4.11 General debugging

[Luno13]

That could be cool. You could "claim" a kill in a post-mission drop-down list, and it only counts if an AI was around to see it and survives to "tell" about it.

I suppose humans could verify, but witnesses could leave the game, lie if they have a spite issue, or forget to report, etc. Splitting a kill 50/50 (or even 25/75, etc) automatically based on damage done would be just fine. However, you wouldn't want the guy who gets in a couple peashooter shots just as the opponent hits the ground to get a half, or even quarter, of the pie. But it's better than nothing.

Also, I think point structure for ground targets could be re-worked. I mean, an aircraft carrier is worth 700 points....a bomber is 400. It's much easier to shoot down two bombers than one carrier, and a carrier could have 2000 points worth of planes in its hangar or on the deck. Fuel stores and "infrastructure" should also count for something and be target-able by AI (and I know about the whole hiding the truck in the building thing, but that's not very cool ).

[Whacker]

Originally Posted by Luno13

Splitting a kill 50/50 (or even 25/75, etc) automatically based on damage done would be just fine. However, you wouldn't want the guy who gets in a couple peashooter shots just as the opponent hits the ground to get a half, or even quarter, of the pie. But it's better than nothing.

I disagree completely. Someone who randomly comes along and puts a single 7.92mm round, or two, or three, or ten, into the flaming hulk that I just shot up shouldn't get an iota of credit. Hence my earlier thoughts. If kill stealing is a problem online that others have indicated, then this also would be further argument against a simplistic 50/50 split.

Also, I think point structure for ground targets could be re-worked. I mean, an aircraft carrier is worth 700 points....a bomber is 400. It's much easier to shoot down two bombers than one carrier, and a carrier could have 2000 points worth of planes in its hangar or on the deck. Fuel stores and "infrastructure" should also count for something and be target-able by AI (and I know about the whole hiding the truck in the building thing, but that's not very cool ).

Seconding all of this, great ideas.

[Luno13]

I disagree completely. Someone who randomly comes along and puts a single 7.92mm round, or two, or three, or ten, into the flaming hulk that I just shot up shouldn't get an iota of credit.

That's what I said

[Whacker]

Originally Posted by Luno13

That's what I said

My fault then. To be fair to myself, you did kinda contradict yourself a few times, so I was confused. Focused on what I thought the gist of your response was.

[-=MadCat=-]

I posted this issue before in the 4.10.1 bug report, not much changed, so here I go again for 4.11.

The fuel quantity of the P-51D-20NA is somewhat off.
Inspired by the thread about the wrong fuel for the Betty I did some testing again and notived not much change to the last time I checked it.

In short:
Test was a simple runtime check on the runway with 51" 2600rpm (70% for both).
100% fuel should be a ful auxiliary tank (85gal) and 2 full wing tanks (92gal each), giving 269gal total.
With this much fuel the engine ran at the given settings for ~152 minutes, burning ~1.77gal/min.
The auxiliary tank, from the time the needle started to move emptied in ~55 minutes, saying its 1.55gal/min.
Adding 2 drop tanks and lifting the fuel to 419gal total, engine ran for ~212 minutes, burning 1.98gal/min.

There are some possible error sources. I did the test with all available fuel quantities (100% - 10%) and there are more oddities !

No range tests done yet due to lack of time at the moment.
If you, TD, are interested in all the test results for all fuel quantities, let me know and by the end of the month I will do range tests as good as I can and write a comprehensive summary of all the results.

Wish you all a relaxed sunday !