TankHunter Posted June 15, 2007 Share Posted June 15, 2007 A few bugs here dealing with buildings and the like. First, some of the buildings tend to have their collision boxes which are further out than the building itself. The building that this happened with me in is the middle eastern looking one with the balcony. The second bug that I have noticed deals with the bridges (there are a few actually). The first is with the arches. If you try to drive a vehicle under one which is lower than what the antennas are high on the vehicle (the antenna would touch the top of the arch IRL) the arch acts like a brick wall if you hit it. I.E., you lose a vehicle while trying to drive underneath the bridge at top speed. Another bug sometimes happens while going under the bridge also. What happens is that the vehicle seems to go over a bump of around 80 degrees (but it isn’t there in actuality it seems). The last bug seems to happen only in multiplayer (could be lag, I don’t know). The bug is that sometimes a vehicle will fall through a bridge while driving over it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted June 15, 2007 Moderators Share Posted June 15, 2007 Thanks for the info. We will check it out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieB Posted June 16, 2007 Share Posted June 16, 2007 I Have never come accross bridges that I can drive under! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankHunter Posted June 17, 2007 Author Share Posted June 17, 2007 If you have a valley or wadi of 10m deep or so and you place a bridge over it, you can have an arch which you may or may not be able to drive under. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted June 17, 2007 Moderators Share Posted June 17, 2007 Actually, I don't think it is intentional that bridges can be driven under. So I wouldn't call that a bug really. In the future we would like to have actual overpass type bridges where it is possible to do so, much less expand the complexity of the bridge model itself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted June 17, 2007 Moderators Share Posted June 17, 2007 There is not a displaced collision box around that building you described (the mid east one with the balcony), it is just that the collision box is at the extent of the furthest reaching horizontal point in the object, which is the balcony itself. This means that you will collide with the building where the balcony overhangs. In other words, you cannot drive under the balcony --at least not until we make more complicated detection. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankHunter Posted June 17, 2007 Author Share Posted June 17, 2007 There is not a displaced collision box around that building you described (the mid east one with the balcony), it is just that the collision box is at the extent of the furthest reaching horizontal point in the object, which is the balcony itself. This means that you will collide with the building where the balcony overhangs. In other words, you cannot drive under the balcony --at least not until we make more complicated detection.Ok, I was wondering about that. Thanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted June 18, 2007 Members Share Posted June 18, 2007 Actually, I don't think it is intentional that bridges can be driven under. So I wouldn't call that a bug really.I would. It's counterintuitive that a small object which is designed to bend and be flexible would prevent a 60 ton vehicle from passing under any kind of overhang.We may not find the time to deal with it in the short run; it certainly isn't a "feature" but a "limitation" at best. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted June 18, 2007 Moderators Share Posted June 18, 2007 Well, I guess what I meant is that the archs in the current bridge is more of a graphical effect so that the bridge does not appear as the great wall of China with a road on top. The current bridge model is intended to bridge a road over a river, not bridge over another road that passes underneath. The bridge sides are solid regardless of the fact that it appears have an arch and opening in the side (which is just a transparency through the model). In that sense, because of the simplification of what the current bridge is intended for, then I say it is not a bug and is instead an enhancement. A totally new bridge model is needed that actually has columns and not just a transparent side. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarUlf Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Any news regarding the "driving under bridge problem"?WU 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted April 16, 2009 Members Share Posted April 16, 2009 Not yet, but I haven't forgotten about it either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KillKess Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Ok here one more observation: From time to time i recognized my LEOs rising and lowering theire guns without any reason. Looks quit strange and i thought maybe my tanks are just relaxing a bit 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GH_Lieste Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Ok here one more observation: From time to time i recognized my LEOs rising and lowering theire guns without any reason. Looks quit strange and i thought maybe my tanks are just relaxing a bit Is it possible they are indexing coax and then switching back to main gun? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KillKess Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 This may be possible but what means indexing the coax? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GH_Lieste Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 This may be possible but what means indexing the coax?Setting the ballistic data for an ammunition type into the ballistic computer.You can index APFSDS, HEAT, HE etc, for the main gun, or the 7.62mm Coax.The crew doesn't tend to switch the ammunition much when the main gun is loaded, although a human TC can request an ammunition change from the loader.More common is for the gunner to select the coax in order to engage threat infantry or trucks. If the range is much over 500m you will see a visible change in elevation as the main gun or coax is selected - this is more pronounced when APFSDS is indexed for the main gun, as it has a flatter trajectory.The other possibility is that immediately after firing, the gun tube moves to a fixed elevation, designed to ease the extraction of the case/base stub, and to position the breach at a comfortable loading position for the loader. When viewed through the GAS, the sight is seen to point at the sky for a few seconds after firing while the loader is busy - this can be a problem with emergency gunnery in the GAS, as the fall of shot cannot be tracked, so it is common to disable the stabilisation - this slows the loader down as the gun is not moved after firing, but allows the gunner to spot the impacts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KillKess Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Ok it might be possible that the tanks switched to coax. Just short after or before i got a report off infantry on my 12oclock some hundred meters away. But i never realised before that the gun moves completely up and than down. Imho for some hundret meters you simply dont need to elevate the gun that high. I will check this tomorrow. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted April 16, 2009 Members Share Posted April 16, 2009 If it was 1200 meters, it could make a significant difference. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GH_Lieste Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 If it was 1200 meters, it could make a significant difference.And for close range targets the commander will often index battlesight range - 1200m for most tanks, 1500m for the Leopardo 2E.Subsequently switching to the Coax will induce a large jump in elevation (and require a lot of aim-off or a re-lase to hit the targets). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehog Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 (edited) . Edited April 16, 2009 by Hedgehog Never mind, should read the whole post 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.