WWIIONLINE ver 1.12 release candidate update

airborg

Hi guys, just posting the update on the readme, with a release candidate going out shorlty, looks like its comeing to fruitition for this patch update.

In conjunction with the review already undertaken for the visual damage modelling, for the video viewing, just thought some might want to see where they are in this rlease candidate.

[quote]

<b>V1.12 Pre-Release Read Me</b>

Next week brings us to the release candidate phase of testing for v1.12. Most issues are resolved and we are expecting the release to be made public next week. Several of the major bugs you guys posted to us earlier this year have been fixed and we have made excellent progress on the HE issues you expressed concern over. Even grenades are markedly better (I’d say fixed but Murphy has a special place in his heart for me).

Rifle grenades have had some last hour design changes proposed by the community, and these changes are significant for us to develop. Our hats certainly go off to those of you who put forward so much valuable information about the expectations of these weapons. These changes have made us do some redevelopment work on these weapons and has cost us some delay in getting them to test. In the end I believe that you will be much happier with these changes but they do jeopardize these weapons making the release deadline. In the event that v1.12 does ship without these systems, which is a possibility, we will continue to work on them and have them ready for a point release when we can be certain that they are working properly. I know many of you are looking forward to these weapons and I can assure you that the dev team is working diligently to deliver them.

Here’s what we have in Test so far and thise features that are in the release candidate going out Monday.

=====================
World War Two Online
=====================
02-06-04
version 1.12.0 (pre-release read me)

Vehicles:
-Fixed bug that was allowing AAA guns firing HE to kill tanks
-Fixed a bug with MGFF and MG151 mine rounds not fusing correctly and exploding externally on aircraft before penetrating
-Added code support so fuel fires burn out when they have consumed all available fuel
-Fixed shrapnel effectiveness on all AI controlled AAA weapons
-Fixed shrapnel effectiveness on all player controlled AAA weapons onboard ships
-Fixed shrapnel effectiveness on all player controlled AAA weapons
-Added HE-111 visible damage model
-Added Blen I visible damage model
-Added Blen IV visible damage model
-Added 110c visible damage model
-Added 110c4b visible damage model
-Added DB7 visible damage model
-Added Havoc visible damage model
-Fixed "Damaged component zero" error on Bf110c
-Fixed a "Damaged component zero" error in the BF110C4
-Fixed shrapnel effectiveness on all aircraft 20mm HE, HEI, and MINE rounds
-Fixed shrapnel effectiveness on all player controlled AAA weapons
-Fixed error with SpitV not having HE mix in it's loadout
-Added hooks for vis dam on tanks (internal only)
-Fixed "pogo-rebound" bug in PZIVD
-Added HE to the loadout of HurricaneIIc, AP-Tracer, AP, HE (belt stagger info for 20mm)
-Added HE to the loadout of and SpitVB AP-Tracer, AP, HE (belt stagger info for 20mm)
-Adjusted roll rates and compression effects on SpitI, BF109F4 and BF109E3 to match historic values
-Fixed damage caused by HE ammo shrapnel
-Fixed bug where gear, canopy and flaps could not be damaged if left deployed in flight
-Added waving flags to some boats first and third person
-Fixed dispersion on the vickers coax and .50cal maingun
-Fixed tracer round not visible in Stuka tail gunner
-Fixed bug where you couldn't turn off Fairmile engines
-Fixed bug with the Stuart where the gun would disconnect from the turret when faced backwards
-Increased speed for Bofors and Flak36 when pushed
-Fixed engine sound component bug with visdamage
-Added component type that is activated when damage group is destroyed
-Added door open/close sounds to opel and bedford
-Improved drag effects on aircraft missing parts due to the new visible damage
-Corrected mass values for parts blown off, wings, engines, stabs, etc.
-Adjusted engine damage model(aircraft only). Engines should now be easier to damage, this will also shorten the run time of the engines when out of oil
-Fixed bug with H75 cowl guns not having a sound
-Bomb drag was adjusted on F200
-ROF of MACM39AIR (H75 D520) was increased to 1000rpm to match historical record

Infantry:
-Added third person infantry sounds for trot
-Added third person infantry sounds for sprint
-Added third person infantry sounds for crawl
-Adjusted concussive force on grenades for more effect
-Added third person sound volume adjustment based on distance
-Firing a weapon now cancels your capture operation correctly
-Added the "need more ammo" emote as a text only animation (Left ctrl + 5)
-Enabled 3rd person emote text (side filtered)
-Switched infantry sound calls to the new optimized routinues
-Fixed a bug with TPS on the LMG infantry
-Fixed a bug on the French Rifleman that caused a CTD.

Terrain:
-Added "big gun" AI-FLak to Naval Bases, Factories and rear airfields.
QF3.7" (British) Mle36 75mm (French) and Flak36 88mm (German)
-Corrected cplist so you can now select the new towns on the dropdown menu

-Added 11 new CP's:
Allied:-
Evrange
Sierck-les-Bains
Metzervisse
Bouzonville
Boulay
Raville

Axis:-
Trier
Saarburg
Zerf
Losheim
Merzig

-Added rail and road bridges to the northern canal network
-Added waving flags for some capture buildings (PC)
-Added waving flag sound first and third person (PC)
-Added "Builders Bridge" to Dinant.
-Corrected a number of anomalies and squashed several terrain bugs.

Global:
-Added ability to handle more levels of multitexture to the ground (internal only)
-Significantly upped the sensitivity of the vertical angle optimizer for the clutter culling
-Settings.exe will now change text to selected language when hitting apply
-Fixed reported CTD bugs
-Fixed a bug when a depot linked to an FB changed hands the FB would be restored to 100% health
-Changed the way we generate sortie IDs for scoring
-Fixed an issue with non troopers getting RTB at depots
-Tidied up and commited the HC commands
-Implemented ".pinfo" (GM Only) command for showing player info
-Made ".cpinfo" available to GMs only on the live server


In Development

Development never stops around here. Here’s a peek at things that are being worked on for upcoming releases.

Vehicles:
-Visible damage on trucks
-Visible damage on armored cars
-Visible damage on tanks
-Critical component audit on all vehicles (for scoring)

Infantry:
-Rifle Grenades (1.12.x deliverable)
-Officer meshes
-Command Meshes
-Map reading animation
-Loadout development (back end only no client support)
-Synched footfall sounds in third person
-Ability to individualize third person sounds based on unit type
-Exploring red out issues (no deliverable)
-Exploring improvements to infantry damage system (no deliverable)
-Explore statistical damage model for grenades (no deliverable)
-Complete design work for medics and related systems (no deliverable)

Terrain:
-Waving flags (vertex shader technology deliverable)
-Ground multi texture revision (bump mapping technology deliverable)
-New moving water effects
-Bulders program support

Global:
-New HC rank icons
-Additional rank based icons in chat
-Continued fixes for multicrew scoring
-Sun glare
-Continue work on new update system
-Fallback command and functionality
-Hold at all costs command and functionality
-Squelch revisit
-Begin design work for new HUD
-Continue design work on deployment UI
-Spec for pre-deployment plan
-Spec despawn timer (initial bailout)

<b>Q: when the enemy takes an divisonal hq will the equipment, gas, ammo and other stuff be added to thirs list since they toke that hq? well what is left at that hq?</b>
A: Assuming a couple things, namely that we have gas and ammo, and that the commander wasn’t able to fallback his troops, then yes that could be anoption. No real decision on that level aas yet.

<b>Q: Will there ever be a time when bombing a motorpoool/FB/AB will effect the spawn list? </b>
A: Yes.

<b>Q: How will deployment work for air squadrons? Will we have separate careers for bomber and fighter pilots? (hope so). If my squadron runs out of planes, do I have other options to fly? Who will join squadrons that are deployed around the RDP facilities and wont see much action?</b>
A: They will operate the same as other units except that airfields are considered always on the front. This means that a unit may have planes deployed at more than one facility at a time, the same way a grouond force has an AO. If your brigade runs out of equipment you may have the option of temporarily being reassigned where soldiers are needed or you can begin the process of supplying your unit, and yourself.

<b>Q: Would it be possible to make some sort of supply mission system so people that spend hours running supply get something more that hemroids? </b>
A: Yes. We will definitely add this when we redo the mission system for deployment. That is getting much closer now that the CSR beta is coming to a close.

<b>Q: I was wondering if you had any hard info on the Unity II engine, so far we've gotten some vauge statements about how it'll have better gfx and effects, and it might or might not be released this year.</b>
A: Unity II is already being put partially into the game. Moving flags and upcoming terrain effects. Before the rewrite of the complete render pipeline however we have 2 fairly large tasks which are reworking our entity management system and our update system (whose goal is to resolve the visible player limits which are a transport issue).

<b>Q: In the 64 Limit situation does a Destroyer count as 1 vehicle, or does the complexity/triangle count make vehicles vary, or is it a vehicle per crewman or turret or what? </b>
A: All vehicles are 1 unit. You don’t get to paint a silouhette on your vehicle unless you remove the capacity of an enemy vehicle to continue to fight. Well, that’s simplistic but close.

<b>Q: What is the status of in-game voice communications (ala teamspeak) and it's implementation? </b>
A: No status and very little intent currently. Certainly something that we want to have but I think an out of game solution like what Battlesim.com does for our scenarios is more likely for deployment. We’d certainly like to integrate that further and we do have affiliations that are working in that area.

<b>Q: Could AI AAA sounds and/or tracers be turned off to increase FPS and stop annoying everyone near it? </b>
A: I guess it could. Kinda suck to get killed by AI you can’t see otr hear though wouldn’t it?

<b>Q: How about modeling Canada ? Last time i checked it had the second largest player base in this game. And alot of them play axis so maybe it would draw some of them to the allies and maybe help fix imbalance a bit? </b>
A: Italy first I would imagine.

<b>Q: Can you please turn up the bomb blast effect and Ambient Sounds (mine are set to 'Frequent') in 1.12. Both of these rocked when first implemented, but for whatever reason they've been dumbed down since. </b>
A: Will look into it.

<b>Q: Will we get the ablity to surrender/take POW's? </b>
A: Not likely. What gameplay problem does this feature address?

<b>Q: The HE bug is f'n ludicrous and excuses aside has taken WAY too long to fix. </b>
A: Who you tellin’?

<b>Q: The JU bombs are WAY overstated...go visit history and tell me how many tank kills the JU was responsible for...I've now read four books by military historians regarding the tank battle in Europe and have yet to hear of a tank kill by a JU. I'm sure it happened, but JC... </b>
A: 250kg. Nasty things. There’s a great picture of these guys taking out railroad cars loaded with one of the final shipments to the front during the fall of France. Also an historical account of them decimating a unit of French tanks that were poised to have the opportunity to turn the tide of the Blitzkrieg. Many would cite the Stuka as the single most decisive piece of equipment on the battlefield of 1940 Europe.

<b>Q: Are there plans to re-evaluate what constitutes a Mission Success? </b>
A: Absolutely.

<b>Q: Air kills tend to result in `damaged' quite often, please set up a controlled test (1v1 in beta arena). </b>
A: No need to test, we know exactly why this happens and are working to address it. The game just doesn’t know why a plane crashed. A plane crashing is not the same as it being shot down to the computer. What we have to do is give it more events to trigger on, like if a plane looses a wing then that’s a kill, not a crash.

<b>Q: i have heard that long range shots firied from a DD or anything else that can shot farther what u can see what happens to them? </b>
A: They eventually time out meaning that the game no longer computes their existence.

<b>Q: and if so i have read and heard about this thing called like a long Range Server that will track long range shots will this ever come into effect? </b>
A: An ordnance server would allow us to have long ranged weapons tracked on the server so if they are fired from people that you do not know about they can still be passed to you.

<b>Q: if so will long range Artillery come into the game soon? </b>
A: I would not say soon.

<b>Q:When can we do a multicrew without a bug a the end? </b>
A: Soon =]

<b>Q: When can we do a multicrew with more than 1 player? </b>
A: Not soon =[

<b>Q: Can you describe what the visible damage for tanks and trucks might look like? Are we to expect turrets and hatches blowing off, treads flying off, huge secondary explosions when the ammo cooks off? </b>
A: Yes, exactly.

<b>Q: Will 1.12 address the despawn issues? For example, if I sap a tank and flame it out, they can despawn before I get the kill I deserve. </b>
A: No but those issues will get resolved.

<b>Q: Why is the Sapper Infantry's primary weapon not the satchel? </b>
A: So that he can’t be resupplied with explosives.

<b>Q: Whats the maximum range for a infantry rifle in WWIIOL. People have said around 550 meters. Obviously the rounds COULD go much farther in real life. Which is it? And Why? And if its less than the historic reality of a couple miles, then is it planned to be upped to that? </b>
A: Let’s say velocity is about 750m/s and the round timeout is 1.2 seconds. Roughly that’s 900m for timeout (actually shorter). That’s about the range that a player can no longer be seen so no, I don’t think we’ll make any changes there.

<b>Q: Can you please change the way rifle sway increases when aiming in the prone position. Or can you explain the reasons you feel it should remain the way it is.</b>
A: Yeah I can review that. Aiming in prone feels ok to me but I can see the argument that it should have less variance over extended time frames. No vises but yeas it could get better.

<b>Q: Is there any slim chance that we could see flamethrowers introduced later this year? </b>
A: Ack. No promises…

<b>Q: I did not see the MAS 36 in there anywhere. Anyone know if it is still being added to 1.12? </b>
A: Doh. It’s there.

<b>Q: Are LMG traverse and deploy functions being modified? </b>
A: No.

<b>Q: Will DM of infantry model be reworked to make death a slower process from hits that are not critical hits; critical spots being head (T-zone), heart (not torso), lungs (over a certain time if not treated), or spine (incapacitating only)? " </b>
A: Yes.

<b>Q: Will you ever model a command to steady yourself and thus stop the rifle wander this would only work for a second but would help for long range shots immensly ? </b>
A: That could be an option, though most combat situations would make that an unrealistic option. Most guys have enough trouble with a 10 point buck!

<b>Q: When US forces get modeled in will they have a M1 Garand to start with or a 1903 springfield and if the M1 will the 1903 ever be modeled/available and if the 1903 is modeled how will the M1 be added?</b>
A: I have no idea.

<b>Q: When will heavier machine guns be added? </b>
A: Not for some time.

<b>Q: Can a longer breathing interval be added to infantry? </b>
A: It can…why should it be?

<b>Q: Anyone who has ever been through some form of formal marksmanship training knows humans don't breathe in-out-in-out-in-out while in a resting (prone) postion. The proper pattern is: in-pause-out-pause-in-pause-out-pause. It is during the pauses in the breathing that true long range marksmen make their shots. Holding the breath would work too, but there would need to be some form of limit ie. passing out if holding it too long or only holding it for a few seconds then rapid breathing. </b>
A: Ahh bingo. Yeah that’s more realistic for certain.

<b>Q: With the advent of visible damage will combat engineers gain the use of timed/detenator charges to take out bridges? </b>
A: Not as a result of visible damage on vehicles no.

<b>Q: Will bridges be historically accurate? Will the bridges be modeled differently (i.e stone, steel, wood)? </b>
A: To a limited extent, but they are already this way now.

<b>Q: Satchels work great on small targets but the simplistic blast properties of a satchel will not take out a bridge simply by placing it anywhere on the structure.</b>
A: Agreed, it would take a much more concerted effort. But the problems with blowing bridges are gameplay issues and not weapon issues.

<b>Q: When will LMGs be able to deploy inside of Windows, behind Sandbags, and on fences/walls. </b>
A: I do not know. That technology is not in place in the current terrain system.

<b>Q: Are there plans to simulate dropping a gernade into an open tank hatch? In the event that a rifleman sneaks up to a tank, and the commander hatch is open, it seems to me that a trooper should be able to scramble up onto the tank and surprise the crew with a frag. </b>
A: No plans at present though it is needed.

<b>Q: Infantry avatars trying to peek past hedges and bushes still poke their heads out just past the shoulder but in the FPV, you just barely poke out. </b>
A: This is an eyepoint issue. I am not certain how we can resolve that but I will bring it up at the next infantry meeting.

<b>Q: How do you see limiting the medic class so it's not used in an offensive (ahistorical) role? </b>
A: I don’t know the answer to that yet.

<b>Q: you think you have a system in place to make the medic a rewarding class that people will decide to play? </b>
A: No. We are attempting to build those systems. The purpose of a medic is to allow infantry players to score more of their earned kills in rank points. Thus a rank point system is needed.

<b>Q: This was gleaned from suggestions in a lengthy barracks thread wherein we discussed how to use medics without having people kill them, but still make them useful. We determined there should be minimal reward for killing one, and maximum benefit for letting them live. </b>
A: Keep a hold of it. In coming weeks we’ll be reviewing the medic design here and we will need to have these discussions.

<b>Q: Questions: Will medics be able to drag troops, for purposes of getting them out of combat, this will be good with a crouched run, since the wounded man has no end to run himself, or his vision is really bad. </b>
A: No idea. The design is not complete yet. If it fulfils the purpose then we will work to add it.

<b>Q: What will medics actually do?</b>
A: Good question. Medics will allow infantry players to have more opportunity to score their kills, meaning get rescued instead of KIA or MIA.

<b>Q: Care to let us in on when you read them? I usually post second replies for follow up thoughts rather than edit because I assume you have already read the first post. If you just do these on Friday now, then we know we have all week to chime in and can edit our posts etc. </b>
A: Yes I generally read these on Friday. If I get the opportunity to do some advanced reading I’ll always post that I have read up to a certain point. I generally lock the thread when I am done reading it.

<b>Q: By the By, does this new asking for suggestions in the Q&A mean that the old style Rat trolling of the forums for our ideas has been discarded? I have noticed Killer et al are largely absent from the common forum areas since you implemented this. </b>
A: No not really. These questions are for the team in general but for me in particular. I use them as a way to keep in contact with the community issues and I find that this is far more productive than spending hours each day trolling, which severely detriments my ability to get the job done.

<b>Q: While brevity is nice, when you are suggesting changes to a major system in as complex a setting as WWIIOL, simple doesnt get it done. </b>
A: Agreed. Also imagine that I spend hours a day thinking about nothing but WWIIOL. I generally don’t need the filler, just the meat.

<b>Q: Too many times a simple explanation doesnt show how the system can actually WORK or interact with all the possible conflicting features elsewhere in the game.</b>
A: Yes but we are pretty adept at working those things out. We don’t generally rely on the players to cover all the bases, it’s not a reasonable expectation at all that they should or could.

<b>Q: I can put up a simple idea and then have to spend an hour explaining the details of it to people who can't or won't do the math themselves. </b>
A: Yello, I can’t tell you how much I know exactly what you mean =]

<b>Q: Mo mentioned a development roadmap, is this still forth coming?</b>
A: Yes but since he’s my boss I won’t pester him.

<b>Q: HERES!!!!!!!!! ONE HOW BOUT BETA MOVIES US MAC PEOPLE CAN WATCH!!!!!!!!</b>
A: I don’t do video editing but being a mac head myself…

Don’t be hatin’.

<b>Q: When I go to Dallas to party with my Day of Defeat clan, can I buy a Rat a beer or maybe tour Bedford AB? </b>
A: Hell yeah.

<b>Q: It has now been several weeks since the last MAJOR patch i.e. 1.11 was release on Dec 22, 2003 .. we have had only a minor patch since then and it is now February ... where is the promised 1.12 patch?</b>
A: Well I try but even I can’t make people work the Holidays. But our plan for the year is every 4-6 weeks and since dev started on the 8th of January we’re right in that window.

<b>Q: At this rate I get the impression that we will only going see a couple of major releases a year i.e. 4 - 6 at the most? </b>
A: 10-12 I’d think.

<b>Q: “-Added ability to handle more levels of multi-texture to the ground
-Significantly upped the sensitivity of the vertical angle optimizer for the clutter culling.”
What does this mean to me the player? In non-coder speak please. </b>
A: Ahh right. Multi-texture means the detail on the ground and other things. The vertical mumbo jumbo means that the random ground clutter will draw when it is supposed to.

<b>Q: Is there any plans to add Visual and Damagable resupply? (AI controled Trains, Boats, or Trucks.) </b>
A: Not until we have a supply system and player run visible supply and AI run invisible supply.

<b>Q: Make rtb'n a disabled/immobilized unit cost ya time, not rank points (I'd guess the ratio of decorated wounded veterans is rather high, as it should be).</b>
A: Does this mean that we have to continue to have riflemen generals?

<b>Q: Find a way to code time to fix damaged unit types, tie it to personal spawn and delay that personas ability to spawn that unit. Then you'll need support vehicles to get anything above a light tank off the field and in the garage. Should be all about cost and time to get hulk or wreck of a vehicle home. In that, medics are a cool concept but still question how feasible it is in that you'll need stretcher bearers, ambulances..."</b>
A: Agreed. I don’t want to have a design that means we have to ask a wounded player to sit on a stretcher for 15 minutes. He’ll just despawn and take the point loss.

<b>Q: Viability of rescue hinges on supply and production. Keep in mind there's a world of difference between hopping out of tank and repairing a thrown track while not under fire and a completely different thing to extract broken down armor after an engagement. How this relates to brigade spawning effecting a squad on an interdiction mision is unclear as yet, but short of having automated Rail, Truck, Ship and Air resupply it's hazy how that hooks into the logistical/strat picture.</b>
A: Bingo.

<b>Q: How does supply `get there' in the first place? If it's all automated it still needs to be reported/considered. Ideally every aspect of supply and production would be represented, from that sulphur being mined in who knows what country to how it ended up in either a Metric or English measured casing. </b>
A: I’d like to take a smaller task to begin with but yes, there will be logistical issues with this system. A time based system is much easier but does not introduce true rarity of equipment or attrition.

<b>Q: Bluntly... I'm stressing the point of balance of playability and not bogging a sim down into an RPG game (Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of having roles).</b>
A: Hear ya there. Looking for the middle ground. WWIIOL is NOT a role playing game. It is a combat sim that needs more deopth to make the combat more immersive. Some cost to actions but we do not need barbers.

<b>Q: Don't forget about the guy in the litter who just earned a purple heart too, what of him, how do you handle his return to lines? </b>
A: He is a finite unit and needs time to return to his ToE.

<b>Q: this is about Trains. well if u cant tell we have tons of RR tracks, and tons of RR depoys and station yet no trains., so my quetion is when or if how long until do you think Trains are even thought about being put into the game? </b>
A: Not until we have deployed a better terrain system.

<b>Q: Will we ever get to bomb AFs, ports, train yards and other facilities and have this effect spawning of other players? </b>
A: Yes.

<b>Q: Gophur, you recently asked us whether CRS should either develop the French and British destroyers to complete that ship triad, or develop the German S-boat plus the British/French torpedo boat (perhaps the Elco as a shared design.) When some of us complained about the choice, you explained that there just weren't going to be more than that amount of development resources available for the naval game in the near future. </b>
A: What I should have said is given that time is limited, what would you choose first?

<b>Q: One of the reasons that all of us had hoped for more resource availability is that many players have concluded that the naval game would be improved most by addition of significantly more vessel-types, so as to allow creation of rank-vs-availability heirarchies and so as to provide more complex tactical naval gameplay. </b>
A: I agree though I hate not having separate unit types.

<b>Q: Many of us have noted that the naval game to date has been armed with 1 British MGB, 1 British attack transport and 1 German destroyer. each of which is used by all three sides, and the game has worked with these stand-in vessels quite well.</b>
A: Yes it is ok, but it just doesn’t feel right.

<b>Q: Is it possible that instead of choosing either the destroyer or MTB options and having us end up with only 3 or 4 vessel types and relatively small improvements in the rank-vs-vessel availability heirarchy and the variability of naval tactical combat, the Rats might be convinced to model one ship in the 75-meter, displacement-hull category;, then utilize simple model-modifications of each of the hull types to create 6, 7 or 8 vessel-types, each of which would have one model used by all nations on a stand-in basis? </b>
A: A possibility yes. But 8 ships, regardless of similarities would be 24 total which at 3 weeks minimum each would be 72 weeks which would mean that that is not a likely scenario.

<b>Q: Can we hear different sounds for different caliber and/or types of projectiles hitting outside of the tank for inside crew? </b>
A: I am not certain. I’ll check.

<b>Q: What happen to the ""wacking a drum barrel"" sound from inside the tank when a tank round hit. Or for that matter as an Inf, when a tank round whizzes by you? It was a deeper sound. </b>
A: No intentional change that I am aware of. I’ll look into it.

<b>Q: I commonly lose sound when playing (especially inf & AA gun) and I know many other players have this problem. I have sound most of the time, but sporadically lose it while sprinting, firing a bofors, ect., and it will come back. I run win2k and have updated sound drivers for my SB, and have hardware acceleration off. Let me know if you need any more information about this, but it is a quite annoying bug that's been around for quite awhile. </b>
A: This is a known problem and we are looking for solutions. If you have an onboard card (the royal you) then you may be at a technical hurdle. Others might look to increase the number of sounds in Settings.exe.

<b>Q: Do you still plan to remove tree climbing in 1.12? </b>
A: Not V1.12, no.

<b>Q: What happened to Killers suggestion that FBs be made capturable and battles now become AB>FB>FB>AB? This would then open up combat between FBs and add more open country fighting. I believe offensive FBs were a 1st step in enabling this but we haven't heard whether the overall concept will be implemented. </b>
A: It got really complex and shelved for the short term.

<b>Q: Will these new flave waving effect be the flag actually looking like it's flying in the wind or just a strait flag going back and forth? </b>
A: Like flying in the wind.

<b>Q: Will additions to cover and concealment be made to adversely affect the ability of EA to see ground targets? Other system, like fog effect to substitute for FPS-unfriendly cover? </b>
A: Yes, currently planned for inclusion.

<b>Q: Will 1.12 have a fix to where Den Haag becomes capturable by Allied forces? Up to now, even though it only has a dock for spawning, it has never had an active capture table, even when it was on the front lines...I took the long walk up there to verify this. This allows Axis forces to be able to spawn in behind enemy lines.</b>
A: No. Not until a more northerly port is available.

<b>Q: Instead of removing climbing trees make the trees 'soft' so that bullets go through just the leaves not the trunk then make infantry unable to lay prone or stand up in them and just make it kneel only since you cant really lay down in a tree nor stand up in it and still fire a rifle accurately. </b>
A: Tree climbing is a bug not a feature. No support is planned for this is the near future. Besides, it’s just gamey.

<b>Q: Will foxholes be added and will it have the ability for the person to pop of of the hole and look around and fire and then press the same button again so the person got crouch back down and grab cover?</b>
A: Yes. Stencil buffers are in the plan.

You guys had a lot this week. I’m afraid that I have run out of time today to answer the remainder f the questions. That being the case I’ll save these for next week. Also next week we’ll return to the weekly discussion topic. Until then if you have additional questions, and I don’t get too far behind again, please ask them <a href="http://discussions.playnet.com/viewtopic.php?t=42177">here</a>
_________________
Dana V. Baldwin
"Gophur"
Producer
WWIIOL

[/quote]