Fresh stuff from sukhoi.ru (Discussion)

[SiThSpAwN]

It looks that he is discussing the level to which they may or may not do the damage modelling in the sequel....

[SlipBall]

I hope that the sequel does not retreat from, but expands on CEM, and the DM.

[Buchon]

They are talking about the physical weathering, they plan to have a fully weathering system in the next add-on/sequel.

Currently we have a esthetic weathering only, you can add it to your plane and then the paint will look old and the plane dirty.

In the sequel or merged add-on the game will have physical weathering so not only our paint get old but our plane too, affecting to air drag, engine, power, cooling ...

This system will give to servers admins and mission builders more wide possibilities, including use it as balance tool.

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by Buchon

They are talking about the physical weathering, they plan to have a fully weathering system in the next add-on/sequel.

Currently we have a esthetic weathering only, you can add it to your plane and then the paint will look old and the plane dirty.

In the sequel or merged add-on the game will have physical weathering so not only our paint get old but our plane too, affecting to air drag, engine, power, cooling ...

This system will give to servers admins and mission builders more wide possibilities, including use it as balance tool.

How did you reach your conclusion?...I'm not seeing that at all in the quote's, seems to be about random failures.

[Buchon]

Originally Posted by SlipBall

How did you reach your conclusion?...I'm not seeing that at all in the quote's, seems to be about random failures.

That quote is just a user being afraid that this system can be overdone and become a random failure system.

Then the poor Blacksix said that he don't know how works, he is not a coder, but that it just weathering parts.

Again time wasted in boring clarifications over wild speculation if you ask me, we also have this over here



Here is the true deal where you can read about the weathering system and where I had my conclusion :

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...01&postcount=2

[csThor]

Originally Posted by BlackSix

Maps of the next project will be the size of the acc with the challenges they face. Map in WT is not a standard. If we do, for example, the "Battle of Urjupinsk", we do not need to simulate the area comparable to the south of England.

Personal opinion: Maps can't be large enough. The smaller the map the less flexible it is in its use. 1946 showed - sometimes drastically - why cutting off maps can be an awkward affair. From my POV (which is focused on history first and foremost) a map for the Battle of Moscow should be almost as large as this to incorporate all relevant areas and to allow the placement of bomber units at the right bases (without the need to have them airstart):

[JG52Krupi]

+1 agreed

[BlackSix]

Originally Posted by csThor

Personal opinion: Maps can't be large enough. The smaller the map the less flexible it is in its use. 1946 showed - sometimes drastically - why cutting off maps can be an awkward affair. From my POV (which is focused on history first and foremost) a map for the Battle of Moscow should be almost as large as this to incorporate all relevant areas and to allow the placement of bomber units at the right bases (without the need to have them airstart):

Yes, it's excellent image. And we would make such map about 3-4 years. It's impossible.