Jump to content
Forums closed, discord our new home! Read more... ×
Heroes & Generals


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Reto.Christiano

  1. Reto.Christiano

    AA gun, gun sights glitch.

    The ring stays horizontal so it can be used to lead a plane in level flight. In reality you would have an assistant next to the gun who's job it is to estimate the speed of the aircraft. He would turn a crank on the side of the mount that slides the ring sight back and forward to make the sight appear bigger or smaller in the gunners view, to correspond with the estimated speed of the aircraft. The gunner then simply needs to place the target on the ring so that it it moving toward the center bead. Since the ring stays horizontal, this will automatically adjust the correct lead. For example if the plane is far away and flying toward you, you will not need to lead it as much, and as you aim at it the ring will appear squished in your view (because it is horizontal). as the plane is getting closer and is beginning to fly over you, you will need to lead it more, and since you are raising the gun to follow the plane, the sight will appear to become more round in your view (again, because it is horizontal), which is still the correct amount of lead. The assistant can also adjust the angle of the pendulum based on if the target is ascending or descending. But the gunners work is still the same: place the target on the ring so that it is moving toward the center. In the game you don't have an assistant to estimate the target velocity and adjust the sight size. But instead you can use the different rings for the different target velocities. So the first ring is for slow speed, second ring is for medium speed, and outer ring is fast speed. So place your target in relation to one of the rings based on the estimated speed, and that will be the correct amount of lead, no matter what direction the plane is flying (in level flight) relative to you.
  2. Reto.Christiano

    Please revert or just fix them right away

    Are you experiencing this currently? There was a hotfix released this morning to address the issue. If anyone are still experiencing problems, please take a screenshot where the sun/moon is visible and post it, that way I can identify what weathersetting you are having issues with, and I will continue the investigation. Also, if you were previously experiencing problems, and it is better now, I would also like to know.
  3. Reto.Christiano

    why is this game so dark?

    There is a bug that causes the game to look darker on some systems but not others. I think I'm able to replicate the problem now, and I'm looking into fixing the issue.
  4. Reto.Christiano

    Please revert or just fix them right away

    There is a bug that causes the game to look darker on some systems but not others. I think I'm able to replicate the problem now, and I'm looking into fixing the issue.
  5. Reto.Christiano

    Reduce the smoke when you shoot!!!

    The short summery. A long time ago, the sky had all the elements it does right now, sun, distant clouds, moon, and stars. And a sun-glare effect that passes through the sun element to, well, create sun-glare. But at some point, many many years ago something broke in the renderer and these elements disappeared. It looks like the temporary solution was to increase the glare intensity so that the glare would be visibe even without the sun, so that there would be at least something resembling a sun in the sky. This however had a problem that whenever a sprite element was drawn in front of the sun, it would bloom exessively, as seen in the screenshot above. This would not happen too often, but it could be a problem when a low level cloud passed in front of the sun, or if engaging in a shootout with someone on a roof with the sun behind them. The problem became worse with the introduction of flamethrowers, which creates a larger volume of particles. This became a real problem en the down and dusk weather settings where normal use of the flamethrower would cover the sun and trigger the bloom. A temporary workaround was to move the sun higher up on the sky so that it was less likely to be covered by the flames during normal use. The issue with the missing sky elements has finally been fixed recently, thus fixing the glare issues. Fixing the sky elements required the weather settings to be reworked, otherwise the result was as shown in the screenshot above. And with the fixes the sun could be lowered once again to the location it was before that workaround that was done for the flamethrowers. And with the sky elements fixed the sky could be made to look a lot more interesting than the flat blue constant that it was before. Like I've said, there is a second iteration of changes to the weather system in progress, this one changing to how the fog system works. Feedback on the current settings are welcome, just make them in a seperate thread from this one, and please keep it specific and constructive. For example "everything is too dark" is not very specific, instead something like "the shadows are too dark on the sunrise and sunset settings" is far more useful.
  6. Reto.Christiano

    Reduce the smoke when you shoot!!!

    I know that you don't believe me when I say that it is not that easy to do, but here: This is a screenshot following your instructions exactly. This is the exact old light settings with the fixed sky elements and the growthsize of the muzzle particles set to about 60%.
  7. Reto.Christiano

    Reduce the smoke when you shoot!!!

    The muzzleflashes have three effects. Third-person, First-person-hipfire, and First-person-aiming. The two first person effects are significantly less intense than the third person, which is why I am inquiring about the conditions in which people feel the smoke is obstructive. Because if the problem is that targets are getting covered up by their own smoke when they are shooting, or if the smoke from other players are covering up your screen in close quarter combat, then it doesn't help anything if I try to reduce the first-person smoke effects. Then the issue needs to be addressed in the third person effect.
  8. Reto.Christiano

    Reduce the smoke when you shoot!!!

    Lowering the ParticleIntensity does not make the particles less visible, it makes them darker, which makes them even more visible. The particleIntensity value needs to be at a sweet spot that corresponds with the various light settings to make the particles as neutral as possible. If the value is set lower than that sweet spot value they become darker and more visible, if the value is higher it becomes brighter and more visible.
  9. Reto.Christiano

    Reduce the smoke when you shoot!!!

    Let me just be clear, I would be happy to give the muzzle flash effects a workover, but while you might think that this is easy to do, you are just gonna have to trust me when I say that it is not. What I am trying to get to, is some specific examples that I can reproduce and use for a baseline for where the effects are bad. It is not a simple matter of just removing the particles, that would remove the flame effect as well. Nor is it as easy as to just reduce the intensity, that would mean that the effect would become darker and even more visible in some conditions. Nor can it simply be scaled down, that would make it more intense in other conditions. And for you who complain about the new weathersettings, claiming that wasn't broken and therefore shouldn't be fixed, might I remind you that the sky was severely broken before. all sky elements were missing (and only visible in the water reflection), and whenever a transparent effect went in front of the sun, the entire screen would light up like a nuclear explosion. There has been several comlains about that, and that the game doesn't look good enough. Now those issues are fixed, and many people had been asking for just that. The fixes to the sky box also required the weather settings to be redone. The old settings would not work with the fixed sky. I am still working on a second iteration of the weather system where I'm making some changes to the way fog works. so there will be further changes to the weather in the future, and I'd be happy to get user feedback from the current settings. Just keep weather feedback in a seperate thread from this one, or give it directly to reto.hades who will collect and generalize the feedback. But please keep the feedback constructive and as specific. Just saying "everything is bad" won't help anyone.
  10. Reto.Christiano

    Reduce the smoke when you shoot!!!

    I've made a test setup of this example. Here it is with the Thompson firing infinitely toward another character who also has a thompson firing infinitely toward the player in the different weather settings. And here it is using STGs firing toward a non-shooting character with another character next to him firing an STG back. Does these represent what you are experiencing in the game? What I am trying to get to is if this issue needs to be addressed in the renderer for each weather type, or if it needs to be addressed in each individual particle effect, or if the issue is somewhere else. For example, I would say that 01 Clear Day is fine in this scenario, but 04 Clean Night is problematic. So at least part of the issue needs to be addressed in the rendering for that weather type. It is not as simple as "just decrease the smoke". It looks to me like most of these examples actually show the impact effects obstructing your view, and not the gunsmoke. So here decreasing the gunsmoke would not solve your problem. Also, I will be ignoring all examples where people are using brightness settings beyond the normal ranges.
  11. Reto.Christiano

    Reduce the smoke when you shoot!!!

    There are more than 3000 variables for all the muzzle flash effects. When all I have to go with "it is just bad", all I can do is to start up the game myself, shoot the different guns and conclude that it doesn't look so bad to me. I can't see how the game looks on your computer, on your monitor, with your settings. And if people are increasing the brightness values to more than 3 times the range in which the game is designed for, then that should definitely not be what sets the standard. And if the problem that people are complaining about is that other players becomes covered in their own gunsmoke, then it doesn't matter how much I reduce the smoke from your own gun (which is already significantly less than the smoke you see from other players), it won't fix the problem that people are actually complaining about. Or if the smoke is only a problem on a certain weather setting, or in certain conditions, then it also doesn't help that I reduce the smoke, then I would need to fix the issue in the rendering for that particular weather type. The gun smoke serves a purpose in that it allows you to see where other players are shooting from. And smokeless powder is not smoke-free.
  12. Reto.Christiano

    Reduce the smoke when you shoot!!!

    Can you clarify what you mean by brightness value of 5? The brightness slider in the game menu brings the brightness value between 0.5 and 1.5. Are you setting your value higher than that in the config file or console? Because if you have set the ingame brightness to be 5, then yes, that will severely reduce the details you can see in the game.
  13. Reto.Christiano

    Reduce the smoke when you shoot!!!

    Are you talking about the smoke from your own weapon when you shoot? Is it worse when aiming or when hip firing? Is there a particular weapon you experience the problem with? Or is it the smoke from other players weapons when they shoot? Or the impact effects when the bullet hits? What weather types do you experience a problem on? What direction relative to the sun are you facing when you experience the problem? What is your graphics settings?`(specifically if you are running with fast particles) These are all factors I need to know before I can address the issue.
  14. Reto.Christiano

    Wings Of Liberty Update 2.0 Wings Balance

    I do. I made the current hill skirmish map (based on an earlier map of similar design)
  15. Reto.Christiano

    Wings Of Liberty Update 2.0 Wings Balance

    How do you imagine that the JU 87 would be in the game? It is a very iconic dive bomber, but stats-wise it is not much different from the HS 126 Recon plane. It is slightly slower but with better climb rate, has one extra forward machine gun, and it can carry four 50 kg bombs in addition to the main bomb. The Stuka has been requested for a long time, but I fear that people would be very disappointed with it's performance. Having a class of ground attack aircraft is something that was brought up a long time ago, and some planes have been tested ingame to test different concepts (as well as escort missions for heavy bombers). But that project has been on the shelf for a long time. The ground attack planes I had my eyes on back then were more direct-fire autocannon armed ground attack planes rather than dive bombers (since, as mentioned above, the actual performance of divebombers in the game would be a bit underwelming) So something in the lines of: JU 87 G "Kanonen Vogel" - Armed with two 37mm auto cannons with 12 rounds each. Sources differ a bit on weather or not the forward firing machineguns were removed on the G series, with the majority of sources claiming that they were removed. Which would leave the JU87G with only anti-tank armaments and not much to do against infantry. It is of course entirely plausible that the reason for the differences in sources is that the machine guns were removed on some planes, but not neccesarrily all. The IL-2 is an obvious choice for the Soviet. Can't go wrong with a pair of 23mm auto cannons. Not quite as powerful as the 37mm, but faster firing and with 150 rounds of ammunition to compensate. For the US I had the P-39Q in mind. Strictly speaking not a ground-attack aircraft, but it was often used in that role and excelled at it with a 37mm autocannon and 30 rounds. One thing I did experiment with, back when we did concept testing on these things, was to have the guns fire at a slightly downward angle on the ground attack planes. This would make them more suited for strafing runs and give them a handicap in air-to-air combat. But like I said, this plan has been on the shelf for quite a long time, and there are no emidiate plans of picking it up again. The M36B1 was actually planned from the very start when the Heavy Tank Destroyers were introduced. The plan was to have two heavy tank destroyers for each faction, and the M36 was made as the M36B1 from the beginning, with the intend that it could be combined with the M10 hull to create the regular M36 (which was then released first). The plans then changed, and the second tier of heavy tank destroyers were neven made and the nearly finished M36B1 has been sitting still ever since. Another ulterior motive for making the M36B1 was that the hull could be used as the basis for updating the M4A3E8 model (which is one of the earliest assets in the game, and one that was in need of an update) So that was the original plan all along, that was put on hold, and that I've just recently started to resume working on. In the meantime, the M36B1 asset has become so old that it was using our old material system, so resurrecting it meant that I had to redo the textures, which in turns meant that I also had to update the regular M36 as well as the M10 materials. The M36B1 was planned to be released in this update, but an issue emerged quite close to the release date as there wouldn't be enough time to properly test it before the release. My current focus is more with addressing older issues with the game and not so much new content. (For example fixing the broken LOD models for the buildings, which has been partially released in this update.)
  16. Reto.Christiano

    New M2 carbine model

    It was used during the war under the name Hider, Flash, T23. Then after the war it was redesignated Hider, Flash, M3.
  17. Reto.Christiano

    New M2 carbine model

    Both models are period correct. The M1 Carbine modeled here shows the very early production, with a highwood stock with an I-cut, a narrow 2 rivet handguard, early flip-sight, flat-cam slide with narrow arm joint, flat-bolt, push button safety, and narrow barrel band. The M2 Carbine model contains all the features of a late war production carbine, including upgrades made specifically for the M2. It is a low-wood potbelly stock with a oval sling cut (the pot belly stock was made for the M2 Carbine, since the addition of an autosear required the bridge of the stock to be cut, which reduced the strength of the stock. M2 stocks were therefore made fatter around the area that had been cut), wide bullnose 4 rivet handguard, adjustable sight (which was also introduced on the later M1 Carbines), angled cam slide with wide arm joint (the new design had a longer dweltime, the angled cam acted as a casing deflector, and the arm joint was strengthened as this turned out to be a weak point on the early M1 Carbines), round bolt (was made mostly as a cost reducing measure), switch safety (also featured on late M1 Carbines), wide barrel band with bayonet lug (again a feature found on late M1 Carbines), a three-notch magazine release to facilitate the heavier 30 round magazines, and of course a selector switch. The conical flashhider was developed in 1944 and saw testing under the designation Hider, Flash, T23. By April 1945, after some modifications, Headquarters, Army Ground Forces recommended that the modified T23 was adopted for the M2 Carbine. From the record of Army Ordnance and Development: “the basis of issue of this flash hider be one per Carbine, Caliber .30, T3 which is a part of the Sniperscope, M2, and one each to combat and combat support troops armed with the M2 Carbine” In August 1945 it was recommended that the flash hider was redesignated as the Hider, Flash, M3 which it was the following September, just after the war in the Pacific ended. After the war the flash hiders would be replaced by a muzzle brake/compensator designated the Recoil Check, M1. which reduced the recoil and muzzle climb, to make the M2 Carbine more controlable in full auto. The M3 Carbine is quite specifically a scope-only carbine. The M3 designation refers to a specially build receiver that is not machined for a rear sight, but for a scope mount instead. The M3 Carbine was based on two previous scoped test carbine, the M1E7 Carbine and the T3, both having receivers that were specially machined for a scope mount rather than an iron sight. The final development of the M3 and it's approval happened toward the very end of the war in the Pacific, and the actual official adoption of the M3 Carbine happened the very day after Japan announced their surrender. This put an emidiate halt to all weapon contracts by US Army Ordnance, and the planned M3 Carbine production was stopped before it had really begun. Shortly after the war Winchester was contracted to change their already produced T3 carbines into the M3 carbine configuration, but since this was more of an upgrade of existing carbines rather than a new production, the exact configuration is a bit murky and the markings of the carbines were never changed from T3. In the end, Ordance would just designate the carbines that have had a fire selector switch installed as M3, while those without a selector would be designated T3.
  18. Reto.Christiano


    Saying that Germany used green tracers in everything is incorrect. As GermanSoldier mentioned, they used a large variety of colors such as Yellow, Orange, White, Red, and Green. I have not seen any sources that states that they favored a particular color - however the far majority of ammunition boxes for tracer ammunitions that I've come across have been labeled "gelb" for yellow. So for Germany, any of the colors above would be correct, however I've found more evidence that yellow was more common than the others (at least for small arms cartridges). The Soviets did have green tracer rounds, so it made even more sense to give Germany yellow tracers so that each faction will have their own color. I tried out orange for Germany, but I prefered yellow (also because, as mentioned above, yellow is the one I've found to be most common) In the interwar period the US were using both red and green tracers, but prior to WW2 they decided on the red tracer. During the war the US developed tracer ammunition for the .45 and .30 carbine, these were made in both a red tracer and a white tracer variant (white tracers might also have been available for other calibers) Yup. There were ranging tracers that burned green for 500m then turned to red. There were tracers like this during WW2 as well. Germany had tracers (again, in any color) that would be dim for the first 100m, then burn bright out to 600m (these are marked 100/600 on the packages) These were primarily used in aircraft. Both the US and Germany also had dim tracers for use at night.
  19. Reto.Christiano


    Yes, but it won't be in time for the next update. I got around to doing some stuff on some of the tank-shot impacts. But haven't gotten around to the bullet impacts yet.
  20. Reto.Christiano

    Lower powered/alternative scopes

    The scopes I'm working on are the M73B1, ZF-41, and PE.
  21. Reto.Christiano

    Recon Vehicles

    Another road map I'm plotting out at the moment is for Recon Vehicles. Here is the second early draft. The first draft was just three tiers, but trying to fit in the popular demand for a Puma, I'm trying to expand it to four (with the possibility of separating it into light and heavy resources). I am however finding it difficult to find good vehicles to match a Sd.Kfz.222 and 234 lineup. Both the M8 Greyhound, and the BA-6 fits sort of in between the two, so they could go either way, and would need something squeezed in either before or after them. In the layout above I tried pushing in a BA-27 in front of the BA-6, but I'm not convinced that this is the way to go. While the BA-6 has a decent cannon, it suffers quite severely in engine power (which is something that you can really tell with the new vehicle handling code, where I've had to be a bit generous with the BA-6, just to make it playable) - This is a general problem with all the Soviet armored cars. Very low HP/Weight ratios. So I'm open to suggestions for changes and additions to the overview above. In particular ideas for recon vehicles that will fit in either before or after the M8 and BA-6. Keep in mind, these vehicles should be some that were actually used for reconnaissance purposes. (as mentioned earlier, we are considering giving recon vehicles a "radio" function to work for an expanded spotting mechanics) Also the vehicles should not be easily confused with other vehicles. For example, the US should not get an M2 or M3 halftrack that looks too similar to the infantry half track. - Playing need to be able to tell easily if something is a mobile infantry spawn vehicle, or if it is a recon vehicle. (The German Sd.Kfz. 250, and the new Infantry Sd.Kfz. 251 looks different enough that this won't be a problem) Again, I would like to stress that the above is not a final road map of how things will be. This is an early draft that will be used throughout several design meetings.
  22. I finally got a chance so sit down and take a look at the vehicle road map. - That is, get an overview of the holes in our current vehicle layout, figure out what would fit in, and then we can use that road map to make a prioritized production schedule. Here is an overview of what I had in mind for the self propelled anti aircraft guns for the infantry: I could use some help with the Soviet Tier 2 and 3. While the TKB-149 triple DShK mount armament would fit quite well as a Tier 2, I have problems finding any reference of it. I've only seen two pictures of it (both are roughly from the same angle) and a single small scale model vehicle which is rather rough. This is not enough material to be able to make a 3d model. If anyone has any more pictures, or better yet blueprints, I would be very happy to get my hands on them. An alternative armament I have in mind, in case the triple DShK proves impossible to find, is either the 72-K single 25mm or 94-KM dual 25mm auto cannons. I'm also not too happy with the base vehicles for the Soviet Tier 2 and 3. It is a bit disappointing to have the same truck for all (other trucks were also used, but they are all very similar). So I'm thinking about using either the unarmored ZIS-22M, or the armored ZIS-41/43 halftracks as bases for either. Although the ZIS-22M was, as far as I can see, plagued with production problems and very few were produced. and the armored variant only existed as prototypes. If anyone has any production information on these (or other) Soviet half-tracks, I'd like to know so we can have a design meeting and decide if they are plausible enough to include. I would love to give the Soviets a halftrack of their own, and do away with their lend lease equipment. The above is just a draft/overview. If you have some good suggestions to alternatives, I'm all ears. Just keep in mind the basic tier groups. Tier 1) High rate of fire - Moderate Damage. (With the US sacrificing fire rate for higher damage) Tier 2) High rate of fire - Heavy Damage. Tier 3) Low rate of fire - Very High Damage. What I'm not looking for are tank based anti air guns (Ostwind, M19, ZSU-37). These are vehicles we would rather hold in reserve for the future possibility of adding an anti-air option for tankers. So what I'm most interested in is pictures (photos, blueprints, drawings, scale models) of Soviet anti aircraft trucks and halftracks, and especially the triple DShK mount.
  23. Reto.Christiano


    It has been fixed, but there might be a delay before it gets through as text needs to go through the translators first. The fix should come out sometime in the future when we have a minor update.
  24. Reto.Christiano

    M1919 bipod and aim

    We are working on it. Johnson also has the issue.
  25. Reto.Christiano

    Heroes and Generals is not ww2 [Confirmed]

    Hehe, we did have a brief debate about this, and were wondering how long it would take people to comment on it. The issue is that we can't use any of the authentic markings, since these are of still existing companies. We came up with a bunch of made-up names, like Reto Motor Corporation, or H&G Arms (a reference to H&R Arms, which is also a post-war Garand producer). These would work fine if placed a subtle place on the gun. But since the text is right in your face on the M1 Garand, it would look too much like an obvious joke. Went with International Harvester because it is a company that doesn't exist today, and also because it sounded cool. Another made-up name that I was very close to going with was Chicopee Armory. As for the serial numbers, I usually pick these with some very esoteric reference in mind. If any of you have any good ideas for what we could write on it, you are more than welcome to suggest them here, and I'll be happy to consider changing it on the model. Just keep in mind that it can't be any existing brand names.