Cragger

Well IL2 was developed by Maddox Games (Closed 2009) under the publisher 1C headquartered in Moscow, so that is the answer to your first question. To suggest that Eastern European companies are less sophisticated and respectful of the terms of contracts is rather insulting to them I think. Western ones are the ones you have to be wary of sneaking in revision obligations in my experience.

A working knowledge of how the Unity 5 (?) engine interprets the model file format is a beginning. Beyond that the texture mapping techniques and restrictions supported by what they are doing with the Unity engine would be the next step. From there producing something small as a proof of capability to see if you can strike up a conversation with the developers. Game modeling is as much making a model in a way the game engine can use it as it is making something in Maya, 3DS, or Blender etc. For example in IL2 animation points always had to be done in a anticlockwise direction along the axis even though this looked so wrong in 3DS simply because that's how the game engine handled animations for ailerons, rudders, and elevators. If you did them in a way that looked normal in 3DS they ended up reversed or inverted in the game. Given enough dedication, and willing to hand over the rights of the model it's certainly doable. That and it has to be something they haven't already planned or have underway under contract or in house.

And I'm going to stop you in your exaggeration in "burn their invoices" Being a contract worker and consulting engineer for the last 15 years because I enjoy the variety of projects it brings, I know with experience that a contracted employee is only obligated by the terms of their contract. Once a client has accepted a service or product as complete the obligation ends there. If they wish to update or change the product later a new contract is negotiated. It is not done for free or done on the contractors timeline as the original terms were satisfied. If the modeler is free of other contractual agreements and enjoyed working on the contract being rehired is likely. But they aren't required or obligated to, that is the distinction I making. I never claimed the ships where bought from an assets shop like your example with the Cerberus. If a developer wishes to state that the models were indeed done by a permanent team member and not under contract then by all means I'm fully open to be proven wrong. And I'll even be impressed due to the small size of their studio.

You are 100% correct. I was mistaken in my memory. She predates the President but not the Constitution due to the pause in construction.

Because they are a small team and it's actually quite common in the industry (I worked on some of the models for IL2 Forgotten Battles, namely the F4F. Though a better model was produced and I had no qualms about him picking up the contract since I was overloaded with work). It takes a lot of time and experience to be able to model something with precision from line drawings and unless you have a dedicated graphics section for the engine you are working on (Like if you where using your own proprietary engine) it's more efficient to farm it out. As far as editing a model that's not as simple as it seems. Changing geometry like that would change so many little facets of the model you'd need to do a complete repass. Parts that had been occluded due to being obscured could suddenly be revealed and create 'holes' in the model. Not to mention textures would need to be remapped. It can be done but both the financial and man power demands right now in my mind don't feel justified for where the game needs to go. A contracted employee is still an employee just not a permanent one. Their employment ends when the contract is fulfilled and the service accepted. So they are under no obligation to 'update' anything without a new contract. This is very common and makes logical sense in the realm of graphics especially when not using a proprietary engine. This way you don't have to keep paying an employee all the time and let graphical assets outpace their ability to be included in the application, since well you don't want to just have an employee sitting around. So I ask what proof do you these models where done by full time retained staff of gamelabs? My own experience tells me otherwise, especially when it comes to the Unity Engine and assets. Talos beat me to it. Philadelphia was not designed by Humphreys and was built well before the original six frigates of the U.S. Navy.

Well, honestly right now I hope they don't. And here is why. The ship models are not done in house. As such they are contracted out. Once accepted the modelers commitment and thus payment is satisfied. So to update the Constitutions model would require a new contract and thus payment and right now the game is in dire need of funds being directed to far more important applications.

Hull shape (other then the excessive hogging after removing her stringers) never changed. The hull especially the bow are far to slab sided and lack the proper geometry.

Paint schemes after 1820 became very dull indeed with everyone using the same scheme for practical reasons. It made identifying a ship at long range from your own quite difficult. Which when faced against a much more robust and world wide present Navy of Great Britain a useful if flavorless asset.

That's kinda the issue Wind.

Wind is always discussed in terms of where it is coming from and not where it going to. Just look at any wind gauge on a building and you will see it points where the wind is coming from and not were it is going. There is a simple reason for this, because that is the direction that weather will be coming from. Now did it confuse me? No, but that does not mean it won't be confusing to others. Some people can adapt to some things quicker to others. Mentally I just viewed the representation to be an indicator of the flow and not the origin. Someone else may not make that connection so intuitively.

U.S.S. President and the Constitution are of the same design by Humphrey's with minimal deviations like all ships have at that yards due to materials, construction techniques, equipment etc. The only one of the big four that is actually different in a meaningful amount outwardly is the U.S.S. Chesapeake which was altered extensively by Josiah Fox and ended up being smaller and lighter constructed/armed then the other three 44s. Congress and Constellation where designed by Humphrey's in the beginning to be nominal 38 gun.

The point being that even capturing a ship does not make it a viable ship to put into service. The ship is the cheap part, it's everything else that makes it expensive and a logistics burden.

Possessing a ship in no way allows for having a ship in service. A SoL represents 700+ souls which for a pirate is a huge negative that's 700+ to divide any booty by. A SoL would make a poor ship to pursue commerce as merchantmen always gave such obvious warships a wide berth due to the fact they could be at war and not know it due to communication at the time. Plus where are you going to keep it, where are you going to provision it, where are you going to take it for fitting and rigging? How are you going to pay for all this?

U.S. Navy never possessed a single Ship of the Line you say? Perhaps you should research just a tad before making that statement. Game time frame is up to 1830 United States Ships of the line constructed and commissioned: U.S.S. Independence (18-14) 90 - 32lb guns U.S.S. Washington (1814) 74-? guns U.S.S. Franklin (1815) 74 - 32lb long guns and carronades U.S.S. Columbus (1819) 74 - 32lb long guns and 42lb carronades U.S.S. Delaware (1820) 74 - 32lb long guns and carronades U.S.S. Ohio (1820) 74 - 32lb long guns and carronades U.S.S. North Carolina (1820) 74- 42lb and 32lb long guns

Personally, I do not understand how a one time additional resource to the building of a ship is going to change anything at all in the long run that can't be changed just be changing the costs and availability of say.. frame parts. It honestly feels pointless and does nothing to influence the long term costs of operating larger and larger ships, once built it is said and done and does not become a maintenance burden for a clan or player.

1 and 2 make me fear that the freeport undock gank will become the principle 'PvP' again in the game but we will just have to see.

I really do suspect something isn't working quite right in their current system because the 5cm of effective thickness difference shouldn't be making such a huge damage reduction that it currently is. So I'm not calling foul on the changes until it's stated that it's working properly.

Lesser ship needs to have some card to play. Isn't like it can beat a higher rate combat. In fact the current system drives towards using a mixed squadron instead of all one ball. Faster ships that can pursue and chain to slow them down. And if you are referring to the context of port battles well ships that escape are just another step towards victory in the end.

1. I like long battles, hours spent sailing is better rewarded by a nice long battle then a few minutes. Damage model does need some adjustments though, especially up close (100-200 yard range). 2. Not impossible just requires one to be close now, I'm still demasting ships with close rakes fairly well. I will say however the chainboards and the mast foots on and in the hull need to be modeled as part of the masts. Most masts were brought down by damage to the chain boards and shrouds, not hits to the masts themselves, which are round and far thicker (even if made of conifer woods) then planking. 3. I agree, ports need a cooldown. 4. A BR limit and possibly a rate slot limit are needed. This will require proper adjustments of BR though. Example the Santisma is definitely under BR compared to the Victory. The current system definitely won't be a long term solution, but it does make things more dynamic. 5. Definitely.

20 seconds plus tag time sir. As far as the second part I don't see this as a bug at all. If you want to jump out of port then actually jump out and leave the port. The end of end of the dock port undock jump ganks is a beautiful thing to me and not a bug.

Definitely the same lines as the Rattlesnake in game so that would make her the 1783 Rattlesnake. Could see why they officially armed her with 16 long guns instead. To make room for ships officers and marines.

All you had to do while invulnerable was sail out from immediate dock up range from the port to put the circle not on land. That's your mistake not the game's.

I've actually seen exactly what you saw before. If your connection to the server gets high packet loss this happens. My frigate and a Bellona in a small battle kept getting put in the exact same spot as my ping shot well up over 1k ms. We'd pop back in where we were suppose to be on my screen when the packet loss came down and then get stuck back inside each other when it went back up again.

Problem is you attacked, you weren't the one tagged.

Doing more research and looking at books such as Chapelle's I find the same line plans and models being used for both. So I'll concede that at this point I can't say for any certainty which is which because it seems history has quite confused the two. I wish I could find a historical line drawing or painting of the HMS Cormorant 1783 because that would make a very good case of which one was which.