Jump to content
Raven434th

T-14 overpowered against sabots?

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

It's a bit more than simple scripting (air quotes or not). ...

so my "" are not good enough for you...you snob 😋

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Assassin 7 said:

Thank you Sir and all the DEV team for listening to our input. Glad to hear this and sometimes it take some bumping heads and new information for better things to come

autoloader from the side has doubled in size, breech was pretty much the correct size already, but tweaked slightly backwards and slightly down.  by about 4-5"

but essentially you're going to see the same behaviour as before, since you tend to aim centerpoint. 

the only way this will change if some sort of post-pen spall effect is eventually implemented, like what war thunder has had for years. 

good news is that Christoph Keller has worked hard on this new HE fragmentation effect which can eventually be transferred to post-pen spalling effects as well. 

oh, and another great feature to have would be some sort of post-pen stun effect, it would simulate the overpressure causing the people inside to pass out. 

it would alleviate those times when you penetrate a tank but no damage happends, and the tank basically turns towards you and shoots immediately afterwards. 

Edited by dejawolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dejawolf said:

autoloader from the side has doubled in size, breech was pretty much the correct size already, but tweaked slightly backwards and slightly down.  by about 4-5"

Interesting, so it pulls the round up from

the carousel, tilts it forward then another level pushes the round into the breech? I am wondering how the Base extraction is set up since its being extracted from the side of the Turret? 

Edited by Assassin 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Assassin 7 said:

Interesting, so it pulls the round up from

the carousel, tilts it forward then another level pushes the round into the breech? I am wondering how the have the Base extraction set up since its being extracted from the side of the Turret? 

most likely there's a stub case ejector attached to the gun, like on the T-72 which catches the round when it fires, then rotates sideways to toss the spent casing out the side port, along with clearing the path for the next round. 

Edited by dejawolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dejawolf said:

most likely there's a stub case ejector attached to the gun, like on the T-72 which catches the round when it fires, then rotates sideways to toss the spent casing out the side port, along with clearing the path for the next round. 

Thanks for the info. 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, dejawolf said:

autoloader from the side has doubled in size, breech was pretty much the correct size already, but tweaked slightly backwards and slightly down.  by about 4-5"

but essentially you're going to see the same behaviour as before, since you tend to aim centerpoint. 

the only way this will change if some sort of post-pen spall effect is eventually implemented, like what war thunder has had for years. 

good news is that Christoph Keller has worked hard on this new HE fragmentation effect which can eventually be transferred to post-pen spalling effects as well. 

oh, and another great feature to have would be some sort of post-pen stun effect, it would simulate the overpressure causing the people inside to pass out. 

it would alleviate those times when you penetrate a tank but no damage happends, and the tank basically turns towards you and shoots immediately afterwards. 

Well, modelling the post pen spalling, will basicly be a formalization of the current dice roll...with rolling another dice(s) conecerning spall generation and path (??)

Edited by Grenny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, dejawolf said:

autoloader from the side has doubled in size, breech was pretty much the correct size already, but tweaked slightly backwards and slightly down.  by about 4-5"

but essentially you're going to see the same behaviour as before, since you tend to aim centerpoint. 

the only way this will change if some sort of post-pen spall effect is eventually implemented, like what war thunder has had for years. 

good news is that Christoph Keller has worked hard on this new HE fragmentation effect which can eventually be transferred to post-pen spalling effects as well. 

oh, and another great feature to have would be some sort of post-pen stun effect, it would simulate the overpressure causing the people inside to pass out. 

it would alleviate those times when you penetrate a tank but no damage happends, and the tank basically turns towards you and shoots immediately afterwards. 

Awesome, thanks for the update 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grenny said:

Well, modelling the post pen spalling, will basicly be a formalization of the current dice roll...with rolling another dice(s) conecerning spall generation and path (??)

Not unless the "New HE" is a die-roll....

3 hours ago, dejawolf said:

good news is that Christoph Keller has worked hard on this new HE fragmentation effect which can eventually be transferred to post-pen spalling effects as well. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bond_Villian said:

Not unless the "New HE" is a die-roll....

 

There's got to be some dicerolling at one point or another. The question how far you can push it back.

Before we had an area with probable damages, and then a dice roll which soldier/component got destoyed.

Now we have the modell for fragments that hit a target and determine damages,....but at least for the distribution for fragements and their vectors, there needs to be some randomization.

When components get hit by fragements...there also needs to be some randomization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Volcano

 

I have read and re-read your posts and really do appreciate your explanations. I fully accept that you have applied the damage model that exists with SB diligently.  I can see an additional problem from your point of view. Let's say there are critical components in the centre of the T-14 other than in the key systems indicated in your diagram - if you fixed that for the T-14 (which would take military espionage at this stage) you would have to do the same for every vehicle in the game and that's just not do-able and would not be a profitable use of your time. There are other anomalies that are not worth fixing. For example, quite early on I realised I was getting ammo explosions in target vehicles from which I had removed all ammunition. That started me thinking about how that could be overcome and I again realised that fixing that would be a whole world of work for someone as the likelihood of an explosion, its magnitude and subsequent effects would depend on the number and type of each round and where it was stored at the moment the vehicle was hit - that would take a lot of modelling for no real training benefit. It's obviously very easy to get into diminishing returns in simulation.

 

I did not know we did not have a model for spalling and look forward to that being added at some point in the future. On another positive note, you will remember that damage to helicopters was a bit of a bugbear of mine. Up to recently, you could hit even unarmoured helicopters over 100 times with 20mm AP-T or APDS-T and they would be unaffected - KETF had very little effect on them. That damage model was rectified in spades and shooting at helicopters is now very realistic and satisfying. So, I hope, at some point in the future, the new explosive/fragmentation model can be adapted and give more intuitively likely results with lateral centre mass hits on the Armata. Thank you for your time in looking into this - it was much appreciated!

Edited by ChrisWerb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Raven434th said:

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.

There was nothing cryptic about his response.

 

Whether we choose to digest or disregard someone's forum posts is entirely up to us, and is directly based on the user's behavior. This isn't a place where you can do whatever you want and expect to be tolerated.   Your attitude demonstrated in this thread has been combative, disruptive, and rude as others have stated, and its not the approach to take if you want to be listened to.

 

Keep it up and I am sure we can accommodate you with a ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ChrisWerb said:

...you would have to do the same for every vehicle in the game and that's just not do-able and would not be a profitable use of your time...

Right, its tricky. There are strict standards that are enforced and upheld within the armor models, in order to create reliable results across the wide spectrum of vehicles (we have over 250 now), and to be able to create and maintain them in their large numbers. The task of managing the armor models is impossible, unless these strict standards are in place and maintained.

 

The T-14 is unlike anything modeled before it (which I have attempted to explain), being that it is mostly an unmanned vehicle. In the future, I am sure this will become even more prominent, as tanks possibly become entirely unmanned, in which case they will also become much more survivable as well. Imagine a vehicle which can take punishment, and unless it explodes or its vital components specifically disabled with direct impacts, then it will continue to be a threat. When you take the vulnerable crew away (or confine them into a small protected area like in the T-14), then the vehicle naturally gains this increased survivability benefit.

 

That said, when observations are made of the armor model, they have to be severely scrutinized, because of the strict standards. There can be no changes made that are based on assumptions or general opinions, but sure, if something detailed is discovered then often there will be unique behavior added. So, hopefully everyone understands that the hefty scrutiny is not about being defensive, but about maintaining a standard. And as you figured, changes have to be consistent, and uniform, otherwise its unfair to other vehicles and we strive to absolutely avoid cases where one tank has a mathematically higher/lower chance of survival when hit in similar places that have similar thicknesses, which can happen if the armor models are tweaked and adjusted willy-nilly based on opinions or bias.

 

Hopefully that helps to explain.

 

Besides that, thanks for your AARs and tests and observations. In the end we got some improvements because of them, maybe not what you expected, but ones that were judged to be valid issues. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...