Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Colonel_Potter

Just wanted to say...

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

38
[WOLF4]
Members
106 posts
4,220 battles

The new ship and torpedo wakes are beautiful.  Didn't think I'd be that impressed, but they are a big upgrade compared to what they were before, even on medium settings.  Now I enjoy seeing the torps from my Fletcher sailing off towards their intended target, where they will most likely miss more often than not due to my lack of ability to aim them properly.  The beautiful wakes make up for my ineptitude at playing warships.  Sniff sniff... Thank you WG.  (And no, not being sarcastic, really am impressed by the wakes, lol.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,307
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
4,113 posts
8,680 battles
19 minutes ago, Colonel_Potter said:

The new ship and torpedo wakes are beautiful. 

Could you post a pic? I am stuck at work so I will not see until I get off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,648
[BIAS]
Members
3,154 posts
9,256 battles
Just now, Chaos_EN2 said:

Could you post a pic? I am stuck at work so I will not see until I get off.

You don't have sick days to use on patch days? neither do I... also at work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,307
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
4,113 posts
8,680 battles
Just now, Ducky_shot said:

You don't have sick days to use on patch days? neither do I... also at work.

Site Supervisor - Security Officer, I have to be here. Heck I am even here on Christmas!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,338
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,406 posts
3,583 battles
22 minutes ago, Colonel_Potter said:

The new ship and torpedo wakes are beautiful.  Didn't think I'd be that impressed, but they are a big upgrade compared to what they were before, even on medium settings.  Now I enjoy seeing the torps from my Fletcher sailing off towards their intended target, where they will most likely miss more often than not due to my lack of ability to aim them properly.  The beautiful wakes make up for my ineptitude at playing warships.  Sniff sniff... Thank you WG.  (And no, not being sarcastic, really am impressed by the wakes, lol.)

They no longer look like Seadoo's? 

 

Yessss!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38
[WOLF4]
Members
106 posts
4,220 battles
29 minutes ago, Chaos_EN2 said:

Could you post a pic? I am stuck at work so I will not see until I get off.

 

Just took some screenshots for you.  Keep in mind, this is on straight medium settings.  My good video card died on me, and they're too expensive at the moment for me to get a better one.  Anyway, included a picture of torps scooting by my Montana.  I feel the wakes are much better, even on medium settings.  Can only imagine what they'd look like on ultra settings.

Wake 1.jpg

Wake 2 - Torps.jpg

Wake 3.jpg

Edited by Colonel_Potter
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,307
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
4,113 posts
8,680 battles
13 minutes ago, Colonel_Potter said:

 

Just took some screenshots for you.  Keep in mind, this is on straight medium settings.  My good video card died on me, and they're too expensive at the moment for me to get a better one.  Anyway, included a picture of torps scooting by my Montana.  I feel the wakes are much better, even on medium settings.  Can only imagine what they'd look like on ultra settings.

Cool thanks, I run most of my settings at Medium as well.:Smile_honoring::Smile_medal:

Now I really want to get home!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24
[ALPHA]
Members
180 posts
4,227 battles

Now they just need to add the turbulent prop wash wake, as that would just be icing on the cake. Hey @Pigeon_of_War, tell WG we now need turbulent prop wash wake behind our ship. Modern warships tend to not have it so bad because of an underwater platform on the fantail that pushes it down, but on ships of the era, it was prominent and would often backwash over the fantail. Here is an example:

 

IMG_2184.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,501 posts
5,487 battles

Heres one and another of the wake seen closer - it looks like its really wavy and not an effect.  rendered on GTX 1070

shot-18.02.28_09.28.02-0464.jpg

shot-18.02.28_09.30.51-0846.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,338
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,406 posts
3,583 battles

1 step forward, 1 step back. 

 

I love the new torp wakes and the ship effects.

 

I do not like the new shell splashes they look bad!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,501 posts
5,487 battles
5 minutes ago, Cobraclutch said:

1 step forward, 1 step back. 

 

I love the new torp wakes and the ship effects.

 

I do not like the new shell splashes they look bad!! 

I think they should have kept the shell splash height as it was originally.  I think because they obsecure is part of the game visually and in some ways protect the DD;s if the aim is off. NOT the DD's fault for that.  

 

shell-splash1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
421
[NATO]
Beta Testers
1,775 posts
5,809 battles
4 hours ago, agrims said:

Now they just need to add the turbulent prop wash wake, as that would just be icing on the cake. Hey @Pigeon_of_War, tell WG we now need turbulent prop wash wake behind our ship. Modern warships tend to not have it so bad because of an underwater platform on the fantail that pushes it down, but on ships of the era, it was prominent and would often backwash over the fantail. Here is an example:

 

IMG_2184.JPG

That type of backwash is dependent on stern design. UK style transoms often left a hollow area under the transom when the ship was moving at speed (former Can navy guy here) and dual props would build a peak, kinda like a mohawk haircut. In heavier seas it was not uncommon for our VDS deck (only 3-4' of freeboard there) to be underwater much of the time.

But yes, more work to be done onthe eye candy :) In CBT the ships didnt turn properly, they turned like a car, pivoting at the rear instead of pivoting in the middle and the sterns didnt kick out like they do now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24
[ALPHA]
Members
180 posts
4,227 battles
5 hours ago, hipcanuck said:

That type of backwash is dependent on stern design. UK style transoms often left a hollow area under the transom when the ship was moving at speed (former Can navy guy here) and dual props would build a peak, kinda like a mohawk haircut. In heavier seas it was not uncommon for our VDS deck (only 3-4' of freeboard there) to be underwater much of the time.

But yes, more work to be done onthe eye candy :) In CBT the ships didnt turn properly, they turned like a car, pivoting at the rear instead of pivoting in the middle and the sterns didnt kick out like they do now.

I am a 13 year AD USN guy and surface engineer here and if you look at pictures, more often than not, screw wash is a raised feature. Again, depends on fantail design, however, most warships are multi-screw designs and unless you have a three shaft design or one shaft design, you will get a large after wake with what you describe as the mohawk. Most warships will display the Mohawk due to two factors: displacement and thrust of counter rotating screws. The water simply has to go "somewhere".   Most pictures taken back in WW2 are what I like to call port queen parade pictures, as it wasn't a common thing to document underway pictures, and if they were, it was typically taken by float plane at low speed. Case in point pictures of Abruzzi, Baltimore, Washington, Birmingham (HMS), DDG, CG, and CVN. : 

 

also, I do agree we have come a long way with the physics and getting the feel of being underway. Turn up the graphics WG!

IMG_2188.JPG

IMG_2189.JPG

IMG_2190.JPG

IMG_2191.JPG

IMG_2192.JPG

IMG_2193.JPG

IMG_2194.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×