Low friction on tracks

[VSN_Razor]

Since the introduction of the new terrain model, it feels like the tanks do not have enough friction with their tracks.

 

In a straight line, the tanks constantly slip left and right with the tracks on the dirt. I tested it with the Panther and T-34 and Pzkfw IV, so both wide and narrow tracks.

 

In addition to that, you can easily let those tanks drift on the dirt. It just doesn't seem to be right. A T-34 can already start loosing traction of the rear part with 20 kph in a turn (with both tracks of course)

 

If you watch videos of (modern MBTs...), most of them are only drifting on concrete or snowy and icy conditions. 

 

Here's an example on mud: 

 

 

You can see a somewhat similar behaviour in the IL-2 tanks on dirt like these MBTs on concrete when drifting. It takes a bit of time to come to a stop.

 

Tank 2 and 3 in that video are great examples. On concrete, they drift nicely. As soon as their track hits the mud, the sideways movement comes to a stop, or in case of tank #3, it flips it.

 

In IL-2, the tanks seem to behave like they drive on concrete only. They can easily drift/oversteer on dirt. And the faster you are, the longer the drift becomes. There does not seem to be any sign of outter track increasing friction that much, that the tank can flip like in the video.

 

I also tried to flip my tank in IL2. I accelerated to high speeds and then initiated a turn. All I did was a 360, no flipping, no tilting, only a nice 360 drift.

 

Here's another example:

 

 

 

 

When he's turning on the concrete, the inner track is sliding. When he's turning on the dirt, the inner track is almost completely stationary.

 

In IL-2 with the Panther (in 2nd and 3rd gear), the behaviour of the tank is leaning more towards the behaviour of the tank on concrete. The inner track is either sliding a bit or still moving, which makes the tank sliding, especially when you go from the arrow left/right key to none or the arrow forward key, unlike the Panther in the video.

 

While I do not have other sources, I'd say these two show it that the friction of the track seems to be a bit low. The lack of friction is especially noticably at high speeds when initiating a turn. In real life, it could probably damage tracks, roadwheels or even flipping the tank, punishing the driver for bad driving. In IL-2 on the other hand, you just slide and drift on the dirt as if it was ice or concrete, leaving the tank and tracks unharmed in case of careless driving.

 

TL, DR: Currently, tanks in IL2 behave like if they were constantly on concrete, even when driving on dirt ingame. Constant sliding and drifting makes it impossible to damage the tracks or flip the tank in case of careless driving.

 

 

 

 

[LachenKrieg]

I noticed this long before the terrain update. But yes, ground resistance seems to be out a bit especially on sloped ground.

[LachenKrieg]

A couple more vids to show tanks turning, but mostly slow and on level ground. Notice how torn up the ground gets as tanks drive over it. There is an incredible amount of ground pressure/resistance between the tracks and the contact surface. In the second video, you also get a good shot of a Jagdpanther turning on a concrete pad. The third video shows a much lighter tracked construction vehicle on sloped ground.

 

The softer the ground surface, the higher the resistance because the tracks sink/dig in further. In your first video, what you are watching are inertial forces in action. The tanks in that video are probably going close to 40kph on a packed surface as they go into a full turn. Speed/inertia is the cause and effect there. WWII tanks, especially the German machines, were a lot less nimble because of a lower power:weight ratio. You see the 40 tonne tank flip as the leading track dug in because the stored energy was sufficient to lift the tank into the air.

 

You can really tell that ground resistance is out in Tank Crew when going slow on sloped ground. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[VSN_Razor]

42 minutes ago, LachenKrieg said:

 

The softer the ground surface, the higher the resistance because the tracks sink/dig in further. In your first video, what you are watching are inertial forces in action. The tanks in that video are probably going close to 40kph on a packed surface as they go into a full turn. Speed/inertia is the cause and effect there. WWII tanks, especially the German machines, were a lot less nimble because of a lower power:weight ratio. You see the 40 tonne tank flip as the leading track dug in because the stored energy was sufficient to lift the tank into the air.

 

 

You can't even flip the tanks in IL2 when you drive down a slope accelerating to 60kph or more and do a turn. You just make a 360 and that's it...

[BlitzPig_EL]

Have not seen it happen lately, but one of my squad mates has flipped a Panther.  Full speed on a road, then he went hard right, and over he went.

[LachenKrieg]

3 hours ago, VSN_Razor said:

 

You can't even flip the tanks in IL2 when you drive down a slope accelerating to 60kph or more and do a turn. You just make a 360 and that's it...

I flipped a PzIV before. You can have a look at my post in the linked thread. The video was done on the BOS map, where I was able to show the PzIV sliding around way too much. The scene where the tank flips on a road was without user interaction. It was just the contour of the road that made the tank spin/flip.

 

I wish they would address this issue, as it takes away from the sense of weight/mass. The tank feels lighter (unrealistic) when you see it sliding around like that. I believe this issue is also linked to the hull traverse rate. I haven't taken the time to measure it, but I get the impression that it is a little fast for some of the tanks.

 

 

 

[VSN_Razor]

Interesting. I basically drove a T-34 down a cliff and tried to flip it that way and it didn't work. So it seems there is a difference in traction between roads and offroad. At least something.

[69th_chuter]

And, maybe related, I've noticed that when driving a P4 laterally along a slope the rear of the tank seems to want to constantly slide downhill even though the CG is in the middle, actually slightly forward of the center, of the tank (its stenciled on the left side).

[LachenKrieg]

13 hours ago, VSN_Razor said:

Interesting. I basically drove a T-34 down a cliff and tried to flip it that way and it didn't work. So it seems there is a difference in traction between roads and offroad. At least something.

How many times did you try it? As you can see in the video, the second time I try the same stretch of road, the tank just spun around. If you look closely, you can see one track lift up slightly, but not enough to roll.

 

Just like in the video you linked above, not all of the tanks rolled. If the tracks maintain contact and the leading track edge doesn't dig in as the tank drifts sideways, it shouldn't roll as it skids to a stop. But if the leading edge gets hung up and digs in, the amount of resistance/unit area of track increases to where the track edge nearly stops, while the rest of the tank keeps moving because of its stored energy, causing the tank to roll and become airborne.

 

But if you are unable to get your tank to roll on a downhill slope, then that would be another example of something that is not properly modeled. In your linked video, we see that a 40+ tonne tank can roll while drifting on flat ground. Doing the same stunt on a downhill slope would dramatically reduce the amount of stored energy needed to lift the tank in the air. Hopefully tweaking ground resistance is something being planned, because it does affect the feel and function of the SIM. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

20 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

 

 wish they would address this issue, as it takes away from the sense of weight/mass. 

 

 

This has been a problem with the entire sim from the beginning.  It's very apparent on the aircraft side of things, though it was much worse early on.  Some of the blame goes to the fact that the base game engine was originally designed for WW1 aircraft, and IMHO did not translate well to the world of heavier, high speed WW2 era planes.  Also at work here is the problem that is endemic to most sim "pilots" that have never been at the controls of a real aircraft.  It's the "harder is more real" syndrome.  Many players feel that flying an aircraft should be hard, right?  So if they don't bob and weave all the time and behave like a gossamer kite in a hurricane, they get all apoplectic and drag out the old "flight model on rails" BS.  Simmers are their own worst enemy much of the time.  This game engine has always had issues with conveying the sense of mass of any of the vehicles in it.  The behavior of tanks is just another data point that verifies this.

[LachenKrieg]

1 minute ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

 

This has been a problem with the entire sim from the beginning.  It's very apparent on the aircraft side of things, though it was much worse early on.  Some of the blame goes to the fact that the base game engine was originally designed for WW1 aircraft, and IMHO did not translate well to the world of heavier, high speed WW2 era planes.  Also at work here is the problem that is endemic to most sim "pilots" that have never been at the controls of a real aircraft.  It's the "harder is more real" syndrome.  Many players feel that flying an aircraft should be hard, right?  So if they don't bob and weave all the time and behave like a gossamer kite in a hurricane, they get all apoplectic and drag out the old "flight model on rails" BS.  Simmers are their own worst enemy much of the time.  This game engine has always had issues with conveying the sense of mass of any of the vehicles in it.  The behavior of tanks is just another data point that verifies this.

I don't have all of the history you do with IL2, so thanks for that insight. But yeah, there are still a few obvious things that could be tweaked if they really want to make it more real. Having said that, what they have done thus far represents the absolute best WWII AFV effort I have seen to date on any platform. I think these types of discussions are important because they provide an opportunity for the Dev's to realize that all of their hard work is noticed/appreciated, and hopefully that helps provide an incentive to continue on that same path of success.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I hope so as well.

 

My comments are never meant to deride the dev team.  I own every module they have ever released, and will continue to do so as they have proven that they can over deliver on what they promise, and overall the game play is enjoyable.  While from a historical and "guy" standpoint I have always liked tanks, I admit that at first my only reason to buy TC was to support the team, as I was, and still am, primarily a flyboy.  That said I am enjoying the tank side more and more, and I hope it expands to one of the western theaters so we can have a more varied set of vehicles and geography to operate them on.  I also hope for a better implementation of combined arms gameplay.  Flying close air support of my team mates in tanks, on the limited basis we have done it, is very gratifying.

[MajorMagee]

Leading up to WWII most track designers made an assumption that all they needed to achieve was creating a ground pressure less than or equal to that of a foot soldier walking across an unpaved surface. The reality that came to light with hard experience (WWI appears to have been forgotten) was that while this rule made sense for the first pass over undisturbed healthy sod, it quickly broke down with any sort of repeated traffic, or other disruption of the ground like combat. Additionally, variations in weather conditions, soil composition, and vegetation coverage all combined to throw their simple textbook lbs/sq ft calculation in the trash heap of engineering history. As seen in the videos above, repeated passes over the same track have a negative impact on mobility even with perfect weather conditions. Wider tracks were the obvious response to getting this so wrong initially, but that added its own weight and power drain on the mobility equation without really addressing the ever changing nature of the supporting ground they needed to travel over.

 

For now all earthen surfaces in our world are essentially impenetrable (hence the lack of "friction" effects). Different types of terrain do throttle your speed, but other than on/off road, and up/down hill that's about it.  Adding realistic physics related to track ground pressure mobility effects would be difficult even with a very much simplified model. What would be needed is a meter by meter ground penetration map data set that can adjust dynamically with traffic and weather changes. The highest hardness values would allow for more speed, and easier side slip when turning. The softest would cause you to bog down, and make turning very difficult.

Edited March 7, 2021 by MajorMagee

[LachenKrieg]

17 hours ago, MajorMagee said:

Leading up to WWII most track designers made an assumption that all they needed to achieve was creating a ground pressure less than or equal to that of a foot soldier walking across an unpaved surface. The reality that came to light with hard experience (WWI appears to have been forgotten) was that while this rule made sense for the first pass over undisturbed healthy sod, it quickly broke down with any sort of repeated traffic, or other disruption of the ground like combat. Additionally, variations in weather conditions, soil composition, and vegetation coverage all combined to throw their simple textbook lbs/sq ft calculation in the trash heap of engineering history. As seen in the videos above, repeated passes over the same track have a negative impact on mobility even with perfect weather conditions. Wider tracks were the obvious response to getting this so wrong initially, but that added its own weight and power drain on the mobility equation without really addressing the ever changing nature of the supporting ground they needed to travel over.

 

For now all earthen surfaces in our world are essentially impenetrable (hence the lack of "friction" effects). Different types of terrain do throttle your speed, but other than on/off road, and up/down hill that's about it.  Adding realistic physics related to track ground pressure mobility effects would be difficult even with a very much simplified model. What would be needed is a meter by meter ground penetration map data set that can adjust dynamically with traffic and weather changes. The highest hardness values would allow for more speed, and easier side slip when turning. The softest would cause you to bog down, and make turning very difficult.

I have absolutely no clue about how ground resistance is modeled/accounted for in TC, but I am not convinced that they would really have to add a new physics model. I wonder if all that would be needed is an adjustment/modification to whatever the current model being used is.

 

In other words, tweak/adjust the parameter(s) responsible for making the tank slid. When the PzIV in the linked video above slides, it does so because the current model told it to. The Dev's could have the physics model make the tanks float 2 feet above ground while moving if they wanted to. They could also make it look like that tanks have ice skates strapped to the tracks when turning like they do in WarThunder.

 

So IMO, the question is more related to whether the current amount of slip and hull traverse rate are realistic, or does it need to be adjusted? As you pointed out, the current model seems to account for at least 2 different terrain types, on and off-road.

 

And it appears the model also takes into account the weight of each vehicle as you drive up and down hills, but it does not consider the change in weight between a fully fueled/loaded tank, and an empty one.  This would be a cool addition as it would have an effect on mission design and the decision each player makes when equipping their tanks.

[JG1_Wittmann]

On 3/5/2021 at 8:43 AM, LachenKrieg said:

 

 

WWII tanks, especially the German machines, were a lot less nimble because of a lower power:weight ratio.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That  statement  is incorrect .  It has over the years been made  a popular myth.  The german tanks,  with double differential transmissions,  were some of the most  "Nimble"  tanks in the War,  unlike what is represented in game.  The russian tanks,  that used clutch/brake for steering  were much less nimble,   unlike what is in game,  could  not turn in place,  unlike the game,  and had to move forward or backward in order to turn.  I believe  all o the T34 based  and KV1  are IRL   like this.   The Panther  is probably the worst  represented and loses the most speed  in making slight course corrections,  Tiger  as well.  They could slow 1 side down not have to clutch it, cutting your drive power in half,  like is not modeled  in the  russian  tanks and spg's       I do agree that the  tanks are "too light on the ground"   I think AC act the same way on the taxiway and runway.

 

I am also very curious,   was every single  square inch of  land  in russia , that was not a road or a body of water,  always  fresshlty plowed ?   Are there no fields there  with crops, grass.  Has anyone on the dev team  ever walked  outside, for real not in VR,   and never experienced a field that was not freshly plowed ?

[LachenKrieg]

5 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

 

That  statement  is incorrect .  It has over the years been made  a popular myth.  The german tanks,  with double differential transmissions,  were some of the most  "Nimble"  tanks in the War,  unlike what is represented in game.  The russian tanks,  that used clutch/brake for steering  were much less nimble,   unlike what is in game,  could  not turn in place,  unlike the game,  and had to move forward or backward in order to turn.  I believe  all o the T34 based  and KV1  are IRL   like this.   The Panther  is probably the worst  represented and loses the most speed  in making slight course corrections,  Tiger  as well.  They could slow 1 side down not have to clutch it, cutting your drive power in half,  like is not modeled  in the  russian  tanks and spg's       I do agree that the  tanks are "too light on the ground"   I think AC act the same way on the taxiway and runway.

 

I am also very curious,   was every single  square inch of  land  in russia , that was not a road or a body of water,  always  fresshlty plowed ?   Are there no fields there  with crops, grass.  Has anyone on the dev team  ever walked  outside, for real not in VR,   and never experienced a field that was not freshly plowed ?

I hear you, but the comment you are quoting was meant to address the tanks in the OP's video linked at the top. Compared to other WWII tanks, the German machines were good, but would have been even more competitive if they would have switched to Diesel. But compared to more modern Russian tanks, the WWII German machines are a lot less nimble due to a lower Power:weight ratio. 

 

I agree, the models in TC are pretty good, but there is still room for improvement.

 

[[SN]_Reaper_]

22 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

The russian tanks,  that used clutch/brake for steering  were much less nimble,   unlike what is in game,  could  not turn in place,  unlike the game,  and had to move forward or backward in order to turn.

What?

time 0:25

 

time 3:40

 

[JG1_Wittmann]

1 hour ago, dragon_7611 said:

What?

time 0:25

 3:40

 

 

So,  I watched  both videos that you posted,   and both seem to confirm  what I said in my post,  the T34 had to move forward or backward to turn.  What your 2 videos  show is not a Turn in Place   but moving forward, locking 1 tread and turning,  which is how they turned.  I'm not a tank expert, but in those u are losing  half of your  drive when you do that.  A turn in place  tank  can counter-rotate the treads or rotate them at a different speed to turn.  This can be done from a standstill,  not moving  the tank,  unlike the T34 in the vid that initiates it's turn after already moving  then brakes 1 side, while driving the other.

[JG1_Vonrd]

This illustrates both the braking one track as well as the full reversing of tracks as Wittmann states.

 

 

And here is an Abrams demonstrating both

 

Edited March 10, 2021 by JG1_Vonrd

[LachenKrieg]

4 hours ago, dragon_7611 said:

What?

time 0:25

 

time 3:40

 

@dragon_7611, what he is getting at is that there is a difference in the final position of the tank after the turn. For a tank that can pivot in place like the Tiger, imagine that there is a pin passing through the center of the tank and into the ground. If the tank were to make a 180 degree turn, its right track would be approximately where its left track was, and the left would be where the right was. If it did a 360, the right and left track would be back where they started before the turn. This is not modeled in Tank Crew though.

 

When making a 180 degree turn in the T34 for example, the hull will move about 1 tank width over from where is started.