4.31 U1 - DEV VIDEOS
-
Awesome improvements for the AI and Multi sessions, great job! it is looking amazing!
-
-
I would bet that there are several BMS running at the same time.
-
@vfp:
The dev pc struggles what specs has?
Debug builds are a lot more frame rate challenged than release builds in general. You need not be concerned about this kind of thing – we pay attention to performance when it comes to the release configuration builds. We don’t put things in that crater performance (…and there are things we have tried that do that and where the conclusion is “never mind…” once it is tried in a release build and turns into a slide show).
-
-
-
-
Thank you for sharing all those videos with the community ! It really is a « behind the scene » view
-
-
lol, bug like in error or….bug like in hornet
-
I can haz confusion: aren’t we past 4.31? I thought we were on 4.34?
-
What Bug?
guys chill…it maybe be a sarcastic joke at the competition Simulator ??? an FA18 is sometimes refered to as SuperBug /or Bug?
-
What bug ?
The NWS suddenly turning off for no reason.
Sent from my Redmi 7A using Tapatalk
-
The NWS suddenly turning off for no reason.
Sent from my Redmi 7A using Tapatalk
The reason is NLG wow switch being triggered very briefly by a nasty bump
I am not sure it happens again in U1 else I will improve it
-
guys chill…it maybe be a sarcastic joke at the competition Simulator ??? an FA18 is sometimes refered to as SuperBug /or Bug?
No “chill” (?) if there is a bug it is good to know what to be able to fix.
-
SA10 HARM killer
Demonstrator code : not implemented due to lack of reliable information about capability of the sams
I hope it will be implemented with limitations sooner or later.
Also if a HARM can be downed next step can be the anti ASM. Welcome the naval combat in F4 world. Yehaaaaaaaaaaaw. -
As we have discussed it … Anti HASM/ASM is not an issue … It can be implemented tomorrow (actually it already exist).
Question is: How to implement without breaking overall balance and Campaigns. That is a problem and is much more tricky than “simply” launching missiles on other missiles. -
Why breaking balance D? Actually all the A-G weapons we implemented in 4.33 are a balance breaker, giving the other side a way to protect itself is more balance. e.g today you can kill a carrier with a couple of Harpoons, but if it’ll get such protection against low-level flying missiles, then let’s see the challenge to kill it
-
Anti-missile sutff implemented without real constrains will deplete SAM launchers in few seconds … then … there will be no more active SAM at all … No more need to try destroy them. No need of talents, no need of tactics, annihilating SAMs will becomes a piece of cake.
-
As we have discussed it … Anti HASM/ASM is not an issue … It can be implemented tomorrow (actually it already exist).
Question is: How to implement without breaking overall balance and Campaigns. That is a problem and is much more tricky than “simply” launching missiles on other missiles.It’s no secret that BLUFOR has a lot of advantages in BMS. That may or may not be the case IRL, I don’t know, but currently, the scales are definitely tipped in NATO’s favour a bit too much.
Even if it’s not entirely realistic, which I know is your objective with BMS, I think many would agree that adding anti-missile capability to a select number of units of which it is currently suspected-but-as-yet-unproven that they are capable of such feats, would make NATO a lot less powerful. Ironically, an unrealistic change would actually make the battlefield more realistic in terms of balance.
One possible major problem with adding this functionality, however, is that it may require a rewrite of the way BMS code frags campaigns. You will have to rely on a lot more SEAD / DEAD, and/or overwhelming SAM-sites by sheer numbers, and how AI will (re)act to/around a target that still has SAM-cover, because the weapons assigned to that were intercepted. Simultaneously, you would have to link SAM Btn together to get that capability (e.g. SA-19 as SAM, but also as anti-missile-capable point-defense for an SA-2), and be able to have the SA-19 engage missiles bound for the SA-2 as well.