Jump to content

FIX THE G-D SHERMAN!!!


Recommended Posts

moustache

I don't understand ... are you against implementing something that already exists? if it already exists, what's the problem with just adding the "shell damage / scatter camera"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
SCG_judgedeath3

Need to first activate recording by hmm alt + r if I remember it right. Its not something you can see during the match but have to quite the match, leave the server and go to recordings in the game menu to access it. 
Its not ingame which im against like how warthunder do it.
 

after and looking at that replay long after the match on multiplayer server then: no problem, and yes add damage model and data to it, would be nice to see. :) 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
moustache
7 hours ago, moustache said:
7 hours ago, moustache said:

It would also be good if we could have a camera showing the damage and fragmentation of shells (a bit like War Thunder) in post game ...

 

yeah, i say after game, and don't say i want to see who shoot me... just how shot destroy me and how my shot destroy (or not) other...

 

i wish the game become more realistic, and playable without HUD...

Edited 7 hours ago by moustache

 

we're agree...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
LachenKrieg

Yes but the recording doesn't tell you much. It would be nice if the recording showed more information then just the explosion, which I think is what @moustache was getting at, and I fully agree.

 

You being in the tank doing the firing will know how close you are, but the guy/gal being hit wont. In the few times that I was on a MP server getting hit while in a town, I could usually tell the general direction the shot came from by the layout of the buildings, but not exactly where the player was.

 

Being able to see the entry/exit point of a shell is not going to tell you where the tank is that fired the shot. And there are already things in-game anyways that will give your position away, but I get your point without agreeing, because I see it as being the opposite of an arcade feature.

 

If its all about reality, then just the fact that you are able to spawn back into the match is arcade-like. How is being able to see the shell that knocked you out making Tank Crew an arcade, and you spawning back in doesn't? In WT I would agree. I saw this feature as a bother in WT, and never waited for the replay because nothing in that game is real anyway, so I wasn't interested in seeing how the improperly modeled shot killed the improperly modeled tank.

 

But Tank Crew is supposed to be a SIM, and this type of information is very meaningful to the person that wants to better understand gun/armor performance. And that might be where the misunderstanding between us is on this topic. I am talking about being able to use the SIM as a real SIM, you are talking about using the SIM on a MP server that in itself has arcade-like features. But by having this feature, it could also be implemented so that the server itself could turn it on/off.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
SCG_judgedeath3
1 hour ago, LachenKrieg said:

How is being able to see the shell that knocked you out making Tank Crew an arcade, and you spawning back in doesn't?

IF you play with DiD you cant or if you play on certain servers or tournaments you cant either. Depends on the server realism settings really and its there like you say I want it to be possible to turn off and on, the more realistic servers should avoid all such helps while some who want to be friendly to newcomers could have it on, a nice solution I think :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
LachenKrieg

Sorry, what is DiD, and what can't you do, re-spawn?

Link to post
Share on other sites
LachenKrieg

Saw the same type of situation on Finnish server 2 days ago, but instead of knocking him out he one-timed us. The in-game Sherman is so ridiculously OP its beyond laughable. Its a light medium tank with Super Heavy armor. Even the Panther can have troubles pen'ing it. I am wondering if it isn't a game play thing to keep enough players on both sides. 

Edited by LachenKrieg
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
NoelGallagher

i had no problem with destroying the shermans at ease in multipalyer

 

until i encountered this invincible sherman

 

now i get why everyone on the chat was saying sherman is not dying 

i thought they were just a noobs 

that was my misjudgement 

the initial purpose of this video was to record the footage of me teasing the sherman and paly with him

but who would know i'd shot the legit proof of invincible sherman footage

it's just rediculous

even the any kind of modern tank won't survive that kind of severe damage 

just watch the video you will see

 

BTW this sherman got 3-4 hit by german tank already

and all of those rounds were penetrated shot 

and judging by the size and the looks of the holes

those rounds were fired from 75mm -88mm aphe shell

 

this action was taken in finnish virtual pilot server

 

Edited by NoelGallagher
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • NoelGallagher changed the title to sherman surviving 9 legitimate penetration from all side(proof with the video)
Shampoo_Actual

All I can say is F YEAH 'MERICA!!!  LOL Noel, thank you.  Almost fell out of my chair laughing when that turret started swinging to the 6. OMG

 

There are exactly zero historical pictures of an early war Sherman with this many "bounces" of a shell of this caliber/size that survived.  There are however many pics of Tigers with similar survived battle damage.

 

image.png.6ae5fdb65efe50a2c36930d90ad35d87.png

 

This guy here has a rather amusing video that kind of explains that all this "ballistic calculation" code in games like War Thunder and IL-2 is probably not really even real.  Salty, but funny.

 

Edited by Shampoo_Actual
more info vs. starting another post
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
JG1_Wittmann
On 5/27/2021 at 5:50 PM, LachenKrieg said:

The early Sherman's had a 2 inch (50.8mm)   front plate at 56 degrees. This gives about 91mm of protection or 3.6 inches. The front plate was later beefed up to 2.5 inches at 47 degrees to give 93mm of protection.

 

 

I believe that you have made  quite an error  calculating the effective armor thickness for  the angle.  I may be mistaken  as well   It looks like you used the cosine  instead of the sine.  The 56 deg you calculate,  from vertical,  is  almost what modern tanks use.  You can look at pics of a sherman and tell it is not angled that much  from vertical.  The 56  should be  from horizontal,  use sine function and your effective is would be  61  and correct

 

Actual effective armor  of  50.8 mm   is @  61.3 mm,  not 91.    The later  plate beefed up to  2.5 "    63.5 mm   @ 47 deg  is  93mm     this is angled more  from vertical  than the 56,   making the 12mm extra of plate effectivel give it almost 30mm more.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
ChampagneStars

oaky here we go again

this is noel

i met invincible sherman again while i'm playing on advance&secure server

WTH is with this sherman now 

4 shot straight in to the rear and side 

and sherman just don't die 

+as you can see he got the penetration at the front by other tank before i engage him

what you have in this game is not a sherman

this is NSA secret militray program

 

 

Edited by ChampagneStars
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
LachenKrieg
57 minutes ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

I believe that you have made  quite an error  calculating the effective armor thickness for  the angle.  I may be mistaken  as well   It looks like you used the cosine  instead of the sine.  The 56 deg you calculate,  from vertical,  is  almost what modern tanks use.  You can look at pics of a sherman and tell it is not angled that much  from vertical.  The 56  should be  from horizontal,  use sine function and your effective is would be  61  and correct

 

Actual effective armor  of  50.8 mm   is @  61.3 mm,  not 91.    The later  plate beefed up to  2.5 "    63.5 mm   @ 47 deg  is  93mm     this is angled more  from vertical  than the 56,   making the 12mm extra of plate effectivel give it almost 30mm more.    

You can get the same info from a number of online sources, or minute 34 in the time line of the linked video in this post.

 

 

But if it had only an effective armor of 61mm, then it makes it that much more worse. I don't mind that the Sherman can knock the PzIV out in a single shot, but the PzIV could do the same thing, and in game you can hit the Sherman multiple times with penetrating shots only to have the Sherman locate you to end the engagement. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
JG1_Wittmann

Well, look at the video above.   Dont start the video, look at the pic of the tank.  That is the 47degree  model,  not the 56 degree model  clearly.   So the effective armor then is  @93mm  now the  APHE round  should be able to penetrate the front @ 1500m  on the 47deg model, the apcr round @ 2000m.   Im not sure if they gave us the 30mm added armor plate to the PIV    but they should have as they all got it by 43, and this is supposed to be kursk era supposedly.  THey were no 50mm  hull front 4's  being made at that time but were all getting the 30 extra.  Now the sherman  on the other hand, with the M3 gun,  would need to be within  750M to penetrate the frontf  as the german tanks used RHA  not cast armor.  May need to do some ranged tests  like I did with the jagdpanzer IV  vs the T34's   and post that video to the forum like I did previously only sherman vs Panzer IV

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Shampoo_Actual

I strongly agree with the Toney Slamboney video that  theorizes that none of these games actually use a real ballistic calculator.  If anyone took intro to computer programing in HS or College in the late 80's early 90's, remember the old RND Function?  The Dart Board Game?  I think thats more like the "code" behind what we are playing today.    I mean the weapons and armor modifiers in the old Squad Leader board game, if coded, would be a 100% improvement in all these games....not just IL-2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet is it very doable. I have been following Gunner Heat PC a bit and they have even modeled characteristics of the steel armor used to simulate spalling of the interior. I wish that they would model things to be real, and let the server hosts balance things with type and number available. If a Sherman spots a PzIV first and gets a good shot away, the PzIV is likely out, but the same should go for the guy in the PzIV. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Shampoo_Actual

Lachen I totally agree with you.  They all have great ballistic modeling.  The modeling and the graphical effects in War Thunder alone - projectile-to-armor contact, angle, refraction or penetration, in-compartment spalling, and/or pass through, damage to crew and vital components, etc etc.....are a whole other class of detail far above and beyond both IL-2 and Gunner Heat - by years.  And guess what - they don't actually work in the game.  My point is simply that....... they all seem plausible, they all look great, but they just don't work in the game.  They all are described in scientifically based explanations with terms like "rolled steel, slope, shaped charges, etc etc."  But they are neither reliable, nor even reproducible to their own mathematical foundation.  Real Physics works the same way, every time - that's a scientific and mathematical fact.  Computer programs - good ones - work the same way, every time.  They are both totally predictable using the scientific method.  So why can't physics in a computer game work the same way every time???  Oh, it's the server, it's your internet speed, your gaming system can't handle it....all common answers.  The real answer is more probably.... because there are no physics in this computer game.  Which takes me back to the old Squad Leader, and Advance SL "Quick Reference Tables" - code this stuff and you'll get a way more predictable, reliable and historically accurate ballistic simulation that what any of these games offer today.  Jesus Christ, a dice-based board game from the 1980's provides more realistic tank play than today's "simulations."

 

At the end of the day I still love playing, I'm just not drinking the Kool Aid anymore.  If my Sherman takes 10 shots to kill, then one shots me in return - it's still a good time.  But it's kind of like WWF Wrestling,  after a while you realize it's not really a sport, it's just a TV show with a script pretending to be a sport.

 

And I'm cool with that.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Shampoo_Actual
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

...it's not very encouraging for the future, what you say ...

 

From what I understand, the tank part does not have a real physical damage / penetration / fragmentation model, is it? does the airplane part seem to have it?

Edited by moustache
Link to post
Share on other sites
NoelGallagher
6 hours ago, Shampoo_Actual said:

Lachen I totally agree with you.  They all have great ballistic modeling.  The modeling and the graphical effects in War Thunder alone - projectile-to-armor contact, angle, refraction or penetration, in-compartment spalling, and/or pass through, damage to crew and vital components, etc etc.....are a whole other class of detail far above and beyond both IL-2 and Gunner Heat - by years.  And guess what - they don't actually work in the game.  My point is simply that....... they all seem plausible, they all look great, but they just don't work in the game.  They all are described in scientifically based explanations with terms like "rolled steel, slope, shaped charges, etc etc."  But they are neither reliable, nor even reproducible to their own mathematical foundation.  Real Physics works the same way, every time - that's a scientific and mathematical fact.  Computer programs - good ones - work the same way, every time.  They are both totally predictable using the scientific method.  So why can't physics in a computer game work the same way every time???  Oh, it's the server, it's your internet speed, your gaming system can't handle it....all common answers.  The real answer is more probably.... because there are no physics in this computer game.  Which takes me back to the old Squad Leader, and Advance SL "Quick Reference Tables" - code this stuff and you'll get a way more predictable, reliable and historically accurate ballistic simulation that what any of these games offer today.  Jesus Christ, a dice-based board game from the 1980's provides more realistic tank play than today's "simulations."

 

At the end of the day I still love playing, I'm just not drinking the Kool Aid anymore.  If my Sherman takes 10 shots to kill, then one shots me in return - it's still a good time.  But it's kind of like WWF Wrestling,  after a while you realize it's not really a sport, it's just a TV show with a script pretending to be a sport.

 

And I'm cool with that.

 

 

 

 

hey shampoo 

there are some games use real time physics 

and i know you already heard about it 

it's called "tank warfare tunisia 1943"

it shows where the tank has been hit and the trejectory of the shell

it's on steam and it's on 80% off sale 

i highly recommend you to check it out if you are really in to hard core simulation

Link to post
Share on other sites
LachenKrieg
7 hours ago, Shampoo_Actual said:

Lachen I totally agree with you.  They all have great ballistic modeling.  The modeling and the graphical effects in War Thunder alone - projectile-to-armor contact, angle, refraction or penetration, in-compartment spalling, and/or pass through, damage to crew and vital components, etc etc.....are a whole other class of detail far above and beyond both IL-2 and Gunner Heat - by years.  And guess what - they don't actually work in the game.  My point is simply that....... they all seem plausible, they all look great, but they just don't work in the game.  They all are described in scientifically based explanations with terms like "rolled steel, slope, shaped charges, etc etc."  But they are neither reliable, nor even reproducible to their own mathematical foundation.  Real Physics works the same way, every time - that's a scientific and mathematical fact.  Computer programs - good ones - work the same way, every time.  They are both totally predictable using the scientific method.  So why can't physics in a computer game work the same way every time???  Oh, it's the server, it's your internet speed, your gaming system can't handle it....all common answers.  The real answer is more probably.... because there are no physics in this computer game.  Which takes me back to the old Squad Leader, and Advance SL "Quick Reference Tables" - code this stuff and you'll get a way more predictable, reliable and historically accurate ballistic simulation that what any of these games offer today.  Jesus Christ, a dice-based board game from the 1980's provides more realistic tank play than today's "simulations."

 

At the end of the day I still love playing, I'm just not drinking the Kool Aid anymore.  If my Sherman takes 10 shots to kill, then one shots me in return - it's still a good time.  But it's kind of like WWF Wrestling,  after a while you realize it's not really a sport, it's just a TV show with a script pretending to be a sport.

 

And I'm cool with that.

 

 

 

 

 

55 minutes ago, NoelGallagher said:

hey shampoo 

there are some games use real time physics 

and i know you already heard about it 

it's called "tank warfare tunisia 1943"

it shows where the tank has been hit and the trejectory of the shell

it's on steam and it's on 80% off sale 

i highly recommend you to check it out if you are really in to hard core simulation

Just to say if you haven't checked GHPC out yet, you really should. Its all cold war stuff, but the physics model is really well done. I was amazed to see that they have actually modeled spalling. That is cool.

 

But IMO, its not an all or nothing effect. Some things are modeled here, but some things need to be updated/changed. one of the problems that a lot of game developers have to face is the actual flow of game play. This is just a theory/example, lets say that most online players here want to drive axis vehicles. That would create a problem for game play. So one solution to that would be to juice some of the allied vehicles up to make them more appealing. Not saying that is the case here, but it is definitely an issue with online gaming. But good post @Shampoo_Actual.

7 hours ago, moustache said:

...it's not very encouraging for the future, what you say ...

 

From what I understand, the tank part does not have a real physical damage / penetration / fragmentation model, is it? does the airplane part seem to have it?

No not to worry... there is a lot of physics in the game

Link to post
Share on other sites
moustache
6 minutes ago, LachenKrieg said:

Non ne vous inquiétez pas... il y a beaucoup de physique dans le jeu

 

cool, but do we have access to it as a simple player? how to access it? it would even help to understand our error / success ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
352ndOscar
53 minutes ago, LachenKrieg said:

But IMO, its not an all or nothing effect. Some things are modeled here, but some things need to be updated/changed. one of the problems that a lot of game developers have to face is the actual flow of game play. This is just a theory/example, lets say that most online players here want to drive axis vehicles. That would create a problem for game play. So one solution to that would be to juice some of the allied vehicles up to make them more appealing. Not saying that is the case here, but it is definitely an issue with online gaming. But good post


So, which is it?  IS IL2:GB a “game” or a “simulation”?

 

Advertising by 1C/777 Limited suggests IL2:GB is “The new generation of IL-2 Sturmovik titles is developed by 1CGS and is a combat flight simulator of the World War II era and carries on the tradition created by the original IL-2 Sturmovik first released in 2001. 

 

I don’t have an answer for this……

Link to post
Share on other sites
LachenKrieg
2 hours ago, moustache said:

 

cool, but do we have access to it as a simple player? how to access it? it would even help to understand our error / success ...

The physics model in Tank Crew is pretty decent in my opinion. Like when you drive around in a PzIII for example, it is different then when you drive around in a Tiger. You can tell that the Tiger is a much heavier machine. And for gun/armor performance, I am certain that we have a very decent model, but for what ever reason, they have decided to give the Sherman stronger armor then it actually has when it goes up against the PzIV gun. The physical properties of each vehicle can be change in any way then want. They can buff or nurff any tank in any way. I don't know if this answers your question, but as users there is nothing for us to really do except enjoy the SIM.

 

Le modèle physique dans Tank Crew est assez décent à mon avis. Comme lorsque vous conduisez dans un PzIII par exemple, c'est différent lorsque vous conduisez dans un Tiger. Vous pouvez dire que le Tiger est une machine beaucoup plus lourde. Et pour les performances des armes à feu/armures, je suis certain que nous avons un modèle très décent, mais pour une raison quelconque, ils ont décidé de donner au Sherman une armure plus forte qu'il ne l'a réellement lorsqu'il affronte le canon PzIV. Les propriétés physiques de chaque véhicule peuvent être modifiées comme bon vous semble. Ils peuvent buff ou nurff n'importe quel tank de quelque manière que ce soit. Je ne sais pas si cela répond à votre question, mais en tant qu'utilisateurs, nous n'avons vraiment rien à faire en profitant de la SIM.

 

 

1 hour ago, 352ndOscar said:


So, which is it?  IS IL2:GB a “game” or a “simulation”?

 

Advertising by 1C/777 Limited suggests IL2:GB is “The new generation of IL-2 Sturmovik titles is developed by 1CGS and is a combat flight simulator of the World War II era and carries on the tradition created by the original IL-2 Sturmovik first released in 2001. 

 

I don’t have an answer for this……

IL2 is definitely a SIM. But when we talk about MP online stuff, I often refer to game play, because that is essentially what we are using the SIM for. You can always tweak/modify the flight model for example, but if I correctly understand a lot of the forum threads I have read here, the aim was to try and duplicate the actual flight model of the air craft in question. There is a lot of energy that goes into this part of the SIM as I understand, like interviewing actual WWII pilots and performing real world flights with surviving air craft. Otherwise, they have to pull a lot of theoretical data that exists for the different air frames/engines.

Edited by LachenKrieg
Link to post
Share on other sites
moustache
2 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

The physics model in Tank Crew is pretty decent in my opinion. Like when you drive around in a PzIII for example, it is different then when you drive around in a Tiger. You can tell that the Tiger is a much heavier machine. And for gun/armor performance, I am certain that we have a very decent model, but for what ever reason, they have decided to give the Sherman stronger armor then it actually has when it goes up against the PzIV gun. The physical properties of each vehicle can be change in any way then want. They can buff or nurff any tank in any way. I don't know if this answers your question, but as users there is nothing for us to really do except enjoy the SIM.

 

not really ... what I would like is to have access to the replay after the match to observe the penetration, the dispersal of shells in the armored vehicle, ricochets and damage on the enemies and my tank? it seems possible in multi, but is it possible in solo?

Link to post
Share on other sites
LachenKrieg
9 minutes ago, moustache said:

 

not really ... what I would like is to have access to the replay after the match to observe the penetration, the dispersal of shells in the armored vehicle, ricochets and damage on the enemies and my tank? it seems possible in multi, but is it possible in solo?

The would have to add this feature. For the moment, as you know all we have is the video replay/record function that allows us to view the shell in flight. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
moustache

these last days while hanging out on the forum, I had come across this:

 

 

Quote

Black-Witch

  • Member
  • Black-Witch
  • bos_bronze_en.png
  • bom_bronze_en.png
  • bok_gold_en.png
  • bobp_gold_en.png
  • fc1_gold_en.png
  • tccap_green_en.png
  • bon_gold_en.png
  •  128
  • 270 posts
  • Location:in the Bar usually :)

Brief description:

Tempest wing breaks at 5 G.


Detailed description, conditions:

The wing doesn't break if you just pull up at 5G. But it will break, of course, if you pull up at over 10G but, that's to be expected. It's breaking at 5G which is incorrect.

 

The wing breaks at 5G if the Tempest is "porpoising", like you do when chasing a 109 that is pushing and pulling on its elevators.


Additional assets (videos, screenshots, logs):

From an offline mission: you need to be above 360 mph/ 580kmh for it to break, otherwise you do no damage just black-out. You can see I've done a shallow dive and pushing forward and back on the stick, UP to 5G. when the wing breaks the pilot isn't blacked-out, he isn't even breathing heavy.

 

Image1.jpg

Image2.jpg

Image3.jpg

Image4.jpg

Image5.jpg

Image6.jpg

Image7.jpg

Image8.jpg

Image9.jpg


Your PC config data (OS, drivers, specific software):

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700K CPU @ 4.60 GHz

RAM 32 GB

Windows 10 Home 2004 64-bit OS

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080TI

Valve Index VR HMD

 

 

 

Edited August 18, 2020 by Black-Witch

 

the interesting post is "black-witch", at the end of the page. where do these images come from?

 

hello @Noir-Sorcière, can you tell me how you got these pictures? it comes from the damage model of the game?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is LukeFF to put us all in our place .

Clearly there is nothing wrong with the Sherman . 🤭

LukeFF says so . 

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...