Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

55 Excellent

About JG1_Wittmann

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    Washington State

Recent Profile Visitors

507 profile views
  1. IMHO the biggest blow to TC was when they decided to change the aiming system, screwed it all up, have made no mention of returning it to the way it worked before, or that there is even an acknowledgement that it is screwed up, and being looked at. At this point, I think the game is worthless with erratic aiming controls.
  2. I'm not really sure how anyone can reasonably answer some of the posts in the thread. The below is the first line, second paragraph, of my original post. So looking at some of the replies in this thread, it appears that I should have made bold and italicized that line. Where all the comments about proprietary information, what devs will and won't do for " obvious " reasons is ridiculous, seemingly, ( at least to me, possibly others ) ignorant. The gun data is already released ( known to all that have hovered on a load-out, in game ) it is just not tabulated , as well as a lot of items/aspects/ etc relating to the game, but not handily accessed. A simple quick reference PDF would be nice, and would take very little effort from the company to do.
  3. See above, the data for different guns and ammunition is already in the game, but there is no table made up for people to see. Someone made a crass reference, see below : So, let's get back to a table, or a list, or a reference guide being made available so that each person buying the game doesn't have to spend time making it up. The data is already in the game, for each tank/gun/ammo, compile a list/table/etc, like game developers used to do, and put in printed or PDF manual before things went the way of less/lazy/call it what you will
  4. I think the Ferdinand is still to be introduced in game, as well as the other SU vehicle . Would be nice to see those modeled in game. My wish-list for now would be to finish the published vehicle set .
  5. The " Data " , and the use of that data in a program, is not propriety to the software company, only possibly how it is used. Now, if a software developer has a table of armor penetration values for a particular gun, and decides to put that gun in a game , the Data for the performance of that gun, was not "compiled" by the software company ( in these instances ) it is actual field data compiled by a weapons testing group, and published. So if " X " gun can penetrate " Y " mm of armor at 1000m, when it is at a certain angle, using a particular type of round , those figures are known quantities that have been tested. If the known performance is modified in game by a lower, or higher factor, then the "amount of modification" could be considered propriety, because that is the only performance figure the company has created. When companies spent the time putting out manuals with their games, for the customers, lists and tables like mentioned were the norm, not a rarity, and I think more than one player would like to have such a table or list.
  6. I had seen a topic, locked, on armor penetration, so I figured I would start a new one on gun and ammunition performance to allow anyone that did not have a chance to reply to that topic, maybe a chance here . I would be very interested to see a table compilation from the Devs, and thinks it's BS that that would be propriety. IF this is a SImulation, and you model gun and ballistic performance to a certain "Spec" then there should be historical backup for that spec, even if it may not agree with others. I think most sims have to decide which info to use, because the sources do not always agree, and I think the main reason is that the Russian Primary sources, tend to disagree with everyone else that has tested the same guns, due to a desire to over-inflate performance, compensate for some deficiency, imagined, or real, etc. At least in this case the #'s would have documented backup. Real world (historical) performance, exagerrated or not, has to be used as a source for modelling a Sim. I know that from my own testing, that some things seem to be off as far as reality based performance goes. I have not had alot of time recently for further testing, but I do know the initial JgPz IV front armor, or the T-34-s gun in game were not modeled correctly in my test of 20 JgPz IV's vs " 2 " T34's neither T34 was destroyed, and I believe they only were able to destroy @ 15 of the jagdpanzers, due to running out of ammunition, and at a range that the T34 gun was not capable of penetrating the front armor of the vehicle. I believe that they did an update soon after I posted that video, and I could not replicate those test results.... I have more time available due to a work project completion, then I am going to be doing alot more testing of the Guns and various vehicles myself to see what is what, even though this type of testing should have been done in an alpha, or beta stage of the game, not post release.
  7. Is the damage model-bugged T34 still available on this server ?
  8. I am not sure how thick that Turret shell ejection hatch is, but if it is 80mm , the video is vague, just says rear armor 80mm. ( What I read, at work can't listen to audio right now ) What I am sure, is that if that hatch is 80mm the greyhound didn't, and couldn't penetrate it. Also looking at the close up of the hole in that hatch, I think it's fairly obvious that it was bored or machined out, and not the result of a shell penetration. Anecdotal evidence is shaky at best. From What I see, that KT was not taken out by a greyhound from the rear. But, when I can listen later, I will. The rest of the production is well made, but I believe it is just that, a production. So I went to Youtube, saw the video there and read some of the comments. 1 guy says the story he read before was it was a Tiger, driving on a sunken road, and a greyhound firing from the berm, angled down at the top of the engine cover, which makes sense, as top armor is definately not 80MM. So by just watching the video without audio it looks just just another deceptively edited video, which it is, when the reality is probably the story that was related in the comment section of a 37mm cannon firing at the rear of the tank, but the top rear of the engine, not at the 80mm of rear armor that is mentioned
  9. Those examples appear to be 2 tanks, doing well in excess of 25mph, and on asphalt. I'm not aware of any asphalt roads in game. The first one does a 180, and it appears, hard to see that the right track is locked, causing the spin, likely intentional. The second video, the driver clearly locks up the right tread after braking ( clear to see as the front noses down) and the spin starts. Again, asphalt or concrete. This does show it is plausible at that speed on concrete or asphalt, intentional or not. This does not show that it is plausible, due to speed, and road surface/dirt or in a field. So yes, if we could go faster than 25mph, and internationally locked a track it could spin. Possibly even 180. Take a tank out for a spin on a dirt road and do a quick turn then see how far you went in degrees. Lastly, and why yes, this is still a work in progress, the Tiger used a double differential, so unlike the Russian tanks that used clutch/braking to turn, that is not how the Tiger operated in reality, but that is what we currently have in game at the moment.
  10. In a " Fantasy " world IL2 Great Battles, etc, this is called physics. In the real world, it's not called physics, but simply fantasy. The kinetic energy from a 76mm round striking a 25T tank doing full speed @ 25MPH, would not cause it to do a 540. Anyways, you don't even need to get struck by a round to do that, take a PIV, @ 25T or a TIger @ 54T drive up a road full speed, again @ 25MPH and turn too fast, and you can do a 540 or a 720. Real world, this is impossible, but not in fantasy, where it happens routinely .
  11. What post does the first line of you post refer to ? I re-read my post, just to be sure, although I knew I never said 1 life per mission in my post. I was asking why some things are limited in game, and others are not, and that there should be a finite # of a player vehicle pool. Maybe just on some of the missions. Maybe a waiting period after you get killed before you can respawn of a minute or a few.I'm just putting thoughts out there that are being used elsewhere or talked about elsewhere. I will try to make it easier for the equipment locks mention I made. The question is, why does the Russian side, enjoy all the benefits of the AT cannon arsenal available on their aircraft, and yet the german planes have been stripped of such ? Why can't the HS-129 have the 103 ? 110G the 37, or Stuka the 37 ? The bombs have been restricted it seems on all planes, I haven't checked every single one, so that seems to be a balancing move applied equally. You are correct, it is a game, a good # of the posts in this thread I believe talk about the way the server is set up and that some think it has a definite slant towards the Russian side. There is a term used by a lot of people, Fair Play, do yourself a favor, and Google that phrase. Eventually there will be other servers that come online that try to do a job of balancing that is maybe more to the liking of, fair minded players. I enjoy the server because it is challenging. I wish it could handle more players. Last weekend I got a couple of squad mates there, I showed up a few late and the server was full !
  12. Last Time I looked ( It may be changed ) the German Attack AC had there AT cannons removed, the 129 had the 103 locked, and was only allowed the 101, but both of the IL2's were allowed there 37's I believe ? When the 110G2 is there the 37 is locked ? Now why is that ? if you restrict cannons on one side, then both sides should be Equally restricted if you want a fair server . Limit Ground Attack AC, the same way tanks get limited, once they get shot down, wait till next mission. If they are in the air, shoot them down. I believe that if all tanks and AC had a # attached to them it would make for a better game ? No more endless streams of " X " plane or tank. A kill in game would actually mean more at that point I did notice that the server capacity has dropped from 40 to 30 ? the extra 10 was nice, would be good if we could add about maybe 4 to 6 more slots
  13. The turret returning to relative 12 has been an issue that has been mentioned. If you switch to commander from the gun, turret goes to center. That would be a welcome fix if it remained where it was left. The gun aiming system is not an issue for al players. However, in response to Lofte's poll above @58% of those answering say they do not like it as opposed to 21.7% that say they do like it. Perhaps for the smaller percentage, it is not a problem. The larger percentage seems to have some issue with the way it is now compared to how it was before. Now what specifically that means can be open to speculation but it at least says that the majority do not in some part agree with the 21.7 that like it
  14. If you take care to read on in my previous post, you will clearly see that I say I doubt that 1 or 2 are the reason for no action. I thought it obvious that I was making an attempt at sarcasm/humor. I will say that it is somewhat disappointing that No post, that I have seen from developers, mentions a fix to the horrible gun aiming screw up that occurred 2 updates ago. I think I am correct in thinking that a lot of us were hopeful that it was going to be immediately fixed in the update that followed soon from the one that "broke" the turret/gun control If I missed the developer note on the gun/turret fix forthcoming, then I apologize. If anyone on the board has seen this post, can you please post the link here so I can read it. For myself, I work on programming in an industrial setting. If you change a program, to improve it, and it does not work like you wanted you don't just leave it and work on a resolution while the system is "broken" or malfunctioning. You revert back to the last program that worked, you don't just leave your changes that did not work in there until you can fix them. When you have a player poll that has 57% thinking the new gun/turret aiming system is no good, to put it nicely, Why would there not be any developer response ? Do the developers/programmers working on Tank Crew read some of the posts on this forum ? I just now bumped that Poll thread from Lofte , that was posted a month ago October 4, 2019 . This is not a rare occurrence, like hitting invisible objects and having to repair engine, transmission, tracks, etc. This isn't game exploits/damage model flaws like the original T-34 unable to be damaged after an engine shot, or the Tiger losing gun to damage from the T-34 using HE bug, or basically losing it's gun if the wind blows hard. This goes to the core of basic game functions and control..... which were adversely affected according to 57% of the players answering the poll. I, along with many others here, find that the turret control is all messed up and needs to be fixed. It wasn't broken for all tanks before the update, but now it seems to be. I am going to assume, ( but I can't testify to this because I never played it ) that the Sherman turret/gun control has been screwed up from the get go. I see in OrLok 's post about being constructive. I think a lot of comments have been made since the update that screwed up the turret/guns was released. To my knowledge, and it may be my own ignorance, I have not seen a single reply from a DEV, that the issue is being looked at. Why don't we just go back in time to 2 updates ago, unrelease the TC additions, and let us have turret/gun control. I have already shown, in videos, that the JPIV/L70 ( along with all 75mm german AFV guns ) are totally non-effective when deployed under the control of AI . I will refrain from again using the term Worthless, even though that categorization was not incorrect in the way I meant it. Now there may have been issues with other AFV's and their turret/gun aiming. I can't speak to the allies because I have rarely tried them out. Just like the old Windows restore point, can't we UN-RING this bell on these last updates, or at least the portion that affected Tank Crew so badly ?
  • Create New...