
@bornloser but the cycle limitation is something that can be added either way.
As for the cockpit texture, don't worry, like the weapons bay, I'll make the cockpit texture be configured in the aircraft ini, that way there is no need to update skin files
@Koeben, none, after this update I'm going to work in the workshop, but I dont' know how much time it will take, so before that I may release a "filler" update to add something minor or address some requests if it starts to take too long.
Yes, like Nergal 01 said! If you don't mind, I really appreciate if you remind me these things. Unless I say it has been added, there is a high change that I may forget or something pops up that leads me away to do other things.
@John_Silver I think it really had a texture issue, but I'll have a look.
But the real reason why I disabled that view was because the lack of cockpit model for most aircraft, I'm sure it would leave a negative impression in newcomers, but I can add a way to still be possible to enable the cockpit view for the "advanced users", something like pressing (Left Ctrl+C)
in the aircraft ini, just below the "[Effects]"
add these lines:
if you set to change and don't add a valid name it won't play any effect or sound
Actually, I have two concerns in the idea of expanding the loadout system.
One is the amount of changes I would have to make in code. (I sure something like this would definitely require most of the systems and game modes to be updated as well)
The other is like Mattoropael said, it would require a HUGE revision in most aircrafts.
At the same time, this is something I would like to have, but this is a feature I definitely won't be working on anytime soon
Workshop is on hold at the moment, I want to clear some priorities first before going in that direction, so I don't have an ETA for it.
it is like SpootKnight said, but maybe I should increase a little bit the detection range.
No, it is really an unintended behavior, most likely the code for both is sharing some data.