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

Remove Artillery Smoke Trails

9 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
35 posts
2,345 battles

Please add an option in game to remove those silly smoke trails, colored and otherwise. There was a mod that got rid of them, and now with the recent patch it does not work, and a modder said there's probably nothing to be done about it.

Please? They look really, really dumb.

 

Edit for clarification:

The smoke trails behind the glowing, tracer projectile. (White, yellow, red.)

Edited by Lucerious
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,185 posts
6,543 battles

There called tracers, not smoke, and tracers were utilized in that era..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,524
[CVA16]
Members
6,722 posts
20,715 battles
43 minutes ago, Raven114 said:

There called tracers, not smoke, and tracers were utilized in that era..

But not for artillery shells. IRL you did not see your shells at all, just looked for splashes/explosions at the time that your shells are supposed to be landing. They are, however, very useful in game to track your shots. ID your shots vs somebody else shooting at the same target. They also let you know how many others are shooting at your target. And most think they look pretty cool too.

Not sure what WG changed making mods unable to remove them for those (few) that don't like tracers but they could look into it. It could be an easy fix or just put out how the code was changed so some clever modder could figure it out. So many bigger holes in the dam to fix at the moment though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
35 posts
2,345 battles

I'm not talking about the glow from the shell — white, yellow, red etc. The smoke trails or whatever behind them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,068
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
4,347 posts
13,082 battles

It would be nice if WG got rid of the tracer trails all together. It would make low velocity gunned ships more competitive without a major rework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,349
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
4,587 posts
9 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

It would be nice if WG got rid of the tracer trails all together. It would make low velocity gunned ships more competitive without a major rework.

how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,068
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
4,347 posts
13,082 battles
1 minute ago, SKurj said:

how?

By being unable to see the HUGE tracers heading towards the ship, the driver would be less alerted to dodge them. Making dodging more anticipation than visual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,349
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
4,587 posts
34 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

By being unable to see the HUGE tracers heading towards the ship, the driver would be less alerted to dodge them. Making dodging more anticipation than visual.

meh not so sure with the slow lobs, maybe at close range, at long range the arc is kinda ridiculous...    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,068
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
4,347 posts
13,082 battles
1 hour ago, SKurj said:

meh not so sure with the slow lobs, maybe at close range, at long range the arc is kinda ridiculous...    

At longer ranges is exactly what I'm talking about. Close range the shells are so flat you'd might not even see the the tracers. But with Situational Awareness baseline, and Priority Target, the Tracers give away too much information as is. This had led to the persuite of high velocity low arc shells; as the opportunity to evade them are much lower in spite of the three visual sources of information provided. 

That's probably why we got ships specifically designed for long ranges angle tanking like Petropavlovsk and Stalingrad; because she'll visibility and velocity is so through the roof that anything but angle tanking/island camping is viable for anything but DDs and CVs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×