Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Raven434th

  1. 6 hours ago, Ssnake said:

    Congratulations, and thanks for confirming what I suspected.




    Now consider your chances, next time you raise an issue.

    Fine then lets get started shall we? (we can talk about yer paranoid delusions later) Lets talk about your net code and flying tanks and lying AAR's,maybe we can best having to take 7 pages of common sense to convince you to change things?(probably not) but lets try.You wanna make cryptic posts like that then expect to get it right back.

  2. I really don't think the Russians anticipated the Americians comming up with a solution to counter the Armata so soon. IMO this allows Abrams to use the same tactics as they would against T-80\90, meaning they can engage it frontally if they choose to...at the same ranges. But that's my speculation...not fact.

  3. One guy tells us there's nothing wrong(volcano),one guy says the aar's are wrong and are inaccurate due to net code(roguesnake),and another guy (ssnake) say they're looking into the damage model issue to improve it and will give us the new A4 round to compensate. WTF?

  4. This was posted by RougeSnake In another thread:

    "By now you guys should know that you need to post as detailed information as you can, as well as an aar if you think you found a bug.  It is pretty well known (I thought), that in multiplayer sessions the hit rays in aar's are often not super accurate, because the information is being sent back and forth over a network .  And yet you give no indication if this image is from a single, or multiplayer scenario...from the host, or a client.  This stuff is pretty important..   And I get it, not everyone has time as a software tester, but Assassin "OH COME ON!!!"  you should understand how this works by now. 


    Besides inaccurate network related aar events, there is also the issue of what is, and isn't stored in the aar.  Not every exact position, of everything is stored.   In this case I'm not sure if the position of the gun crew, in relation the the weapon is stored "exactly".  These guys move around, as you rotated these weapons.   And of course, there is a reason why not everything is stored(we would if we could), to keep AAR's from being a thousand terabytes."


    What are we even supposed to do with this in context to our reports??? 

  5. When good hits are non-consequential,and the opposite occurs when using ammo that is lower in penetration abilities says there is a PROBLEM and we presented it to you in a number of ways. Also giving us the proper ammo that the tanks your modeling use against a particular threat, is just common sense.What more can we tell ya. And whats so unimpressive about the a4 round???

  6. It must be said  that most but not all of our observations and comments on this issue are in a multiplayer environment,Under combat conditions with multiple types of assets on the maps...just sayin.Netcode I think has to be accounted for.Don't know if that's really a factor or not.The flying tank we saw last night kinda got us thinking.

  7. 1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

    WRT the question why the M829A4 hasn't been added earlier - well, to model it accurately more needs to be done than to simply add another set of ballistic property data and call it M829A4. Some programming will have to be involved to accurately reflect capabilities and limitations. When that'll fit into the workplan, we'll have to see.

    Ok fine BUT....what do you intend to do for the leopards.Leave them as is?Would they be upgunned to 140mm,is there an a4 equivalent?

  8. 1 minute ago, Ssnake said:

    Extraordinary claims require that you have more than a mere opinion to support them, sorry. We're not asking for iron proof, or something that you can't provide so we can avoid the discussion by deflection. All we're asking for is that you shoot the targets some more and actually COUNT how often _no_ damage occurs, only light damage, a mission kill, or a complete kill. And that you document where exactly you hit them if you believe that you identified a "problem spot".

    You can even go through all the report HTML files that Steel Beasts generated, and load them into Excel for a rough evaluation. It will at least say what kind of major components failed and give a rough indication of the impact location, and from what engagement range. You're sitting on a heap of data! It just requires that you go through it. And you don't even have to look for a needle in a haystack, you can search the spreadsheet for anything reading "Armata" and then simply compile the lines.


    My reply was mostly in context to the a4 round and wheather it could be\will implemented...not the damage model as it is now regarding heat or sabot, so in THAT regards can't do anything till you give us an M829A4 to play with. As for the other issues...that's what beta testers are for. I think enough screens and aar's show you there's a problem somewhere. We reported our concerns, its up to you and the team to resolve it. no offence.

  • Create New...