devilslayersbane

It is the latter. While it would be a neat feature, NVIDIA and Oculus have both released SDK's in order to help developers create new games for the HTC Vive and Oculus Rift. From what I've seen, the Oculus rift also takes advantage of motion controls as well. That would mean an entirely new animation system, as the current one is so rigid it requires button presses to change animations. While I don't doubt the skill of the guys at tiberian technologies, I seriously doubt a complete, VR-ready animation system is in the works or even in the scope of their scripting knowledge. And if it was to favor the HTC Vive as opposed to the OR, you would want to make sure that the motion controllers could give feedback if used. Shit, I'd like to see a limited, adjustable aiming deadzone put in place (not that I would use it, but it's a nice feature). Long story short, while definitely possible, it would take too much development time. Without some sort of grant from EA to start working it, there would be no reason to do it.

That would require a lot of work, especially considering you'd have to separate the camera from the player character direction. Typically that's only reserved for sims. It'd be a challenge just to put in head-tracking support.

https://www.twitch.tv/devilslayersbane/v/58869903 New Highlight from today's stream! Edit: And Another! https://www.twitch.tv/devilslayersbane/v/58870812 Edit 2: Last one! https://www.twitch.tv/devilslayersbane/v/58871630

What about a heavy tank against a medium tank?

I'd like to see an objective based map similar to RA_seamist, but it be a D-Day style assault (not necessarily amphibious, but the soviets have a ton of bunkers and cover for infantry on large cliff-faces) where the allies have to assault the weakened soviet base (building wrecks welcome) and the soviets have limited resources.

Don't worry, I just have low viewer counts. I don't really know why and the feedback that twitch gives is kinda shitty, as it doesn't tell me where my viewers are or if I have any repeat visitors.

I will be starting a stream soon!

Streaming right now!

Hey, guys I will be doing an APB stream later tonight. Possibly from 8pm CDST to 10pm CDST http://www.twitch.tv/devilslayersbane

You're going to have to bear with me with me here, but let's look at it like this: Comparison to other infantry roles in APB: Grenadier (old): Small splash low damage only good in really tight spaces hard for new players to really get on to (not such a bad thing, but I've never used a grenadier effectively) Not really worth the money on any map that has a ref larger than 100m2, because other units do what he does better cheap Good against 2-3 infantry (alone) Grenadier (new): Large splash large damage good in medium sized spaces and open ground needs to lead a target well. Useful inside larger building (I.e. ref, wf) more expensive Good for early infantry rushes if used right Still provides a decent challenge for new players (veteran players get this challenge as free DLC). Good against 3-4 infantry (potentially) Kapitan: Good against 1-2 infantry poor at most CQB cheap Large ammo per mag stays after barr death Sergeant: CQB expert Decent at medium range engagements due to slugs good against 1-3 infantry stays after barr death cheap Flamethrower: Medium splash Medium damage more expensive explodes on death fire retardant Good on all maps Good against 3-4 infantry (basically a better old grenadier) So, if that's not enough, let's take some inspiration from real-life: F1 grenade (old grenadier) Can be thrown super far Can be thrown up close no kill radius damage radius small F1 grenade (new grenadier): Can be thrown relatively far (for a handheld grenade) High damage 3 second timer Large radius (still no guaranteed kill radius) F1 grenade IRL (soviet): 3.5-4 second fuze (generally) 30m effective radius, 200m possible damage radius (the latter is a bit extreme for a game not based on simulation) Thrown up to 30-45m out away from the user Overall the new grenadier has more use (imo) and is more believable Impact grenades did not see very wide use until more modern times in our timeline and older models often ended up causing more harm than good (see the T13 Beano) While you may have to limit somethings usefulness in order to get more use out of it in another area, lets see how this plays out. Talk is cheap. We need an effective script that can log kill messages on the server so that we can see how often grenadiers are used and how effective they are. I'm interested in seeing results.

By default, the engine does not support this at all, as it was built when single core processors still reigned supreme. I believe, ECW is the only project here that makes use of more than one thread, but ECW is really a thing unto itself anyway. Its not fully multi-thread aware, but rather just a few operations have been assigned to an additional thread. Jerad2142 is the one to ask for more info on this. Also jonwil and Saberhawk could shed more light on the internal workings surrounding this. Most games even today have difficulty dealing with multiple cores/threads. Arma 3 came out in September of 2013 and has a big CPU bottleneck which will kill your framerate (this is mostly due to AI). Using multiple cores/threads in consumer-grade products is mostly a pipe-dream atm, with what limited multiple core support available being limited to uneven distribution of loads on the separate cores (typically with one core taking the brunt of the work). Multi core rendering is definitely more viable these days (and pretty much required) but a lot of that is done driver/api side, not program side. But you also have to look at consumer-grade CPU's. The best one available right now (for the price) on Intel's side is the Pentium G3470 dual-core at 3.6 Ghz. For the average consumer, it's a great processor. It's fast and reliable, but for advanced consumers it lacks a ton of features that many of us talk about on here: Overclocking, hyperthreading, etc. Until those become more mainstream and normal, we're probably not going to see games that use much more than that without becoming inaccessible to those who can't make the paywall. We have to remember that PC enthusiasts are not the "norm" for pc gaming. We're a minority. Vocal, sure, but we're still a minority. I just happen to be a pc enthusiast who has gotten very lucky (literally had a six-core rig gifted to me). Most people don't have the money or time to invest in picking out PC parts for what their particular situation is. That's why I'm trying to make a side-business doing just that. I like pc parts and I like putting pc's together. If you pay for the parts and the time I take to put them together, I will be more than happy to put it all together for you. Back on topic, Single and dual-core processors are still relevant, even if they no longer hold the title of top-dog. Some people just can't afford any better than that but still want some entertainment. They want to be able to download a game and play without all of the hassle of picking out parts or what-not. That's why consoles are still relevant.

Oh, just BTW, the GWWII allied victory screens in the RA2 installation explicitly show German Leopard 2's. That being said, While much of the equipment is indeed from our own vietnam era, a lot of it is also Korean era tech as well, such as the M1carbine (listed in the game files), the M24 chaffee (which also saw service in WWII), and the AK-47.

I personally like the fact that the RA universe has a 155mm M110. It does give a bit of uniqueness to the universe that does help separate it from our own.

So, I used to play this extraordinarily fun game called battlezone. Originally developed and published by Activision (back when the "vision" in their name meant unique and awesome games). I still play the singleplayer on it from time to time, as it is by far my favorite RTS of all time. It is also my favorite RTS/FPS hybrid of all time. In fact, it set the bar so high for me that I was really disappointed with renegade for not having a base-building mechanic. That being said, I do still like renegade, I just knew nothing of doom and quake then, and Red Alert was definitely my second favorite RTS (and is my favorite CNC). I really enjoyed both. So, I am happy to say that Rebellion announced a Battlezone HD remake, dubbed Battlezone '98 Redux. I feel like this is a good move since Rebellion's main focus with the Battlezone franchise is going towards Sony's VR system and is not going to be related to the 1998 versions alternate 1960's space war. I'm hyped. Please enjoy the Trailer.

Also, my sister took Mirror's edge. Thanks.

Thank you for Burnout!

I played the Alpha, but haven't been able to play anymore due to lack of funds.

Auto-leveled, Posterized, Colors inverted.

Also

I would rather see a GP-25 on the rifle soldier than this. I still support my suggestion, and pushwall's further comments help reinforce any doubt I had that the changes I proposed (and that he amended) would be overpowered or underpowered. The point of this thread was to determine whether or not the grenadier had use outside of infantry only maps, doing away with him would change the feel of the game significantly and remove a good portion of nostalgia (which is the reason I came to this game).

See, I was thinking of making the grenadier a bit of a an Anti-infantry, anti-building unit. So, essentially a soviet arty. That's on foot. That costs less. And while doing substantial damage to buildings with direct hits (slightly less than the RPG trooper), he wouldn't do as much to infantry (without a direct hit). However, his splash radius would be rather large (like, 20 meters or so). So while you may not die from a single grenade, you will take damage. I mean, most grenades have a kill radius of about 15 meters. This would also deter grenadiers from entering buildings due to the threat of self-harm.

Again, I disagree. With the fact that U.S. involvement in the pacific theater of WWII was directly related to the attacks on Pearl Harbor. However, before this time, we were weary of Japan and knew that if China did not win the war, then Japan would have very little stopping it from taking over other American and Western European holdings in the Pacific. In essence, we supported China. However, the U.S. was already in combat with Italy and with Germany in Northern Africa at this time in our WWII. Even still, Japan's upper echelon military knew that they would not win a war with the U.S. However, the threat of U.S. intervention in the RA timeline would have been much, much greater. The U.S. would not have been fighting a war on two (or three, really) fronts, and it while Japan's Generals would have wanted those holdings, they would also had to have recognized the fact that the U.S. would have an unfettered response. The Attack on Pearl Harbor was supposed to be a preventative measure by the Japanese in order to discourage war with the U.S. by crippling our fleet. A move like this in the RA timeline, without the guarantee that the U.S. is already fighting somewhere else would have been absolute suicide. Pearl Harbor was very calculated, but they missed a few variables in our timeline. In RA timeline, it would not have mattered whether or not they missed a few variables, they would have been defeated one way or another. Japan's Generals weren't stupid, they most likely would not have instigated a war with any Western power in the RA timeline.

I only posted it a few days ago.

Many of you may be familiar with this post at the BHP forums. It somewhat boiled down to a discussion on the rather incomplete political and economic climate that would have enabled Red Alert to take place (I mean, sure, we know the basics: Hitler dies before coming to power thanks to Einstein, the arms race happens considerably sooner, war breaks out between the Allies and Soviets). But really, that doesn't explain all of it. It leaves out important notes on the political climate of China and the Orient, Africa, South America, and other such factors. It fails to explain how Poland is a Communist country by the beginning of the GWWII. I happen to be a bit of a history nut. I don't like discrepancies like this, so I did my best to answer some of the questions raised in the linked thread. Here's what Cat5 asked and what I wrote (respectively): Here's my answer: Also keep in mind that my explanation is just one of many plausible possibilities based on what I know of history and the political climate that surrounded the times.

Hmm... With that detailed info you would be like an APB sports analyst. Looking at the team, the attack strategies, the amount of players on the field, and the play-by- play of unit purchases. While specific vehicle vs inf battles I would care less about, I would focus on what buildings are the most detrimental to lose on maps. Typically one would assume that losing your primary economy would do this, however you could also find that losing your production would hamper protection of this. It could be argued that on some maps the Power plant is the primary building of focus. However, with out actual stats to compile and analyze, I would not be able to know. And while I don't doubt pushwall's own ability to do this on his own, I do quite enjoy activities such as this, so I am fully willing to do it.