Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
MajorGeneralJackOneill

New Reload Animation for NC, Iowa, Alabama and Montana's 16 Inch Guns

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
78 posts

Hello! Has anyone thought of adding the realistic animation to the 16 inch guns of the North Carolina, Alabama, Iowa and Montana? What do i mean by realistic? Watch this video below, Start at 5:50

After firing, the guns have to be brought to 5 Degrees to be reloaded. And after loading they are returned to firing angle. Is it possible to do this in-game too? NOTE: If added, it doesn't affect the actual reload at all. The animation would be: FIRE, Gasses are blown, Guns are lowered to the 5 degree angle. Just as the 30 second reload is just about finished,( about the 3 second mark i think ) the guns would be returned to the correct angle. This would be a great visual / historically accurate addition and would not change gameplay at all.

Its always bothered me to not see the guns lowered after each firing. What are your thoughts on this? 

Thank You and Good Hunting Sailors!

EDIT: i was hoping for a civil,logical discussion, but LOL thats not happening! This is why i normally stay away from forums. 

Edited by Gen_Jack_Oneil
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,596
[-KIA-]
Banned
9,382 posts
28,311 battles

Typical American fanboy.  All guns had restrictions on their loading angles, but only your American BBs need it for historical accuracy?:rolleyes:

 

The idea is just making the game more demanding on a computer if it serves no purpose in-game, and its only purpose would be to make main battery reloads longer.  The entire thing is a pointless waste of processing power.

Edited by TenguBlade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
78 posts

Typical American fanboy.  All guns had restrictions on their loading angles, but only your American BBs need it for historical accuracy?:rolleyes:

 

The idea is just making the game more demanding on a computer if it serves no purpose in-game, and its only purpose would be to make main battery reloads longer.  The entire thing is a pointless waste of processing power.

*facepalm* Are you for real sir? Im not a fanboy, i just know some facts about USN ships. I dont want to go on saying things about ships i dont know much, if anything, about. Ok, if not just those ships, why not all of those who did have to lower their guns? Are you saying you dont like a little historical accuracy? It wouldnt make the game even more demanding. The guns already go up and down. this would just be a short animation over-ride.

Edited by Gen_Jack_Oneil
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
656
[GUYS]
Alpha Tester
2,768 posts
4,462 battles

It does not add anything to the game. Want to add it yourself? Lower your aim after you fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
575 posts
3,075 battles

Typical American fanboy.  All guns had restrictions on their loading angles, but only your American BBs need it for historical accuracy?:rolleyes:

 

The idea is just making the game more demanding on a computer if it serves no purpose in-game, and its only purpose would be to make main battery reloads longer.  The entire thing is a pointless waste of processing power.

 

Well, we do make MOAB's so I am a fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,750
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
6,103 posts
1,313 battles

I'm a fan of adding more graphical tidbits to the game, and I do try to simulate this in game already by lowering my aim so the barrels go down during a reload. I would like this a lot though. You could even tie it to the "animate small objects" options so lower performance computers don't have to be impacted by the extra animation.

 

Btw, if you guys have seen the 2017 video made by WG, they mentioned they're already planning on increasing the quality and generally just making the game look WAY better than now, so adding in this little animation is nothing compared to what WG apparently wants to do.

 

+1 to the OP for suggesting this. I want it as well. :)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,596
[-KIA-]
Banned
9,382 posts
28,311 battles

*facepalm* Are you for real sir? Im not a fanboy, i just know some facts about USN ships. I dont want to go on saying things about ships i dont know much, if anything, about. Ok, if not just those ships, why not all of those who did have to lower their guns? Are you saying you dont like a little historical accuracy? It wouldnt make the game even more demanding. The guns already go up and down. this would just be a short animation over-ride.

I was trying to put a positive spin on your blatant ignorance of many things related to naval history by complementing your sense of patriotism, but if you would rather me call you an idiot outright, I can do that too.

 

It doesn't make anything more demanding for anyone skill-wise.  What it demands more out of is your computer, because it's another set of script in addition to the thousands it's already running simultaneously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
78 posts

I was trying to put a positive spin on your blatant ignorance of many things related to naval history by complementing your sense of patriotism, but if you would rather me call you an idiot outright, I can do that too.

In No way shape or form have you been Constructive or helpful. Since you have nothing positive to say, i kindly ask you to leave this discussion.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
643
[KMS3]
Members
1,293 posts
7,929 battles

In No way shape or form have you been Constructive or helpful. Since you have nothing positive to say, i kindly ask you to leave this discussion.

 

Couldn't have said it better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,596
[-KIA-]
Banned
9,382 posts
28,311 battles

In No way shape or form have you been Constructive or helpful. Since you have nothing positive to say, i kindly ask you to leave this discussion.

So in other words, I have to be supportive of your idea in order to speak here?

 

Fine by me.  It's too soon to be getting another strike anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
746
[LEAK]
Beta Testers
1,686 posts
209 battles

I doubt it puts much of a strain to end-user PCs. What it will do however is add more man hours into developing something that most people won't notice and/or care. Running a rough cost-benefit analysis, it's most likely not worth implementing and sits near the bottom of the list of things to do.

 

 

Also, nothing wrong with making suggestions or countering it. Getting touchy about it is just superfluous to the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
99
[WPS]
Beta Testers
476 posts
12,001 battles

Im all about immersion. While this would be neat, id much rather the game get graphics that look like tge cgi trailers we see.. Like the french cgi trailer... Wargaming might just have to beat someone at EA to steal tge frostbyte engine lol. Wishful thinking...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,750
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
6,103 posts
1,313 battles

I doubt it puts much of a strain to end-user PCs. What it will do however is add more man hours into developing something that most people won't notice and/or care. Running a rough cost-benefit analysis, it's most likely not worth implementing and sits near the bottom of the list of things to do.

 

 

Also, nothing wrong with making suggestions or countering it. Getting touchy about it is just superfluous to the discussion.

 

That same thing could be said about all graphical improvements though. The again, for all we know, WG might have a completely separate team JUST for doing animation stuff (like turrets turning, barrels elevating, AA guns rotating ect) so it might not actually be all that bad to have high on the list.

 

Also keep in mind WG wants to improve the graphics ANYWAY so for all we know, it could already be planned. =P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
746
[LEAK]
Beta Testers
1,686 posts
209 battles

 

That same thing could be said about all graphical improvements though.

 

I would disagree, because some things are requested more frequently and have more impact than others e.g. anti-aliasing for rigging/railing, which WG have been slowly improving for various ships in batches. Certain improvements do not just improve graphical quality, but also improve performance, which is highly important. There can be a lot of reasons for why certain graphical improvements would get higher priorities than others, and I'm simply throwing out my assessment on why OP's suggestion might sit very low in the list. I could go into more gory details (hint: it doesn't just involve the graphics department), but I didn't want to sidetrack too much from the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,750
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
6,103 posts
1,313 battles

 

I would disagree, because some things are requested more frequently and have more impact than others e.g. anti-aliasing for rigging/railing, which WG have been slowly improving for various ships in batches. Certain improvements not just improve graphical quality, but also performance, which is important. There can be a lot of reasons for why certain graphical improvements would get higher priorities than others, and I'm simply throwing out my assessment on why OP's suggestion might sit very low in the list.

 

True, and I can see that as well. :)

 

Still would be really nice to have either way, along with the bigger wakes, better gun fire animations and such that WG wants to do as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×