Jump to content

Volcano

Moderators
  • Posts

    8,342
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    15

Everything posted by Volcano

  1. I'd say it's a pretty good effort. The visuals look nice, and it does give ideas on what we could do with some improvements if we have time. Nothing wrong with a bit of friendly competition in that regard, but of course its two different audiences as well. Seems like its probably a "fun quick action" type game where-as SB is more of a tool box.
  2. Not necessarily. It's that the problem is that it can currently be "gamed", and the discovery of that is what brought about the improvement. Specifically, if you want to pin down the entire team - just fire a few rounds very roughly in the area of one of the soldiers on the very end of the trench. This isn't realistic, because it requires minimal effort to suppress the fortified team, and the user is able to become very effective and just keeping the team under perpetual suppression to the point that the trench can become a liability. This behavior doesn't reward effective suppression fire/coverage of the trench. Also, several other issues with that behavior -- it puts the entire team into a sort of synchronized suppression. By making this improvement, it allows the infantry to become even more of a problem while in trenches, especially when firing RPGs at vehicles (because you have to suppress the actual RPG gunner, not just "some guy" in the in the team), which is vital when a tank is bearing down on the occupant, but is shooting a few coaxial MG rounds at time to keep the entire team suppressed. Now that said, you can still suppress multiple troops at a time in the team by shooting near them, or suppress the entire team by firing across the center of the team -- its not like you will have to fire a bullet inches from an individual soldier's head before that solder gets suppressed. They still have a "bubble" So odds are, normal fire will suppress more than one soldier in the team, its just that it will avoid most of the gamey behavior. So really, it will behave similar to how it is now, just that it will allow some of the soldiers in the team to still return fire if you aren't putting an effective suppression fire onto them.
  3. You don't have to "bump" the topic, and the problem here is that its entirely subjective. Some like it, some don't. This probably means that something in between needs to happen. But the problem here is you have to think about when YOU as a player can spot and ID enemy troops. Often before, you could clearly see the enemy troops and your AI troops could not see them. Now that is no longer the case. Can they see troops above what you can see now, yes it seems to be the case, but vehicles do this too. Either way, its a bit tricky and we can't just take a hammer to it. But we are keeping an eye on it. Yes, they are getting "suppressed". This will improve a bit in the future though - right now if one soldier is shot at then the entire team is suppressed, but in the next patch we will hopefully get it working where they get suppressed individually, per soldier.
  4. Also, just FYI for those interested... Two weeks from now (SEP 16) the plan is to re-run the Firefight 79 campaign, with some improvements from the MBT 87 campaign experience (awards, better point balance scoring, and such). If you are interested, then be sure to show up and participate. 👍
  5. 2 SEP 2022: Symmetrical Attack 12-FG-4265-FMU SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes. Random CO selection? Yes. Minimum # players: 10 NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.
  6. Yes, so the issue here is that the Ural truck is very old, and never had its default LMG and RPG type defined (for its carried troops). So, it falls back to something defined in the code, ages ago, which is likely the very first RPG type that existed (M136) and very first LMG type that existed (MG3). I will try to script that to the PKM and RPG-7, or some such, for a future patch.
  7. Well, what can I say? The sound engine needs a lot of work - even a full replacement, but this has been known since the early 2000s.
  8. All the "smallarms" sounds are one-shot, only used for rifles. The named MGs are used for the infantry MGs, and "OHW" type vehicle weapons. The exception being the RPK sound, which is used for the infantry's "phantom MG" (SAW), but it could be that one is used for "blue" and another one for "red" (I don't recall off the top of my head). The tanks use a looping coaxial MG sound because that's what they had back in 1999 and it has remained that way. They have a loop, and a loop-end sample. Then there "3rd person" coaxial MG sound is a three round burst, because a looping sound cannot be correctly time delayed over distance. I see the comment in the "wish list" - but the reason the MG sounds changed to one-shots is because each shot could be slightly pitch shifted to sound different, and so we don't need this terrible one-shot three round burst sound in order to time-delay-over-distance a looping sound. So, the one-shot to end sample is an improvement. The proper evolution here would be to make the coaxial MGs work in that way, not the other way around.
  9. 26 AUG 2022: Top Mech Company Challenge 01f-HN-4357 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes. Random CO selection? Yes. Minimum # players: 10-12 NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.
  10. OK so I did identify an area that could be improved (that I mentioned previously I would look into after investigating whether it was justified). Specifically, as mentioned previously, there is the turret ring and above this is the bottom floor of the front armor array of the turret, and it exists in real life. Below this panel is the turret ring (bearings, gears, etc) and above this is armor. This is a somewhat unique feature of most Soviet tanks as far as I can tell, because on western tanks the frontal and side turret armor extends past and overhangs the turret ring. So in the case of the T-72, T-80, T90, we call this area the "turret ring upper lip". As I said before, if you shoot it from a perfectly level elevation, then if you hit the turret ring you could end up firing across that flat surface and its a very similar situation to firing across the top of the hull in the area of the driver's hatch. See the pink arrow in the following image (the thick frontal turret armor layer is removed in this image, along with the ERA and other parts - as you can see by the wireframe)... At that exact angle of attack, it would run across that "upper lip", as I described. I would think this would be rare, even though it seems to be some sort of near-mass hysteria that it protects the tank from most hits, and even just the slightest slope of the shooter or the target would reduce this effect. This flat angle of penetration would generate a very thick surface, but fortunately this thickness was capped since 4.2. Still, it was too high, and I was able to improve this by making it at most, 100mm KE RHA, which seems to be realistic. So, at least that should improve. But that is about the limit of what can be done here -- there is only so much a simulation can that is taking account all these surfaces of armor and different angles. (And no, I unable to explain the above image further -- its only intended to show what I was earlier describing -- that I wasn't just blowing smoke.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Apart from the improvement, which may or may not help what was discussed originally. But I guess it can't be as worse as it was before, being 600mm KE RHA across that flat surface, versus 100mm KE RHA after this change. So imagine: 100mm RHA, plus the ~600mm RHA of the frontal turret armor, plus the K5 ERA (if hit) which is also at an angle, plus the loss of penetration of the KE round over range (around say, ~50mm RHA per 1000 meters or so as a general rule of thumb). And, as we should be able to see: its not a guarantee, either way. If the ERA is blasted away on a previous hit, it would be a better situation though, so at least there is that possibility of the ERA equipped tank's defenses being deteriorated with repeated hits. So now, in a noble attempt to help cut down on this repeating AAR-screen-shot-analysis type discussion in the future, there are some things that I want to try to VERY BROADLY AND GENERALLY explain here, as much as I understand them (and I hope no one takes it as an invitation to get into a scientific wiener-measuring contest on the details): (Note that I am also not trying to insult anyone's intelligence here - just not going to assume what is known and not known). In general (talking about the other AAR events now) the behavior of an extreme-angle surface causing the surface to be much thicker is NOT unrealistic, especially now with the multiplier cap that I mentioned before, and will explain more about below (the unrealistic behavior before 4.2 was that it wasn't capped, so you could end up with infinite RHA levels of thickness). So, in real life, when a round is fired across this extreme-angle (ie. flat) surface, the extreme angle is going to in turn make the surface very thick. There is that real-world photo of the tank on the firing range that was hit in the driver's hatch, where it showed the round's path before it lost energy and remained. I believe it was posted in this very thread, above. We actually used that photo and what we knew about the target and ammo type to come up with the current cap on this flat surface-thickness multiplier value, to cap it at a realistic level (again, back in 4.2). So that if, in SB, you fired the same round at the same target, you would get a similar result. Even though a round might penetrate an extreme angle surface (like the driver's hatch area), it doesn't mean that any damage would or should occur, unless an actual internal component (like the driver's face) is hit. This is because once the round penetrates at that thickness, it can be considered a marginal penetration with not so much energy remaining (it comes down to the ol' die roll). All vehicles benefit from this behavior, even the M1 tanks. Examples that come to mind are the flat surface of the M1's upper hull front when in a good hull down position that has the tank partially tilted to the rear (it was intentionally designed that way), or the top roof of the tank when hit from the front at an extreme angle. The point is, these extreme angles can be all over any tank, of any type, depending on the precise location and direction that the impact hit. This is not specific to the T-72 in SB, nor in real life. Very broadly and generally speaking here, it must be removed from our minds that modern APFSDS rounds "deflect" or "ricochet" when hitting a target, such as the thought that at a extreme angle an APFDS round would deflect into a turret ring, or driver's compartment. I used to think the same way before it was explained to me years ago. While it is true that these modern APFSDS rounds do deflect off the ground, that is dirt not steel. When hitting steel at 1500+ meters per second, the dart basically plows forward like a bullet in ballistic gel - I guess you could say as the simplest analogy. If it got to the point that it would "deflect" while penetrating steel, then it would break up as far as it was explained to me, in which case there isn't much penetrating going on after that occurs. But the point is, exact scientific details aside, the idea that an APFDS dart would hit a thick extreme angle steel plate at that extreme velocity and just deflect into the inside of the crew compartment is primarily false. The deflecting-rounds-off-armor scenario is really in the realm of a full-bore AP rounds of WW2 or post war era which had much less velocity (the feared full-bore 88mm L56 AP rounds had a velocity of "just" 800-950 meters per second), or perhaps modern AP autocannon rounds. If anything, the BR-412 AP round on the T-55 would/should work that way, I suppose. Anyway, again I am speaking generally here and am heavily simplifying it, and therefore opening myself up to attack, but the main point being that it is NOT a correct assumption as to what *should* happen, which seems to give people the impression of a "bug" or flaw in the representation. When firing a round at this extreme angle, we have to understand that this is both the the worst and least common possible situation. Requiring a follow-up round in such situations to achieve an effect at all, or a greater effect, is not unrealistic. These armored vehicles have armored plates of all sorts of angles and thicknesses all over the vehicle, and most of this is represented on the armor models too. The more complex the armor models have gotten over the years, the more of these situations that are present (as opposed to the old "shells" of SB 2.0 days where the armor model was simply the shell or shape of the visual model). So a vehicle isn't always some precise thickness that will generate a reliable result. Thickness varies greatly by location and angle of attack, and how many surfaces the round penetrated, each at their own angles. There are all sorts of possibilities where no damage will happen. Simulation gamers often expect some kind of effect of some kind with each impact, in by virtue of a simple comparison of penetration power of the round versus the known armor of the vehicle, but I would say it is unrealistic and not based in reality to do so. This is why people shouldn't get so wrapped up in that part of it, and why a "die roll" at the end of process in simulations works realistically enough. In-depth analysis of every AAR event is not something that is going to be worth while in that regard, especially when factoring in other realities (that the events themselves are snap shots of at that moment in time, and don't 100% exactly always represent the precise situation in a Network Session, for example, then the fact that the hit-ray is a fat rod (to make it easy to visualize), when in reality the impact is a point coordinate in 3D space). Is it in the center of that hit-ray at that specific time of the snap shot? I don't think anyone knows - but generally its close enough. Having said all those points, it then comes down to the individual AAR image being posted, then we look at it internally and say essentially "does that look grossly unrealistic or impossible"? And the answer is usually "no", knowing how it all works (short of say a .50 cal HMG round hitting the fender of a tank and causing the tank to explode, as an example of a grossly unrealistic and impossible situation). Now hopefully that helps shed some general light, that no doubt someone might not be happy with or will want to sharp shoot the details of, but again, the goal here was a general and simplified explanation. Without understanding these points, then every update will continue to bring about the same discussions, as if any of this has changed, which then might make it seem like we are just "defending SB" when we explain the screen shots. (That is not to say that there aren't bugs form time to time though). In this particular case something was found to be improved, so that is good, but that is one specific situation out of a host of posted AAR events where it seems that the goal was to call into question the general behavior, so its why I think a detailed explanation was warranted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ So all that said, whether or not this improvement to the "turret ring upper lip" on the T-tanks allows them to be killed in a precise shot at that exact angle, is unknown - but the math does the rest, which is what we rely on totally here (there are no hands on the scales with tailored results to meet a particular expectation. So after this improvement, if it isn't possible to penetrate with the same hit, then its the math, and this would also then more than likely be true in reality as well. My guess though, it probably will penetrate sometimes killing the vehicle, but majority of the time damaging it there. That is about all the time that can be devoted here, unfortunately. Anyway, in the pursuit of perfection some good came from all this, and it is worth trying to explain it if it hopefully means less questions in the future. 😎
  11. Well, you probably do want to replace the non-TIS textured ones at the very least, and beyond that, probably the small town's houses. Big cities should probably remain mostly as-is, but some specific buildings could be replaced to at least some occupation. But yes, I don't think someone would need to replace large scale buildings numbers of buildings - at least in a nice "version 2" delta.
  12. Also, given how much helicopter evade now, using ATGMs on each other was felt to be a bad thing - they would waste them - since they don't hover like brain-dead targets now. So really, best thing to do is hope they hit each other with guns or rockets, or rely on air defense or ground vehicles to deal with it. Of course in real life, I imagine that two helicopters fighting with guns and rockets against each other is also going to be no only quite the dogfight, but probably not very effective.
  13. Yes, those "buildings" on the generated maps are not the best. You can't enter them (or at least most of them) and many are missing TIS textures. It just goes to show the vast difference between internally developed and QA tested buildings versus externally developed ones. Best thing for the community to do (as Ssnake said) is for someone to create a DELTA map of these packages, then swap out most of the buildings with the ones in SB that look close enough. That would be a helluva project, but it would vastly improve those maps to the point that they would probably get a ton of use. Also, some of the structures could remain - like the things that aren't actually buildings (water towers for example), or the buildings that probably shouldn't be occupied anyway, and should be more treated like obstacles to movement and LOS obstructions (like the massive complexes), as long as those old retained objects have TIS textures of course (I wouldn't retain any that don't). So with a bit of effort, and a mix of buildings, those maps could turn out to be quite useful, but we would have to rely on the community for that. Maybe a few people in the community can make that a joint project. (I'd hate to see multiple people doing the same effort, on the same map, if this is even something people consider doing in the first place.)
  14. OK thanks, good to know.
  15. He is saying: go into the Map Package Transfer Manager, then press "About", and make sure it says its version 55. It is best to make 100% sure, otherwise we will be like a dog chasing its own tail. 🐕‍🦺
  16. A lot of small bugs and issues with infantry have been addressed in 4.3 -- issues with their line of sight checks, and things like that, but of course this probably means that they have become more aware of their surroundings versus other infantry. Its another case of fixing and improving something that makes the AI better, and some people might think its now too good in some situations. Sometimes bugs or broken routines might make the infantry feel more believable, in some situations. (But what it might usually come down to is what people are used to.) This area is something we are constantly paying attention to, though. We may make some small adjustments here to make it more difficult to spot crawling or prone troops, but we must also keep in mind that usually in most cases the user can clearly see the enemy troops when the AI spots them, so its a fine balance between making them too dumb, or too smart.
  17. I should also mention here also that internally we are investigating whether this horizontal "lip" around the T-72 turret ring (which exists on all T-72s) could be improved my making it thinner, and this would help make it less absorbent to impacts there. But first this has to be investigated to see if it is justified or not, based on diagrams and so on. And besides, its nothing new to the T-72B3 here, as its identical on all T-72 armor models. But, in the interest of perfection, we will look into it as a general improvement. Either way, I will make a comment here we decided (after the investigation) whether a reduction in thickness is justified or not. Let's see. (Either way, it doesn't apply at all to the example I explained above, though, this turret ring "lip" only applies to the original discussion earlier.)
  18. So looking at this again now (and I can't do much more than this, sorry, work has to be done, bugs have to be fixed, etc)... The maximum angle cap is 10x since version 4.2. This would make the top hull roof (40mm) into 400mm. This is very reasonable (and is probably on the low/safe side actually), and was based off the real world photos provided before, so that the round in the photo would be allowed to barely penetrate afterwards. So keep in mind that the M829A3 would be getting -400mm reduced along such a rare impact, and then the round would be continuing on to what is likely the turret front or turret ring area, which is another ~200mm at its thinnest, but could be around 600mm if it hits more towards the turret's inner armor "lip" I already described. So let's look at the example image... Let's also say it hits it along the BEST path (hull roof, then turret ring in an ideal place). So at ~1000m range, you are probably losing around 40-50mm of penetration already to range, then -400mm from the horizontally flat hull roof, then ~-200mm from the turret ring, now we are talking about having about ~150mm of penetration power remaining, which is a little weaker than a single 40mm autocannon KE round (170mm KE RHA). Like I said, I can't spend much more time on this, but nothing looks out of ordinary from how it all worked before in regards to extreme angles. But at least now the extreme flat angles won't absorb 999999mm of KE RHA.
  19. As I explained previously, the first shot is into that turret ring area that I already described in the thread's "solution" post. The second shot is along the horizontally flat hull roof. This extreme angle now has a cap on how much it magnifies its thickness (since about 4.2 or so), but that doesn't mean its guaranteed to have enough energy left over after penetration to do anything, it would be up to a die roll. Nothing is changed here. Edit: Now it could possibly be that this maximum-angle-cap isn't and possibly has never worked completely (its difficult to test), but IIRC, all it was intended to do is allow *some* residual energy to be left over after impacting such an extreme angle, that it might be allowed to penetrate and damage something. But that is not always going to be true (its a die roll, regardless). It's certainly the worse place to hit any vehicle (along a horizontally flat armor surface), and someone posted real world images of those situations already).
  20. The problem with these general observations that are thrown out is that it requires that someone look at it and test, which costs time. But at the current moment, this all just appears to be opinion related and not in any way related to the original topic of the thread. So either someone should open a new discussion about this perceived difference in input at different magnifications levels, or not. But regarding to what was described with different sensitivity of input at high and low magnification, sorry, I just don't see it. The easiest way to prove this is by looking through the GPS with a constant input applied to the controller (joystick or mouse) while looking at something in the terrain as reference, then toggling between FOV. If the inputs were more or less sensitive at different magnifications and FOV, then the traverse movement would not be at an identical rate between the FOV level when magnification is changed with constant controller input. I tested this with both joystick and using a mouse (probably the best test) with mouse vector turned on. But like I said, if this is some genuine concern then it needs to be discussed in a separate thread, but at the moment it was put forth as some kind of "by the way" comment, that we did not dismiss -- it was tested, and the observation and explanation was provided. Anything beyond that relating now to TC and gunner inputs, and different FOVs, and now we are in a whole different discussion. Because of the fact that now we are on an entirely different subject to what this threat was originally about, I will close the thread to avoid confusion.
  21. Yes, those look fine. As we can see at a glance... The 1st image impact at an extreme angle in the front front fuel tank area, which it would have to pass through (at the extreme angle) before even getting anywhere into the crew compartment. 2nd image show a round that impacts along a nearly horizontally flat hull roof, at 3km range. So, yeah, 3km you are losing a lot of penetration power. 3rd image is ~1.5km but is hitting along the horizontally flat hull roof, then entering the what is near the turret ring, but at that angle it wouldn't enter the interior of the turret (it would pass through the armor layer). So, its anyone's guess whether that caused a kill in your game, but I'd say, mostly likely not. 4th image is of a kill you said, and it should be, because its through a flat ERA and with nothing behind it but crew area (it missed the fuel tank and horizontally flat hull roof), and actually we can see the tracer of the round behind the target (it went through it). 5th image looks like an impact in the turret ring area, hard to say, but as you said its a kill. The last two images (which appear to be the same one) appear to impact at an angle that causes the round to impact the horizontally flat surface of the roof, after the front ERA, at 2km range. Even at 2km we are talking about a loss of at least 100mm of penetration to range, IIRC. The AT-11B impact on the Leopard 2 to me is the most concerning of all of them IMO. However, judging by the diameter of the hit ray (its tiny), it implies that the ATGM did not detonate properly, or at all. Possibly it was fired too close, or it could be for some other reason - perhaps it detonated on something in front of the tank and a weakened HEAT penetration impacted the tank. Either way, even if it did explode, it is hitting at an angle into the vicinity of the skirt, and seems to also be passing into the side fuel tank all before it would reach the interior. Or it could be that the ATGM didn't detonate properly (as a bug) and exploded INSIDE the fender, as opposed to on it. Who knows, something to keep an eye on though, yes. There is also some error in the AAR too, its not scientifically precise. Its a snap shot of roughly the time around the impact, with a big fat hit ray in roughly the area of impact, and of course there are all sorts of considerations going on there, with network accuracy, and so on. It's really hard to hold anything as some kind of microscope level of analysis, and the only thing that can be considered an actual obvious problem - like where a T-72 would be hit in the direct side-on flank multiple times with no damages at all and a hit ray that doesn't penetrate (things like that).
  22. 19 AUG 2022: MBT-S08A-08-Turnabout-4357 (brand new scenario, first time played!) SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes. Random CO selection? Yes. Minimum # players: 8 NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.
  23. I suppose it is only natural for something new to be scrutinized with a microscope. 😵 First of all, that SBwiki page literally has so far just been a few minutes of hasty copy pasting and retyping from the T-72B1's page. The stuff about the protection was something that I just typed over from what was already there, so it certainly isn't reliable enough to hold as some kind of ultimate truth. Although it does say "+K5 ERA". However, the T-72B3 armor model is finished and fully functional; it is NOT some kind of work in progress. It is quite literally a T-72B1 with K5 ERA instead of K1 ERA, and some other small obvious differences. The math is exactly the same, the values are exactly the same, the damages are exactly the same. The main difference is that the K5 ERA does provide significant protection over K1 ERA and is exponentially better, especially because its wedge shaped, and provides significant KE protection over K1 ERA. Now of course, as explained, the ERA is a very tricky thing to represent, and you can't really get it 100% correct in a computer simulation, in relation to KE, HE, HEAT, but its probably about as good as it can be to get the desired effects. So, there is nothing to it really, no bells, no whistles, no extra ordinary things, it is what it is - essentially not much different than the other T-72 armor models in general, but specifically the T-72B1, but with better ERA. I did a few test firings with M829A3, firing into the T-72B3 turret front thickest part of the tank (through K5 ERA), and it does penetrate with crew casualties. Those results are expected. If you are getting no effect type impacts on the turret, then likely you are hitting it low on the turret front, just above the turret ring. In this area there is a is a horizontal "lip" on the vehicle, where the turret ring extends from and the inner turret wall extends to (connecting the two, kind of like an inner armor floor). Here you would be impacting across a sort of flat surface that extends from the turret ring itself, towards the inside of the vehicle. This would be directly similar to hitting the roof of the driver's compartment at an extreme angle. This surface is not very thick (the thickness of the turret roof), and we do cap the impact angle multiplier now since 4.2 or 4.3 (a huge improvement), but right behind that lower "lip" it would then pass into the the back wall of the front turret armor, so you would also be passing through the entirety of that too - three difference surfaces. This is the absolute worst place to hit the turret. This is true for all T-72s, and isn't an error in modelling, although its probably at the upper limit of what a simulation can represent (a round is passing through multiple thick surfaces, at very different and extreme angles). Still, either way, real life or not, this would be the absolute thickest part of the turret.
  24. In the interest of SCIENCE, one experiment you could also try is the same situation but removing all STOWED maingun ammo from the T-72B3, which is something that they do IRL to try to make it a little less vulnerable. This is supported by most tanks now in SB (example Leo 2's hull stored ammo), and when stowed ammo is depleted or not present then it makes those stowed ammo areas inert. These stowed ammo areas on the T-72 are actually quote numerous above the carousel area. If you did this as a starting loadout, you would of course be sacrificing a lot of ammo for a % of extra post-penetration survivability, so its certainly a big tradeoff that may or may not be worth it, depending on the particular opposition. In some cases you probably wouldn't expect to survive long enough to use stored ammo, so why not. Would it make much of a difference? Maybe, maybe not (place your bets), but it probably wouldn't be any worse. 😑 But of course the subtext here over the years is that some might think that there is a level of bias going on and that couldn't be further from the truth. It's really as simple as creating vehicles (as best as we have information about), and then putting them together and seeing what happens. You could say it's all one big (real) science experiment.
  25. Volcano

    CR2 HESH

    Not sure what to say - the CR2 hasn't be changed in ages. Are you saying that when you fire HESH with CR2 it hits way short, as if it is indexing the ballistics for the WP round instead? 🤨
×
×
  • Create New...