Raap

The usage of which isn't always 100% consistent across all levels.

V-aim (or free aim) is a "strange" playstyle and W3D is the only engine that supports it for shooter gameplay - to my knowledge. I personally do not use it since my brain is wired to do targeting based on the position of my target being center-screen. Not quite to the same effect, but mainly my "issue" was that the hill appears passable, but isn't. It's because the angle is only a few degrees beyond what normally goes for passable terrain. The Allied side has a steep cliff, which is very obviously impassable.

That hill next to the Soviet Power Plant on Zama needs a revision.

Can confirm that for me as well, the server listings are super delayed again, after having worked the past weekend. Not sure if it's related to logging in, though.

Crazypersonthoughts: Attach a mesh to the front of vehicles that has damage-on-touch material applied to it, perhaps one that is designed specifically to damage non-crushable infantry. You might be able to hide this mesh in the animation state for stationary vehicles so it only 'comes out to play' in a moving state. Untested and purely theoretical of course.

Nah, i just miss-read your post of "city was/is out of place" to "city walls is out of place", because the latter makes sense; They are a bit out of place. The moving terrain isn't icebergs btw. Moving terrain doesn't work with vehicles, so it's isolated for infantry only. Not saying more.

AFAIK there are several inaccuracies here, but I didn't watch it fully.

I still don't know who made that poster back during Beta/Gamma. To my knowledge I was the only Dutch person to ever be on the BHP team at that point. The problem is, the city architecture does not resemble anything from The Netherlands.

The upcoming Hostile Waters revamp will feature moving terrain, if this turns out good then who knows what trains might crash into maps... On walls, I agree. However, creating texture diversity for man-made objects that cover a lot of screen space takes a lot of work, just take a look at the castle walls in Siege, there is a crapton of different textures designed for it, all in an effort to make it appear less tiled.

Try what I wrote with the hidden mesh. I find that with my relatively low ping to the server, my tracking missiles always track unless I aim towards the rear of a faster moving vehicle. So the theory of this being network dependent holds merit.

I think a key factor in the sudden player activity is that the launcher properly reports server information again.

I'll try to be around more often. I make better game content if I'm "in the flow" of playing the actual game, and I believe the Hostile Waters revamp will be better for it if I put some time into actually playing APB.

The real challenge, then more than ever, is how to fill up all that level space without destroying client performance? Siege has shown it to be very hard to add detail to open maps, and "APB" has a similar terrain scale - but worse, no castle or cliffs to utilize the VIS process.

Seems Siege's non-air based performance was fixed, judging by today's match. Apparently the script overload from the map secret was causing more harm than anticipated, ohwell!

Seems I mixed it with random tracking. Well I did say I didn't look into that for a while. Nonetheless, perhaps tracking can be fixed... What are the possibilities of attaching a larger hidden mesh to aircraft with only cursor 'projectile' collisions?

I haven't delved into this in a very long time but if I'm not mistaken, tracking is probability based, which is simply a value based setting within the ammunition preset data. You should be able to create 100% accurate tracking missiles, but doing so makes rockets like that extremely easy to use. However, the current situation where you got a 50/50 chance of a rocket tracking the target is also not desirable. Perhaps the solution might be to ensure 100% tracking, but lower projectile turning rate. This way you will have a form of target assistance that always works, but with limited strength.

Good to see Metro again, even though it doesn't quite fit the time era - but all things considered, this is a fictional universe and not a historical one, which means you got some creative freedom.

If you're doing "APathBeyond", I suggest a rename to not confuse the map with, well, the game. Perhaps just "Beyond" would suffice, referring to the lengthy travel distance - But seriously, I don't see how this map could be playable without some quick victory objective associated with War Factory destruction.

Some things are best left in the past, my old maps being some of such things. HostileWaters was the most salvageable and that is now in need of a second overhaul.

I missed this, and I know you made a joke, but as the author of several of such .993x maps, for the well-being of everyone else, I will not approve of such asset resurrection.

Small update: The level update draft a few posts up is now obsolete. Welcome to iterative design. Without giving any further details away, there will be no need for a new landmass, but elements used will be a first for APB (perhaps all of W3D, as I can't remember anyone being this crazy). I'll provide a sneak peek video in a few days of a small prototyping section. Thanks for participating in this topic everyone, it may now be closed!

Pushwaffles and me found a good solution to the travel problem. To explain would be too complicated, so I leave this here instead:

This is my concern as well, but I'll inquiry Pushwall regarding the feasibility of region specific movement speed enhancements. Either way, no matter how you look at it, it's still just making the best of a bad situation. This map was simply never designed for a land route. Even one that goes straight through the icebergs would still take notable travel time, and also break naval in the process. In regards to aesthetic designs, I was thinking of industrial spaces similar to what you describe, but not for the entire new landmass since that would take a lot of time to do properly. As for connecting the icebergs to the land route, I'm intentionally opting to not do so in order to ensure the icebergs remain primarily accessible by Naval Transport, otherwise nobody will use those transports for anything anymore. The land route will not be intended to function as the primary attack route. It will exist as a backup route, and to add some flanking capabilities. It also serves as a helping hand to guide newer players and give them something easy to understand. I'm considering the option of adding limited ground vehicle play as well (no War Factory though).