About that deleted thread

[Kev2go]

5 minutes ago, Grenny said:

You assume that is so?

 

And you assume that it is not so?

 

this logic works both ways bud.

 

 

Edited January 11, 2019 by Kev2go

[Bond_Villian]

[Ssnake]

1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

I doubt if  ESIM even knows real numbers (even if they may be privy to more than most here) there is a reason such software is made in such a way so the military client can edit values of ARMOR or data if they see fit based on thier own classified information, and not having to worry about trusting a private company with them.

1. We don't know "the real" numbers, and we don't want to know. As soon as we did we'd have to follow all crazy rules about managing secrecy etc. which is a terrible complication for everything that we do, so much so that it would probably force us to give up the business entirely. Which is one of the reasons why I don't want such information be posted here (if the least important one)
2. No, we don't have the fundamental data editable for our customers. I suppose we could, but whenever the subject was brought up I demonstrate all the stuff that must be specified, and when I'm halfway through I see all the people who asked for it already zoned out, telling me, "Y'know, I was just asking... better you maintain everything."   Because, if you want the overall model to be consistent you can't drastically change stuff without tearing a hole elsewhere, at which point the whole debate about "I want to change the figures" becomes somewhat moot

I think it's important to remind people here that Steel Beasts is not intended to predict the future, it's not designed to be a simulation for experimentation and quantitative statistical analysis. Rather, its damage model is intended to provide a degree of fidelity suitable for crew procedure training and command post exercise stimulation. For that exactitude is not a requirement, as long as the results are plausible and, ideally, within the margins of natural variation.

It's simply not possible to be accurate for every single combination of vehicle, impact location, ammo type, and engagement range. Not for the composite protection level, and especially not for the calculation of what happens after the armor has been breached by the attacking projectile. Which arguably is more important than getting the armor strength accurate down to single centimeter accuracy (which translates to an engagement envelope variation of maybe 200, 300m when you think about what that means in practice). The post-penetration behavior cannot be predicted with accuracy over the entire fleet of vehicles simply because very few generic data exist (like the reports about the Conqueror trials against shaped charges, which go back to around 1950), and the extent to which this can be transferred to other vehicles remains an open question. Where the data exist, they are probably highly classified, and even if they were made public (fat chance), they would not be standardized and therefore not directly comparable.

 

Anyone with more than a passign knowledge in statistics can easily understand why this is so, and that squibbling about a dozen millimeters in penetration depth limit for a certain ammo type is insignificant in the face of the margin of error when it comes to estimating post-penetration effects. So, we set a random damage percentage for, say, the vehicle commander, for a certain type of impact in some location. Let's say it's a 20% likelihood for the commander to be incapacitated. Why 20%? Why not 19.7%, or 41%? If it's a nice and round 20%, it's pretty much guaranteed to be wrong - and it is, we're making that shit up. Nobody can tell what it should be. Maybe the true likelihood is 2.01%. Or 81.63452%. But 20% "feels right" because there's a noticeable chance that it happens, and it doesn't happen all the time.

 

I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to improve where we can. I'm just pointing out the costs of doing so, and the rather limited gains that it offers in the face of the margins of errors in other parts that are orders of magnitudes bigger. All I ask of you is to stop arguing whether the approaching train is traveling at 190 or at 180 kph, and get off the rails instead because that point is much, much more important. And that's also the reason why it's just not worth getting into a big flame war about this (and why, if this further escalates, I will also lock this thread).

[Kev2go]

3 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

1.  

 

 thank you for clarifying your position on the matter,  I  now understand.

Edited January 12, 2019 by Kev2go

[Lt DeFault]

On 1/9/2019 at 6:36 AM, lavictoireestlavie said:

Your post technically violates the forum rules because it clearly depicts, although indirectly, information that is labeled "secret".  Technically, Gibsonm will have to report this to the UK military attache in Australia and other relevant authorities. I would just edit out the secret tag and be sensible when sanitizing information such as this.

 

FYI, your quoting of Kev2go's post still contains the link - defeating the purpose of him editing his post.

[Ssnake]

Please click on the "Report Post" button, I'm not sure which post you mean. The one right above yours seems empty.

[Lt DeFault]

Looks like he edited his as well, so the link no longer takes you to the potentially offending document.

[Hedgehog]

On 12/01/2019 at 1:13 AM, Ssnake said:

All I ask of you is to stop arguing whether the approaching train is traveling at 190 or at 180 kph, and get off the rails instead because that point is much, much more important.

Priorities