Jump to content

Gun and Ammunition Performance


Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to agree with this. 

 

If TC is meant to be a sim then there needs to be some detailed armor penetration data for the main guns that we players can refer to in order to assess the strengths & weaknesses of our equipment in the sim, just like we have detailed performance data on the aircraft ingame.

 

Again though, not asking the devs to reveal any trade secrets as to how stuff is coded. Only asking for transparency in terms of how accurately the guns vs armor aspect of the game is and what sources are used.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

I would be very interested to see  a table compilation from the Devs, and   thinks it's  BS that that would be propriety.

See here:

11 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

a topic, locked, on armor penetration,

(My emphasis, for you convenience.)

 

11 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

thinks it's  BS that that would be propriety.

Again, see above. You honestly think that compiling data on vintage vehicles comes for free, that the guys guys you hire for that don‘t have to be paid for that work? It would be nice though getting a comprehensive documentation on all vehicles as a single download for anyone making a competing product.

 

11 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

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. 

What makes you think that there isn‘t such? Because it doesn‘t come as a one-click download to you?

 

11 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

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.

Darn. I somehow knew Ivan was evil. Now I know why.

 

11 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

Real world (historical) performance, exagerrated or not,  has to be used as a source for modelling a Sim.

The devs didn‘t then? And you know it?

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the tricky things with the complexity of armor penetration is how the effective thickness of an armor changes based off the ratio of armor thickness to projectile diameter (T/D ratio). WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunner provides great information on the mechanics of this if one can get their hands on it. While I do regard this as the end-all-be-all for available armor penetration sources, it does have limitations. Mainly that it uses outdated DeMarrie equations and that the copies which one can obtain now are old editions often without the 10+ pages of corrections that the later editions came with. Short of an updated version of this source, comparisons of various shot-testing results is an exercise in futility since most countries used different criteria for their penetration figures, testing different probabilities of penetration on different slopes and with different types of armor. 

 

I'd like to see a few stats on the ammo specifying the penetration at a few ranges. Gut instinct says 100m, 500m, 1000m to give a decent range of capabilities for both the long-range guns, and for the shorter-range guns, though a few intermediary points may be needed. Along with the 0 degree performance, it would also be nice to see the performance against a 30 or 45 degree slope. 

 

For specifying the armor, it becomes a bit more complex since as the T/D ratio the effective thickness of the armor from slope decreases. The table below shows a good example of this. Because of this, the devs would have to report effective thickness of the sloped armor against probably 75mm, 88mm, and 128mm shells to give us a good idea of the armor (or they could do 75mm, 90mm, 100mm, 130mm to give close-enough values, since a few mm of shell diameter doesnt make a huge difference). 

 

image.png.e16812a7dc4a8c750213cf36456df03d.png

 

The unfortunate result of this is that it may expose more of the inner-workings of the dev's armor system than they would like to 

 

14 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

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

As far as i have read, the Russian translated sources for shot-testing German armor tend to agree with the results of US, and Brittish shot-testing of German armor. The source I mentioned before WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunner has a section comparing US shot-testing with 122mm APBC against RHA and the theoretical performance of that against FHA then compares it to the Russian shot-testing of the same 122mm gun and shell against FHA and noting that the data is consistent. 

 

Regardless of sources at the moment, more testing would be required to better determine if the armor system is right or not. We would need to know precisely where shells struck targets and at what range, and which angles. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Again, see above. You honestly think that compiling data on vintage vehicles comes for free, that the guys guys you hire for that don‘t have to be paid for that work? It would be nice though getting a comprehensive documentation on all vehicles as a single download for anyone making a competing product.

 

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.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

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.

That is correct that they cannot claim IP on someone else's data that they use in-game; however, were the game to be coded so "IF gun X fired round Y at section Z of tank A at distance of B with angle of C, THEN Penetrate armor",  the number of conditional statements would be absurd. What the devs have to do to make the system even possible to program is to generate equations to fit the real-life data into the game. That equation that they have to generate? That's something we can call IP. It takes a lot of time and research to make it, and though it derives from sources probably in public domain, we have plenty of history books which draw all their info the same yet are IP themselves. 

 

25 minutes ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

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.

Claiming this is insulting to the game developers, and neglects that the penetration mechanics cannot work just as a table of dumb-data, they have to work continuously for a proper simulation. This isnt something where the game just runs if statements to see if the conditions match up with test data. Go find yourself a copy of WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery to see just how complex the whole operation is of getting all that WWII data into a format where gun performance can be compared. 

 

From the game dev's model of penetration, they could put in various values and generate large tables of penetration performance; however, the problem there is that if they were to do so i could plug that same data into an excel document, ask excel to curve-fit the data, and now i have a not-quite as good armor penetration system for my own game at the expense of only a few minutes of data entry! On top of that, I not only have a relatively accurate penetration model, but I also have it using an equation that is legally distinct enough as long as no one can prove how exactly I arrived at my equations. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

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.  

 

Normalizing the data the exists „out there“ to such a reference table is huge work. To give an example for this:

18 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

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. 

 

So no, making all documentation out there (you have to get that first, multiply those hours by salary paid and add that as well to the costs) consistent across the board is something you‘d be stupid to share unless your business was selling that data. The „IP“ is not in the damage tables itself. It is in the work compiling them. Hence all you can do is keep some of this aspect to yourself.

 

Edit: IP is the wrong term here anyway, as you cannot register such info as propriate. If it was, they could disclose it. But in this case we would have a „trade secret“ and there is a secret part to that.

 

As TC is a game that emphasizes „realistic use“ of tanks, all the devs should do is provide game mechanics that are consistent with accurate reports. They certainly don’t owe you ballistic studies of all tank armor. You know what tank you are playing. If you need more info on armor durability, look that up as info on that is so readily available as you say. We have no indication that this is not what the devs want.

If you now find conflicting data in regards to game mechanics, post that as a track and provide source. There is no reason for the devs not to include your info should they consider it valuable.

 

Edited by ZachariasX
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kataphrakt said:

 comparisons of various shot-testing results is an exercise in futility since most countries used different criteria for their penetration figures, testing different probabilities of penetration on different slopes and with different types of armor.

 

^This, using each country's own test data is inconsistent given the different standards defining the penetration. If you want to have a proper modelling of penetration mechanics in the simulator all the projectile data should have the same penetration standard applied, for example US criteria for all of them, and WW2 Armor and Ballistics data is a good starting point with corrections when needed.

 

If you use US data for US guns, German data for German guns, Russian data for Russian guns it will end up very inconsistently. Not because X or Y country overinflated their data but because they have different standards on how they defined a succesful penetration, testing methodology, types of steel utilized as armor target, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

I would be very interested to see  a table compilation from the Devs

 

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 :

8 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

What makes you think that there isn‘t such? Because it doesn‘t come as a one-click download to you?

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

and put in printed or  PDF manual

I do miss the „good old times“ where we would get those grand printed manuals with the games. I still have a shelf full of those. Just for sentimental reasons I guess. Thus, I can conclude this point on a note of consensus, knowing that today nobody would waste money for such. (Today, you find what you like on the interweb anyway.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2020 at 7:33 PM, Panthera said:

Have to agree with this. 

 

If TC is meant to be a sim then there needs to be some detailed armor penetration data for the main guns that we players can refer to in order to assess the strengths & weaknesses of our equipment in the sim, just like we have detailed performance data on the aircraft ingame.

 

 

The devs didn't provide damage model data for the aircraft.  They're not going to do it for the tanks, either.  It makes no sense for them to provide that information for competitors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2020 at 4:33 PM, Panthera said:

If TC is meant to be a sim then there needs to be some detailed armor penetration data for the main guns that we players can refer to in order to assess the strengths & weaknesses of our equipment in the sim, just like we have detailed performance data on the aircraft ingame.

 

Again though, not asking the devs to reveal any trade secrets as to how stuff is coded. Only asking for transparency in terms of how accurately the guns vs armor aspect of the game is and what sources are used.

 

I don't really see that as a requirement for any sim...in fact I can't think of any sim that I've ever owned that supplied such data.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Waiting for the lock. This post is also in technical violation of;

 

9. Willful duplication of topics and excessive branching of topics is prohibited (i.e. placement of similar meaning posts and content)

 

Particularly becuse it was previously locked by a mod for particularly obvious reasons. Releasing the data has not and will not be done...........for particularly obvious reasons.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every tank sim (both first person as well as tactical) I have ever tried provided a penetration chart for every round featured, and they provided these charts freely. No trade secrets were ever revealed as a result as they never shared how their system was coded, only how closely it matched the sources they had chosen to rely upon. 

 

They do this realizing that for a tank sim penetration data is as (if not more) important as engine, speed & climb rate data is for a flight sim, the guns vs armor aspect being perhaps the biggest subject of debate among AFV enthusiasts and a major part of how the vehicles are seen as stacking up on a tactical level.

 

Therefore the developers of tank sims should, and usually do, provide penetration charts as a reassurance to players of how faithful to real life measured performance the sim is in this respect. Just like flight sim developers provide us with engine, speed & climb data = the biggest subjects of debate amongst us combat aircraft enthusiasts, as we can clearly see with all our threads on minute engine performance details. Because they know if they didn't provide any data for this there would immediately be an outcry. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Panthera said:

Every tank sim (both first person as well as tactical) I have ever tried provided a penetration chart for every round featured, and they provided these charts freely.

 

2 hours ago, Panthera said:

Therefore the developers of tank sims should, and usually do, provide penetration charts as a reassurance to players of how faithful to real life measured performance the sim is in this respect. Just like flight sim developers provide us with engine, speed & climb data = the biggest subjects of debate amongst us combat aircraft enthusiasts, as we can clearly see with all our threads on minute engine performance details. Because they know if they didn't provide any data for this there would immediately be an outcry. 

 

ROFL!

 

Sounds to me like you have never played any of the Combat Mission games, because they have never, ever provided penetration charts for any of their titles. Yet, despite that, their armor modeling system is justifiably regarded as being very high-fidelity (and the people who buy and play the CM titles are a very, very picky bunch).

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary I have all the combat mission titles, and you are severely mistaken. CM provided each gun (even small arms) with a penetration chart you could open up ingame. You can't have played it much if you didnt even discover these. 

 

CM even went as far as to provide a mode with detailed descriptions of the damage dealt after every penetration, and wether or not it was a partial or complete penetration. Spalling from non penetrating hits was even simulated. 

 

I really cherish this series exactly for the detail in which they modelled the interaction between guns & armor, and their transparency in regards to the numbers & sources used, not to mention the ability have a clear listing of damage dealt after each hit if you so desired. 

 

It's one of the main reasons CM ever became so popular if you ask me. 

Edited by Panthera
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is already some penetration information in the tech specs tabs for each TC tank in the game. I would not be surprised if it also ends up in a web page similar to the aircraft tech specs page. Anyone can tabulate it into a spreadsheet, having done that, have some fun trying to work out what formulas are used to generate the intermediate results. 

 

As for what a simulation "should" include: the clue for me is in the title. Players "should" have about the same level of technical/tactical information available to the real Tank Crew, for the systems simulated, which obviously limits the range. We do not need long spiels on how to change oil filters, or clean gun barrels, for instance.  Aircrew needed detailed climb and speed information, including PECs, so that they could plan mission timings.  In contrast, real tank crews were not looking up complex tables before they shot or exposed themselves: they used rules of thumb.   Eg if you are a Firefly vs Tigers shoot at any range, if you are a standard Sherman get as close to the sides or front as possible, and so on. 

 

Detailed stuff about partial penetration, spalling etc is all very interesting but not required to simulate being a tank crew, or a tank platoon commander, in the least.   Perhaps  "Ballistics Researcher", a different game, would be more to the liking of some. 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm interested to know if the simulation goes so far as to model inferior AP-round heat-treatment (US, UK and soviet) vs face-hardened German armour. Greater chance of allied rounds shattering before penetration.
And superior German heat-treated rounds vs softer US and UK armour (soviet armour was harder). Probably too much for any game to model?

Edited by J3Hetzer
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

There is already some penetration information in the tech specs tabs for each TC tank in the game. I would not be surprised if it also ends up in a web page similar to the aircraft tech specs page. Anyone can tabulate it into a spreadsheet, having done that, have some fun trying to work out what formulas are used to generate the intermediate results. 

 

As for what a simulation "should" include: the clue for me is in the title. Players "should" have about the same level of technical/tactical information available to the real Tank Crew, for the systems simulated, which obviously limits the range. We do not need long spiels on how to change oil filters, or clean gun barrels, for instance.  Aircrew needed detailed climb and speed information, including PECs, so that they could plan mission timings.  In contrast, real tank crews were not looking up complex tables before they shot or exposed themselves: they used rules of thumb.   Eg if you are a Firefly vs Tigers shoot at any range, if you are a standard Sherman get as close to the sides or front as possible, and so on. 

 

Detailed stuff about partial penetration, spalling etc is all very interesting but not required to simulate being a tank crew, or a tank platoon commander, in the least.   Perhaps  "Ballistics Researcher", a different game, would be more to the liking of some. 

 

 

 

 

Great points. IIRC for penetration data at most crews might get information stating at what ranges they could engage targets at and defeat their armor. For the rest of the information, if the devs have public-domain versions of actual tank manuals, it would be great to see portions of those (anything applicable to the game, i dont need 30 pages of how to tension tracks...) giving us what the sight specs are and such. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

The devs didn't provide damage model data for the aircraft.  They're not going to do it for the tanks, either.  It makes no sense for them to provide that information for competitors.

 

11 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

Waiting for the lock. This post is also in technical violation of;

 

9. Willful duplication of topics and excessive branching of topics is prohibited (i.e. placement of similar meaning posts and content)

 

Particularly becuse it was previously locked by a mod for particularly obvious reasons. Releasing the data has not and will not be done...........for particularly obvious reasons.

 

 

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.

On 2/10/2020 at 2:55 PM, JG1_Wittmann said:

I would be very interested to see  a table compilation from the Devs, and   thinks it's  BS that that would be propriety.

 

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. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Panthera said:

On the contrary I have all the combat mission titles, and you are severely mistaken. CM provided each gun (even small arms) with a penetration chart you could open up ingame. You can't have played it much if you didnt even discover these.

 

Dude, I've been a beta tester for them for about 5 years now, and none of their recent titles have penetration charts. Yes, they do provide the other hit data, but penetration charts? No, no way. You're not going to find that data in any of the CM2 titles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, here is the type of unit cards provided in CM3 AK:

FLc6RXH.jpg

 

As you can see a very detailed penetration chart is provided, and this goes for the main armament of all the vehicles ingame.

 

A similar unit info card, and esp. the penetration chart, is what I think is needed for IL2 Tank Crew.

Edited by Panthera
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Panthera said:

As you can see a very detailed penetration chart is provided, and this goes for the main armament of all the vehicles ingame.

Ludicrous ! Aren't they afraid someone will steal it from them ?! Naive fools !

 

That nonsense aside, this is exactly what I would welcome in IL2 TC. No need for more details than that.

Edited by Saedriss
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Panthera said:

So, here is the type of unit cards provided in CM3 AK:

FLc6RXH.jpg

 

As you can see a very detailed penetration chart is provided, and this goes for the main armament of all the vehicles ingame.

 

A similar unit info card, and esp. the penetration chart, is what I think is needed for IL2 Tank Crew.

 
I guess five years of beta-testing wasn't his forte.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, J3Hetzer said:

 
I guess five years of beta-testing wasn't his forte.

 

 

It absolutely is. I can't help it that Panthera decided to entirely mix up two different game series of games from Battlefront: CMx1 and CMx2. CMx1 yes, included penetration tables, but that game is close to 20 years old by now (AK, which stands up above for Afrika Korps, was released in 2003), and only a infinitesimal number of people give a crap about it any more.

 

CMx2, the currently-developed series by Battlefront, does not include penetration tables of_any_sort_at_all and never has. So, my point stands. That, and said feature hasn't exactly been a highly-demanded feature over on their forums, so no, I disagree with the notion that having detailed penetration tables is something that's essential for an armor simulator. 

Edited by LukeFF
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

It absolutely is. I can't help it that Panthera decided to entirely mix up two different game series of games from Battlefront: CMx1 and CMx2. CMx1 yes, included penetration tables, but that game is close to 20 years old by now (AK, which stands up above for Afrika Korps, was released in 2003), and only a infinitesimal number of people give a crap about it any more.

 

CMx2, the currently-developed series by Battlefront, does not include penetration tables of_any_sort_at_all and never has. So, my point stands. That, and said feature hasn't exactly been a highly-demanded feature over on their forums, so no, I disagree with the notion that having detailed penetration tables is something that's essential for an armor simulator. 

 

True but accurate ballistics/armor simulation is needed for a good simulation. You don't need to simulate all the nuances of armor/ballistics for it to be accurate but you need close to historical performance.

 

TC is great from what I've played of it so far but there are quite a few errors in the penetration/armor model that need to be corrected.

One thing I'm curious to know is are the rounds actually simulated or is it kinda like hit-scan/rng on where the round actually hits?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Legioneod said:

 

True but accurate ballistics/armor simulation is needed for a good simulation. You don't need to simulate all the nuances of armor/ballistics for it to be accurate but you need close to historical performance.

 

TC is great from what I've played of it so far but there are quite a few errors in the penetration/armor model that need to be corrected.

One thing I'm curious to know is are the rounds actually simulated or is it kinda like hit-scan/rng on where the round actually hits?


Iirc, hitscan has a round go to where the pipper is pointed instantaneously (no need to lead a moving target), which is why HLL's smallarms suck so badly. I'm pretty certain TC models each round as an object.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Legioneod said:

TC is great from what I've played of it so far but there are quite a few errors in the penetration/armor model that need to be corrected.

Why don‘t you provide tracks and documentation indicating that the simulation is not plausible in circumstances mentioned? Since you know something is wrong, you don‘t need the devs compiling data for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Why don‘t you provide tracks and documentation indicating that the simulation is not plausible in circumstances mentioned? Since you know something is wrong, you don‘t need the devs compiling data for you.


I don't think the shake effect of AP impacts needs documenting, it's an egregious arcade element that needs to be massively toned down, along with the clouds of black smoke that obscures vision. AP strikes didn't produce clouds of black smoke.

Edited by J3Hetzer
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

It absolutely is. I can't help it that Panthera decided to entirely mix up two different game series of games from Battlefront: CMx1 and CMx2. CMx1 yes, included penetration tables, but that game is close to 20 years old by now (AK, which stands up above for Afrika Korps, was released in 2003), and only a infinitesimal number of people give a crap about it any more.

 

Mixed them up? You exclaimed "you have never played any of the Combat Mission games, because they have never, ever provided penetration charts for any of their titles", when infact I was playing CM way before you, and they did provide very detailed penetration charts for their vehicles. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, J3Hetzer said:


I don't think the shake effect of AP impacts needs documenting, it's an egregious arcade element that needs to be massively toned down, along with the clouds of black smoke that obscures vision. AP strikes didn't produce clouds of black smoke.

 

I never noticed it in such a way. I usually only use APHE as „one size fits all“ or maybe just some HE for soft targets. But I can‘t think of instances where there would be smoke that obscures vision. I either have the round bounce off with no effect other than the bounce, or the tank is just dead. In some instances they blow up then, but usually they don‘t.

 

Assuming you know better than me about how things should look, pictured evidence can help, as it also helps the less informed follow your point.

 

Also the „AP impact shake effect“ is nothing that spurs my imagination. What do you mean by that? Should the tank that you are sitting on shake more when hit by AP rounds? Or less? Or is it something you want to see on the tank you‘re firing at?

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

 

I never noticed it in such a way. I usually only use APHE as „one size fits all“ or maybe just some HE for soft targets. But I can‘t think of instances where there would be smoke that obscures vision. I either have the round bounce off with no effect other than the bounce, or the tank is just dead. In some instances they blow up then, but usually they don‘t.

 

Assuming you know better than me about how things should look, pictured evidence can help, as it also helps the less informed follow your point.

 

Also the „AP impact shake effect“ is nothing that spurs my imagination. What do you mean by that? Should the tank that you are sitting on shake more when hit by AP rounds? Or less? Or is it something you want to see on the tank you‘re firing at?


When I'm in a tank and it's hit by AP rounds it shakes as if naval artillery rounds are landing next to it. Hits on my glacis also produce huge amounts of black smoke that obscure my vision. Funnily enough I don't see similar clouds of black smoke in front of tanks that I hit so it's a local effect only (though other MP players see the same as me from inside their tanks too no doubt). 

My assumption is the devs have implemented this arcade stuff to make the game 'more challenging' but personally I find such arcade stuff nothing but frustrating and it's made the SP game unplayable for me as every AI gunner targets me and I'm pretty much sitting in front of a shaking screen for literally minutes, unable to return fire until my tank finally dies or my AI pals kill all the enemy tanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Saedriss said:

Ludicrous ! Aren't they afraid someone will steal it from them ?! Naive fools !

 

That nonsense aside, this is exactly what I would welcome in IL2 TC. No need for more details than that.

This is the kind of table that i think is reasonable for IL-2 to add (though just with different distances to be relevant to our combat situations/WWII distances). 4 data points for each angle is nowhere near enough for someone unscrupulous to get a "close-enough" model with a curve-fit. 

 

1 hour ago, J3Hetzer said:

When I'm in a tank and it's hit by AP rounds it shakes as if naval artillery rounds are landing next to it. Hits on my glacis also produce huge amounts of black smoke that obscure my vision. Funnily enough I don't see similar clouds of black smoke in front of tanks that I hit so it's a local effect only (though other MP players see the same as me from inside their tanks too no doubt). 

My assumption is the devs have implemented this arcade stuff to make the game 'more challenging' but personally I find such arcade stuff nothing but frustrating and it's made the SP game unplayable for me as every AI gunner targets me and I'm pretty much sitting in front of a shaking screen for literally minutes, unable to return fire until my tank finally dies or my AI pals kill all the enemy tanks.

I have not noticed much of a shaking effect when being hit by projectiles in-game. I have often heard being in a tank struck by projectiles described as a "significant emotional event" -- A large part of why the tanks which fired first tended to have a significant upper-hand in combat. Really this makes sense because a 76mm (7kg) shell traveling at even half its muzzle velocity (395 m/s) still has an energy of 546 KJ, that's equivalent to a two-ton truck traveling at 24m/s (86 kph, 53 Mph), or a 35-ton tank traveling at 18 kph. Yes, if a 35-ton tank slams into another 35-ton tank at 18kph it's going to shake some things around, and remember that tanks are also mounted on big springs. The amount of this energy a tank must deal with depends on the angle it is struck at, larger angles requiring less energy to push the round away than a flat-hit on a plate. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J3Hetzer said:

When I'm in a tank and it's hit by AP rounds it shakes as if naval artillery rounds are landing next to it.

Really? It never occurred to me as such. But it might be due to me disabling TrackIR when tanking. I just use the „nestle to gunsight“ views that are fixed views. Probably then I‘m just like shaking along with the tank and don‘t see that motion. All I hear is the sound of impact.

 

Regarding the effect of the hit, I would have guessed that even a strike at long distance is a mighty kick, as compared here:

10 minutes ago, Kataphrakt said:

Yes, if a 35-ton tank slams into another 35-ton tank at 18kph it's going to shake some things around,

 

Even if you discount some of the energy as the round penetrates (and loses some energy due to heat and deformation), I‘d still expect a mighty kick. I mean, I’ve seen tankers hitting an unexpectedly hard thing, making the tank stop at once just from waking speed. It was enough for a bunch of cursing bloody noses to emerge from the bowels.

 

Thus, in my imagination being hit by a big shell is indeed more than just disturbing, this being a very nice way to put it:

15 minutes ago, Kataphrakt said:

a "significant emotional event"

 

This is why I was asking for specific footage if you have a different idea of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Thus, in my imagination being hit by a big shell is indeed more than just disturbing, this being a very nice way to put it

 

If you take a 10kg shell hitting a 50t tank at 500m/s, with the projectile being stopped dead by the tank and no splinters created (momentum remains constant), the speed of the tank will change by 0.1m/s. Very noticable, but really not much more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Kataphrakt said:

This is the kind of table that i think is reasonable for IL-2 to add (though just with different distances to be relevant to our combat situations/WWII distances). 4 data points for each angle is nowhere near enough for someone unscrupulous to get a "close-enough" model with a curve-fit. 

 

I vaguely recall academic joke along the lines that engineers need three points to fit a curve and mathematicians two: but economists only need one!

 

Four seems plenty.   

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kataphrakt said:

This is the kind of table that i think is reasonable for IL-2 to add (though just with different distances to be relevant to our combat situations/WWII distances). 4 data points for each angle is nowhere near enough for someone unscrupulous to get a "close-enough" model with a curve-fit. 

 

4 is fine yes, although I think 5 data points at 3 different angles would be perfect, but the 4 CM ones are fine and the distances too. 2 km is very far, but when the terrain allowed it the Germans liked engaging even at that range and sometimes beyond (IIRC an Allied AAR mentions a couple of Shermans lit up at 3000+ yards by a Tiger in Belgium or Holland), knowing their better sights and generally flatter shooting guns gave them a big advantage here, reducing the risk of deadly return fire.

 

The ranges I'd prefer would be 100/500/1000/1500/2000m @ 0/30/60 deg. That would be perfect IMHO.

Edited by Panthera
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...