Welcome to Steelbeasts.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

JamesT73J

T-72M4 Subbing for the T-80 in 2.654

Hi all,

Release notes states that the T-80U has had its TIS removed for realism purposes (fair do's) and I altered Bluewing's 'Border Patrol' scenario to use the T-72M4 instead.

For those unfamiliar with it, this is a day scenario with 500m visibility, so a TIS fight, essentially.

Was quite surprised how poorly the T-72M4 performed. The T-80's in that scenario in 2.5* used to fight essentially like it's a clear day; i.e. spotted and engaged aggressively at >2000M.

Am I doing something wrong? I checked that the TIS stuff was available (and not damaged) in the mission editor but they still seem a little docile.

Could it be because the TC on that tank doesn't have his own TIS, so they don't spot so well?

As an aside I'm quite amused that the most advanced all-weather opfor tank is now the humble T-72 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick test again and according to the report file there were only two instances of the TURMS tanks engaging over 500m, and that was one tank engaging troops with coax. Is this right? I'm concerned they're not seeing properly at all.

56e83cbb28938_BorderPatrol_264_04-03-12_

Border Patrol_264_04-03-12_13_21_54.zip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, I will pass the info along. Perhaps there is some sort of shared code that prevents the T-72M4's TIS from working properly.

Anyway, also, keep in mind that in the distant past thermal sights were not restricted by visibility levels, but at some point the visibility setting now (realistically) restricts TIS also. The general rule of thumb is that thermal sights can see 3x set visibility level. If you say the vis is set to 500m, then that means thermal sights can only see out to 1500m in that scenario, so I just don't see how anything would see out to 2500m with vis like that unless it was a long time ago (or an exaggeration). You should consider raising the vis up to 1000 if you want them to see over 1500m. But anyway, that is not the problem with the T-72M4 however, just a suggestion. We will look into the T-72M4 issue. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

Release notes states that the T-80U has had its TIS removed for realism purposes (fair do's) and I altered Bluewing's 'Border Patrol' scenario to use the T-72M4 instead.

For those unfamiliar with it, this is a day scenario with 500m visibility, so a TIS fight, essentially.

Was quite surprised how poorly the T-72M4 performed. The T-80's in that scenario in 2.5* used to fight essentially like it's a clear day; i.e. spotted and engaged aggressively at >2000M.

Am I doing something wrong? I checked that the TIS stuff was available (and not damaged) in the mission editor but they still seem a little docile.

Could it be because the TC on that tank doesn't have his own TIS, so they don't spot so well?

As an aside I'm quite amused that the most advanced all-weather opfor tank is now the humble T-72 :)

hurm, well, technically the T-72M4 isn't really an opfor tank, it's got a british perkins powerpack, and an italian fire control system(same as Ariete and Centauro).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Yes, it can never escape the stigma of having a "T" in front of it, but it is a stand in as the only T tank with thermals at the moment. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hurm, well, technically the T-72M4 isn't really an opfor tank, it's got a british perkins powerpack, and an italian fire control system(same as Ariete and Centauro).

how did that come about?i thought it was a Russian tank.Was it outsourced to another country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how did that come about?i thought it was a Russian tank.Was it outsourced to another country?

I'm guessing that the industry looked at the vast inventory of T-series tanks, looked at the strengths and weaknesses and recognised that with decent FCS and sights the T-72 could be a cheap first-round killer. Hence TURMS-T, I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another appreciable modification to the T-72M4 is a reverse gear that is faster than 10kph, thanks to the new powerpack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Thanks, I will pass the info along. Perhaps there is some sort of shared code that prevents the T-72M4's TIS from working properly.

Anyway, also, keep in mind that in the distant past thermal sights were not restricted by visibility levels, but at some point the visibility setting now (realistically) restricts TIS also. The general rule of thumb is that thermal sights can see 3x set visibility level. If you say the vis is set to 500m, then that means thermal sights can only see out to 1500m in that scenario, ...

Surely that does not mean that at 1500 a target can be seen and that at 1501 it cannot.

Tell me that isn't the case. Please!

One would think that the likelihood of sighting a target would use a degradation function as range increases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely that does not mean that at 1500 a target can be seen and that at 1501 it cannot.

Tell me that isn't the case. Please!

One would think that the likelihood of sighting a target would use a degradation function as range increases.

Sorry, but computer gaming/simulation is all about numbers, abstractions, and cut offs. With daylight visibility set to 500m (in this particular example), at 1500m the tank will begin to fade into view in the thermals, yes, where it will then start to be visible. The tank will not visually pop up instantly, it will fade in - however the AI will be able to ID it at that point just like the human can. It is no different than what happens in daylight view when the vehicle gets to 500 meters in this particular instance. We are NOT talking about spotting distances here either, we are talking about absolute visibility limits, that is to say, the vehicle is not visible beyond those distances so it makes no sense for ID randomly occur "around a range above the absolute limit" like you imply.

If you have a problem with how it behaves, then do not give a visibility less than 2000 or 3000 meters. ;)

Edited by Volcano
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but computer gaming/simulation is all about numbers, abstractions, and cut offs.

Absolutely. Couldn't be otherwise.

With daylight visibility set to 500m (in this particular example), at 1500m the tank will begin to fade into view in the thermals, yes, where it will then start to be visible.

Which implies that at 1501 the chance of seeing the target on thermals is 0%. Sim or real life the chance to see something at range will always reach 0% at some point.

That said one would expect that at ranges inside the cutoff that visibility would be implemented with a mathematical function reflecting an inverse relationship between distance and resolution of the target. And that is the crux of my original query as it seemed as if what was being said is that at 1501 no target and that at 1500 one sees the target with 100% resolution. I'm still not sure how target visibility, resolution if you will, works in SB whether seen thru a telescopic sight with TIS on or off.

Less distance means better resolution (inverse relationship). For example at 1500 one might see a barely visible ghostly image while at 1000 the image is more clear and at 500 or less it's a fully formed 100% functional image. The mathetical function necessary to make that happen is trivial and could be as simple as creating a lookup table. If one wanted to get a little more fancy a non linear polynomial equation based on something as simple as the square of the distance from the sighter to the sighted could be used to define the target resoluion. I imagine though that implementing the intensity/transparency or what ever else goes into the graphics part is not a trivial thing to implement and might not even be worth the effort

The tank will not visually pop up instantly, it will fade in...

That is exactly what one would expect...

... - however the AI will be able to ID it at that point just like the human can. It is no different than what happens in daylight view when the vehicle gets to 500 meters in this particular instance. We are NOT talking about spotting distances here either, we are talking about absolute visibility limits, that is to say, the vehicle is not visible beyond those distances so it makes no sense for ID randomly occur "around a range above the absolute limit" like you imply.

If you have a problem with how it behaves, then do not give a visibility less than 2000 or 3000 meters. ;)

One would hope that target ID at range would not be a simple yes/no, on/off function. Taget identification is more difficult at range than close up.

As for randomness: - real life conditions impacting the visibility of an object (ability to ID a target and it's type) are hardly constant even in the short term. The ability to see beyond a certain range is as much a function of the variabilities inherent in the tool used as it is the shifting external environmental conditions thru which the tool must look. Both are variable. Though I imagine that in a sim like SB the variables that would need to be modeled to reflect the randomness of same would have so little impact that they could safely be ignored and not even modeled.

You answered my question Volcano in much the way I expected. Thanks.

Have a nice day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes, well, I think we were discussing it the wrong way. As opposed to a target being barely visible ABOVE the specified visibility with a chance of spotting, rather, it works the other way in that the target becomes visible BELOW the visibility level with a chance of spotting, with the visibility level denoting the absolute upper limit. Correct, target ID for the AI can take longer a great many variables such as how close the enemy is to the maximum visibility level (amongst many other things).

Anyway, I think that is essentially what you were hoping for but in reverse. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now