USS Illinois BB-65...with 3x4 203mm??

[Itwastuesday]

Well, at least it's something new. But it looks like something I'd hate to have in my team. A battleship makes it dangerous to maneuver in front of it's guns where cruisers just sort of annoy you while kiting to the next map. This battleship would not do a battleship job and I'd guess it just nerfs your team.

[K82J]

" Get 1500 main Battery Hits " ribbon " Requirement : BB

 

Illinois : " Hold my beer "

 

 

[LukkaiCH]

Vor 4 Stunden, Varian_Dorn sagte:

Let me help you find what you need here:

 

They are called eyes, usually mounted somewhere on your head; they allow you to see things. Once you found those, direct them at the two pictures I linked up there in this thread.

Fun fact: Except for that gangway (or whatever it is) hanging on the side of the ship and the main battery guns, any obvious difference can easily be attributed to the different viewing angles.

 

So maybe act less the arrogant arse and actually constructive instead?

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

The most intriguing issue here is "dual purpose". Will it make AA great again? As a tier 9 vs Supershit CVs?

 

[Varian_Dorn]

3 hours ago, LukkaiCH said:

Fun fact: Except for that gangway (or whatever it is) hanging on the side of the ship and the main battery guns, any obvious difference can easily be attributed to the different viewing angles.

 

So maybe act less the arrogant arse and actually constructive instead?

Unlike you I took the time and looked closely at both vessels. And its not just "the angle". 

[LukkaiCH]

Vor 1 Stunde, Varian_Dorn sagte:

Unlike you I took the time and looked closely at both vessels. And its not just "the angle". 

And yet you still haven't named a single difference.

 

But I will do you a solid and name some: The FCR on the top AA guns as well as the main radar dish up top look different. As does the back mast. Those aren't exactly major differences. And on the reduced picture size in the forums, actually not that easy to make out.

 

Right, your turn: How exactly are those two ships so different that even "an uneducated idiot" could never think they were the same hull? And don't say camo, that's just paint and can be changed.

[Varian_Dorn]

From front to back, just to name the more obvious ones:

 

- forward AA emplacement

- turret barbettes

- various equipment on top of the bridge, most prominently the range finder (at least I guess its a range finder, im not good with the technical terms here)

- the entire top antenna arrangement in front of the first chimney, including the radar (which you at least noticed)

- several other aa emplacementson the sides

- the second antenna tower arrangement, behind the second chimney

- on Illinois the entire crane and equipment for the shipboard plane Iowa has is missing, located at the back

 

Again, these are the most obvious ones. Recommend you get glasses and maybe klick on the linked images to enlarge them.

Theres some more, but I guess if someone with better eyesight helps you you might find them.

 

The base hull looks identical - its an Iowa class after all. But the devil is probably in the detail here as well.

[Shepke]

14 hours ago, Varian_Dorn said:

- forward AA emplacement

At same place. Just swapped quadruple boffors to 76mm.

14 hours ago, Varian_Dorn said:

- turret barbettes

Absolutely the same

14 hours ago, Varian_Dorn said:

- various equipment on top of the bridge, most prominently the range finder (at least I guess its a range finder, im not good with the technical terms here)

- the entire top antenna arrangement in front of the first chimney, including the radar (which you at least noticed)

- several other aa emplacementson the sides

And? All this swappings done in seconds!

14 hours ago, Varian_Dorn said:

- the second antenna tower arrangement, behind the second chimney

The real one job done, they did some 3-d modeling at last. Couple days. With new main gun turrets, its armor scheme, damage model, new gun points - it took two weeks max.

14 hours ago, Varian_Dorn said:

- on Illinois the entire crane and equipment for the shipboard plane Iowa has is missing, located at the back

Also removed in seconds!

14 hours ago, Varian_Dorn said:

Recommend you get glasses and maybe klick on the linked images to enlarge them.

Recommend you get some books for PC 3d-modeling, for minimal understanding, how and what was done for creating this ship models.

[LukkaiCH]

I like how everything he mentions are either things I already said or simply wrong, except for the exchanged AA guns in the front (they are still in the exact same place though), as well as two additional AA placements per side and the back crane (that is one thing I did indeed overlook) on the Iowa that are missing on the Illinois. And how everything mentioned that is indeed different are smaller details, except for the switched main guns (and thus slightly different turrets. Barbettes are the same, if you look closer). And how most of which will not be noticeable unless you get a very close look at the ship and concentrate on those specific parts. The back mast and main radar dish being the only exceptions, maybe the back crane as well.

 

And he even admits that those little details are the "most obvious ones". Proofing that the ships are in fact nearly identical, except for the main guns.

 

So yeah, thanks Varian. You actually made a better argument for my side than I did. I'm impressed.

[Varian_Dorn]

So, the at least 2 weeks of work coutn for nothing? Even if this analysis of @Shepke is accurate - which I doubt, unless they actually work for WG and now EXACTLY how stuff comes together - overall my point is proven, the creation of a ship even with rather small changes takes some time.

But hey, if you are so awesome and knowledgable, how about showing us a short video of yourself making those "small" changes "in seconds" you so adamantly proclaim. Unless I see some proof for your tall words I´ll take your opinion as that of someone who apparently knows some modelling but is otherwise just one of the usual braggarts.

 

 

@LukkaiCH Glad to be of service. I´m happy to see you admit that you need indeed glasses and an attention span greater than 30 seconds.

 

 

Even something "nearly identical" takes time and effort to create and or modify. Something you two bozos either have no clue about or are so arrogant that you easily dismiss and hold no value to it. And while I don´t have any knowledge of 3d modelling or programming myself I´ve occasionally watched a friend - and there was rarely anything that was completed "in seconds"; not if you want it to actually work the intended way.

[Shepke]

6 hours ago, Varian_Dorn said:

skip a lot of blah-blah-blah

Ok, lets start
 

Spoiler

So, the common thing about 3d-modeling, designing and etc. If you already have big amount of parts, you can combine all this stuff into different sets (models) with ease.

 

For example, a buddy of mine, did this MG turrets swap for "Shimakaze" for a hour. All you need is some skills in Python, access to WG API, some tutorials and extractor for 3d-data from game client.

And this is modding, not direct replacement in 3d-editor (remember seconds?)

Spoiler

  

Moreover, this guy(ordinary player), who made mod for USS "New Jersey" 80s

Spoiler

 did much, much, MUCH more work than WG while cloning "Illinois" from "Iowa"

 

As for me, I love to modify/paint camo(textures) for ships(3d-models) - actually, this is the only reason why i still playing in this "game"..

For example, transferring camo from "GK" to "Preussen" (with hhhuuugggeee differences as one @Varian_Dorn would say) took about 20 minutes lazy work (rename some files, repaint textures for MG and AA)

Spoiler

 

As for "FdG"/"Pommern" and "Siegfrid"/"Agir" it took little longer, because there were some changes (huge again ) in deckhouse, so it took around a hour maybe.

Spoiler

Much easier for "Makarov"(Nurnberg),"Novorossiysk"(Giulio Cesare),"Smolensk"(Ochakov)

Spoiler

Mostly everything was done in 5-10 minutes (rename some texture files, repaint textures for MG or AA).

In other words, it means these 3d-models are 95% identical.

And building completely new 3d-models from scratch will take drastically more man-days/months than just cloning.

That is why we now get a lot of clones (even "clone branches" such as Pan American/Asian)

 

And i don`t remember, that anybody said, that even cloning didn`t take time at all. Even absolutely identical clones like ARP/AL/B/Lima/HSF ships needed some manhours to add new ship ID, clone setup parameters, modify or paint from scratch new camo and do at least basic tests. Its just take enormously less amount of time.    

So, i look forward for new revelations from highly educated wise man @Varian_Dorn who always sees a lot of differences and cares so much.

 

[Varian_Dorn]

15 hours ago, Shepke said:

Ok, lets start
 

  Hide contents

So, the common thing about 3d-modeling, designing and etc. If you already have big amount of parts, you can combine all this stuff into different sets (models) with ease.

 

For example, a buddy of mine, did this MG turrets swap for "Shimakaze" for a hour. All you need is some skills in Python, access to WG API, some tutorials and extractor for 3d-data from game client.

And this is modding, not direct replacement in 3d-editor (remember seconds?)

  Hide contents

  

Moreover, this guy(ordinary player), who made mod for USS "New Jersey" 80s

  Hide contents

 did much, much, MUCH more work than WG while cloning "Illinois" from "Iowa"

 

As for me, I love to modify/paint camo(textures) for ships(3d-models) - actually, this is the only reason why i still playing in this "game"..

For example, transferring camo from "GK" to "Preussen" (with hhhuuugggeee differences as one @Varian_Dorn would say) took about 20 minutes lazy work (rename some files, repaint textures for MG and AA)

  Hide contents

 

As for "FdG"/"Pommern" and "Siegfrid"/"Agir" it took little longer, because there were some changes (huge again ) in deckhouse, so it took around a hour maybe.

  Hide contents

Much easier for "Makarov"(Nurnberg),"Novorossiysk"(Giulio Cesare),"Smolensk"(Ochakov)

  Hide contents

Mostly everything was done in 5-10 minutes (rename some texture files, repaint textures for MG or AA).

In other words, it means these 3d-models are 95% identical.

And building completely new 3d-models from scratch will take drastically more man-days/months than just cloning.

That is why we now get a lot of clones (even "clone branches" such as Pan American/Asian)

 

And i don`t remember, that anybody said, that even cloning didn`t take time at all. Even absolutely identical clones like ARP/AL/B/Lima/HSF ships needed some manhours to add new ship ID, clone setup parameters, modify or paint from scratch new camo and do at least basic tests. Its just take enormously less amount of time.    

So, i look forward for new revelations from highly educated wise man @Varian_Dorn who always sees a lot of differences and cares so much.

 

Congratulations, you gave a lengthy display on swapping camos. Which is the one thing we were not talking about AT ALL.

Also bonus points for mentioning your friend, if the goal is to just swap parts without any regard wether or not the result 1.) works properly within the boundaries of the game and 2.) doesn´t look like total sh** then hell yeah, sure this can probably be done quite quickly.

 

So a round of applause for you, you missed the mark - in fact you missed it so very completely the dispersion and rng of the old Gneisenau was practically sniper-grade accurate in comparison.

 

 

But to throw you a little bone here: of course it takes a lot more time to create a completely new model from scratch. All I´m saying is that you bozos apparently underestimate and greatly undervalue (<-!) the time and effort it takes to create even a vessel which already has an existing base model.

[Yedwy]

12x8" on a T9 BB hull? Am i the only one that thinks this is r*arded no matter what? Thats like Buffalo/Ancorage firepower, on a BB hull...

 

Lets recap - no overmatch of anything worthwhile on AP, no fire chance on HE, no effective range as shell velocity is a thing even if they buff the range "couse reasons" all of the sudden from the range all other US 8" CA rifles with SHS have...

 

Like whatnow? That thing would have to have something like 2s reload for it to make any sense at all unless they intend to gimmick the cr*p out of it with say burst with 5 shots or something...

 

If they put that on Alaska hull in a CA slot even as Supership I would say fine, but this is ridiculous...

 

Only way this makes sense is if they intend to lift the 6 capital ship lock from the MM so we can finally have full blown World of BBs

[Finitan]

1 hour ago, Yedwy said:

no overmatch of anything worthwhile on AP, no fire chance on HE, no effective range

Exactly as the life of CA in WowS but here with BB hull so tanking cappability wich can be a good way.

Depend the AA and the sub counter 'cause CV + SUB broke any agressive move, and I play both of them too so it's not << simple class shaming >> 

 

18,5 km range look better than if they put it with a pathetic 14 km 'to compensate the number of guns' as they like to wrote. But 1.8 sigma is pretty bad and will be frustrating.

 

Rudder is pretty slow too.

 

And at the end the final problem is T9 but it what way ? In doublons it's too expensive for a single ship.

[Animalul2012]

This BB is so bad might as well play stock FDG. Who though that 203s coupled with BB dispersion and 1.8 sigma is a good idea? If it does not get at least 2.0 sigma+large cruiser dispersion is not viable in any way.

[Shepke]

5 hours ago, Varian_Dorn said:

Congratulations, you gave a lengthy display on swapping camos. Which is the one thing we were not talking about AT ALL.

Also bonus points for mentioning your friend, if the goal is to just swap parts without any regard wether or not the result 1.) works properly within the boundaries of the game and 2.) doesn´t look like total sh** then hell yeah, sure this can probably be done quite quickly.

Wow. What a great knowledge of game engines, 3d-primitives, texture(camo) mapping and so on!

We better stop right here, before anyone will see the true level of your education.

5 hours ago, Varian_Dorn said:

But to throw you a little bone here: of course it takes a lot more time to create a completely new model from scratch. All I´m saying is that you bozos apparently underestimate and greatly undervalue (<-!) the time and effort it takes to create even a vessel which already has an existing base model.

Oh yeah, i saw, just above, your level of undervalue work of my buddy.

But another misassumption from you here.

I pretty aware about amount of work done for each model, and pretty value what is done. Because besides of 3d-models and graphic, this game offers nothing, which also shows undervalue our donations (of millions USD) by some company, which offered us just 3d-models (and a bunch of 3d-clones lately) and zero game content.

Also, i remind you, that each 3d-model costs around 100 usd in premium shop, for this sum i can easily buy 3(three) AAA-games, and you definitely cant value or estimate amount of work, done by hundreds of developers, which have been working for years to deliver these products to you. 

So, the only person which underestimate or undervalue something here - is you. Sad but true.

 

Any other revelations?

 

[Wulf_Ace]

We should also give him torps. 20km range pref.

[LukkaiCH]

Vor 6 Stunden, Varian_Dorn sagte:

All I´m saying is that you bozos apparently underestimate and greatly undervalue (<-!) the time and effort it takes to create even a vessel which already has an existing base model.

And all I'm saying is that

A) there weren't many changes to the ship model and besides the turrets/main guns they were minor. And that at the size of the pictures in the thread (which is all most people will look at at first), they didn't show well. Particularily because you were showing the ships from different angles. I never even commented about the time it takes to make those changes.

and

B) when someone asked you about what those changes were, you acted like an arrogant, unhelpful arse instead of simply pointing them out. That it took two more prods before you finally would name some. And then even screwed that up, because you are too busy throwing around insults instead of actual arguments.

[Hades_warrior]

On 12/8/2022 at 1:39 PM, Seraphice said:

That is only fair, it is pretty much unprecedented to have a BB like this, but it should be exciting to have something completely unique!

 

Fair seas captain!
~Sera

Can you tell for what resource will be illinois?

I know it might be a bit too soon for that info, but im sure that info would save grinding time for Coal to some of us.

[Panocek]

7 hours ago, Yedwy said:

12x8" on a T9 BB hull? Am i the only one that thinks this is r*arded no matter what? Thats like Buffalo/Ancorage firepower, on a BB hull...

 

Lets recap - no overmatch of anything worthwhile on AP, no fire chance on HE, no effective range as shell velocity is a thing even if they buff the range "couse reasons" all of the sudden from the range all other US 8" CA rifles with SHS have...

 

Like whatnow? That thing would have to have something like 2s reload for it to make any sense at all unless they intend to gimmick the cr*p out of it with say burst with 5 shots or something...

 

If they put that on Alaska hull in a CA slot even as Supership I would say fine, but this is ridiculous...

 

Only way this makes sense is if they intend to lift the 6 capital ship lock from the MM so we can finally have full blown World of BBs

380mm armed BBs also are limited in ovematch department and there are quite a few of them at tier 9. 12gun with 10s reload as of now, puts Illi in CL kind of sustained HE DPM, while having hull to resist most BBs and unlike large cruisers, having access to tank build to deal with returning HE spam.

 

Basically the same story as with putting destroyer caliber guns on a cruiser - "hurr durr no HE pen no AP pen only dakka", yet they work fine. And last time I've played US heavy cruisers, they are just fine for farming less armored sections with reliable AP pens on BBs, while HE is okay in damage and fire chance.

[Seraphice]

8 hours ago, Hades_warrior said:

Can you tell for what resource will be illinois?

I know it might be a bit too soon for that info, but im sure that info would save grinding time for Coal to some of us.

Unfortunately we don't have any info we can share on this for now, sorry :(

 

 

[KillStealBoss]

9 hours ago, Hades_warrior said:

Can you tell for what resource will be illinois?

I know it might be a bit too soon for that info, but im sure that info would save grinding time for Coal to some of us.

It might be for steel like Vallejo. 

[Miscommunication_dept]

17 hours ago, Animalul2012 said:

This BB is so bad might as well play stock FDG. Who though that 203s coupled with BB dispersion and 1.8 sigma is a good idea? If it does not get at least 2.0 sigma+large cruiser dispersion is not viable in any way.

Or Des Moines reload!