Jump to content

Can the penetration and explosion models in SB draw on the results of numerical simulations?


F.T

Recommended Posts

  • Members

No.

 

Numerical simulations vield highly variable results depending on impact angle, material properties, impact velocity. In short, far too many variables to put into look-up tables. Our approach delivers reasonable results for the intended purpose:

Plausibility, in crew training.

 

Steel Beasts is not a crystal ball to predict the outcome of a future battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and even a specialized CAD software  cannot provide sufficiently accurate simulation results- they need to be confirmed by live fire tests, and to make things  even  more complicated-  real-world (battlefield) performance could easily be 30-50% worse than demonstrated during live fire tests. There are just way too many variables, which cannot be properly accounted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Jartsev said:

...and even a specialized CAD software  cannot provide sufficiently accurate simulation results- they need to be confirmed by live fire tests, and to make things  even  more complicated-  real-world (battlefield) performance could easily be 30-50% worse than demonstrated during live fire tests. There are just way too many variables, which cannot be properly accounted.

Numerical simulation does not represent reality. However, in most cases, the model is suitable and numerical simulation can still give phenomenological results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ssnake said:

No.

 

Numerical simulations vield highly variable results depending on impact angle, material properties, impact velocity. In short, far too many variables to put into look-up tables. Our approach delivers reasonable results for the intended purpose:

Plausibility, in crew training.

 

Steel Beasts is not a crystal ball to predict the outcome of a future battle.

It may be possible to statistically analyze the results of numerical simulations, combined with probability, to give some reasonable random results. In this way, too many variables can be avoided.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, F.T said:

It may be possible to statistically analyze the results of numerical simulations, combined with probability, to give some reasonable random results. In this way, too many variables can be avoided.
 

Don't see whats the benefit of that.

More economical to use an analytic solution and then add probabilities( as SB is doing currently)

Using numerical solutions without any experimental verification, has which advantage exactly??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Grenny said:

Don't see whats the benefit of that.

More economical to use an analytic solution and then add probabilities( as SB is doing currently)

Using numerical solutions without any experimental verification, has which advantage exactly??

It would be nice to have analytical solutions, but most practical problems only have numerical solutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, F.T said:

It would be nice to have analytical solutions, but most practical problems only have numerical solutions.

Do you actually read the posts you reply to?

 

Using tables from the available analytical solutions and adding modifiers for angles etc etc, is what Sb actually does.

Now again: What would be the benefit of a numerical solutions, which also can only be based on guesswork, for the game?

 

Edited by Grenny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...