Sherman V vs Kingtiger

[Strat_84]

Ok, I see what your problem is General_Henry. To me that's not one. Your blue line will be stopped when it shouldn't, that's true. But as the "wall" is supposed to be very low, that would happen only if you shoot exactly at the borders of the top of the tank.
That's a slight colateral damage much more acceptable than the original problem, I think. 

Also, I saw the videos, and it shows that he wasn't very far from his targets to manage such hits, OR the two tanks weren't on the same level.
When I said it has to be discussed, I meant there are obvious cases that need to be fixed, and maybe some others that might be left as it is.

[kingtiger1891]

To Strat:If the shell hitting the top armor is not strictly horizontal,so as the one hitting other places(for example ,the front sloped armor),hence the top armor should be considered as 192mm.When we discuss if the angle between the shell and armor is 12° or 25°,there're tons of other works you need to do,cause every shoot is in different angle,but I just don't think the BF2 enigine support this kind of realtime damage compute.

I said it before ,and I want to say it again,that in BF2 every shoot would be considered as vertical shoot,no matter it's actually 1° or 90°,that's why the devs need to compromise when they set those armor parameters,and that's also the thing I want to told those who are complaining why the panther side armor is so thick.

To THeTao:When you get killed in churchill,you don't know if it's a pzg40,when you kill a churchill,you don't know if your enemy is completly "healthy".

But I did test the churchill's top armor on local,and I'm sure that it's top sloped armor doesn't have this kind of problem,it's thick enough to survive a pak40 or 88 shell,while even a KT couldn't

[kingtiger1891]

Hey, plz look at the matilda video,a panzer III was instantly killed with one shot of 2prd!And I think the distance is long enough.

I didn't record a long distance KT instant kill because most of the time I'm driving the KT ,but it's not hard,it's easier than the matilda one.

[Strat_84]

To Strat:If the shell hitting the top armor is not strictly horizontal,so as the one hitting other places(for example ,the front sloped armor),hence the top armor should be considered as 192mm.

Now imagine that your point is followed strictly, and the slopped part of the turret top is set at 192mm.

And someone makes a map in the Ardennes, with hills and slopes. There's a Kingtiger on the map, a sherman manages to get above the KT and shoot that part, it should hit but it doesn't.
The next complain would be (and it would be rightful !) German Biased.

So there is a problem yes, but solutions have to be smart and not worse than the original problem. That's the goal of my suggestion.  

[kingtiger1891]

To Strat:If the shell hitting the top armor is not strictly horizontal,so as the one hitting other places(for example ,the front sloped armor),hence the top armor should be considered as 192mm.

Now imagine that your point is followed strictly, and the slopped part of the turret top is set at 192mm.

And someone makes a map in the Ardennes, with hills and slopes. There's a Kingtiger on the map, a sherman manages to get above the KT and shoot that part, it should hit but it doesn't.
The next complain would be (and it would be rightful !) German Biased.

So there is a problem yes, but solutions have to be smart and not worse than the original problem. That's the goal of my suggestion.  

Now it already happened on the panther,I don't think a panther survive a 90° side shoot of Sherman/Cromwell,but in most cases it's not 90° but 20° or 30°.

For the KT matters,what a lucky Sherman if it can shoot at KT's top armor at more than 40°,it just rarely happen,moreover,it still can shoot KT's engine deck if it gets into such a situation.

But now everybody can shoot at some of these tank's top at near zero angle,this happen far more often than a Sherman shooting from the hill.

Actually if I'm told that my enemy would be a firefly,I prefer to drive a tiger rather than KT,because tiger's front can definitely survive one shoot and a KT may not because of that.

To be fair though,in current version the tiger/KT's top armor is not 40mm,because if it is,Sherman can kill them with one shoot,it's obvious that they need to shoot it twice in V2.2.So if the "wall" is built and all near zero angle shot is avoided,the top armor can be set to be thinner.If there's such a lucky sherman,one shot a KT would be its prize

[General_Henry]

Ok, I see what your problem is General_Henry. To me that's not one. Your blue line will be stopped when it shouldn't, that's true. But as the "wall" is supposed to be very low, that would happen only if you shoot exactly at the borders of the top of the tank.
That's a slight colateral damage much more acceptable than the original problem, I think.  

ok, the factor seemed to be quite small, problem is how sloped the armour is IF the shell comes completely horizontal

I don't know the sloped angles of those tanks so I tell if your solution is better or not, though I still think slightly sloped wall is better as I made my analysis based on simple and probably unrealistic cases

i.e. you'd expect H to be higher than in ideal case for more "realism", thus P/K would be higher, and makes it very German biased

[Strat_84]

Mmmhhhhh, looks like it's not that good if the top is sloped. Or maybe not.

The question is: how does the shell trajectory work ? Is it a "line" trajectory or a "cylinder" trajectory as the effects in game let believe ? I mean, is a hit scored according to the center of the shell's trajectory, or by the encounter of any object in a radius around the center of the trajectory ?


Developer requested (if anyone cares, if not no need to keep brainstorming)

[THeTA0123]

Sherman easly owns Kingtigers, we all know that 

[Slayer]

You guys managed to turn my favourite game into a scheme of mathematics, gargl.

[Gunnie]

It's okay Slayer.. We can't do any of these mathematical ideas anyway. There are way too many variables and calculations that are involved.  I also like to keep the projectile collision mesh simple. (FYI Guys.. The projectile collision meshes of the tanks are not just simple boxes. It is a little more detailed.)

We also do try and make things as realistic as we can, but still have to compromise for gameplay reasons. We cannot always build into the equation angled thickness. While still keeping the collision meshes somewhat simplified. Remember the more complex the collision meshes get. The more calculations the game engine has to do. The more calculations that are done by the cpu. The higher the requirements are for good gameplay. Eventually, at some point. The engine bogs down and game play suffers.

The little angled pieces that some suggest should be added would perhaps stop certain shots, but in the same sentence, you've now increased the overall physical size of the projectile mesh of the target. Where a shot might have passed over the hull of the tank on a different angled shot is now caught by this new little angled piece that was added to stop the other shot.  Now we have bullet impacts occurring in "thin air" above the actual "physical" mesh of the tank. Not very realistic in my view. All we do is trade off one set of problems for an entirely different set of problems.

Currently the materials are such that projectile A strikes surface B and X damage is dealt to the target.  Conversly, if surface B has thickness C or material F, projectile may bounce or explode and do nothing.  If you are above the tank and shoot downards on the tank. You are hitting a lesser thickness material.

If you shoot the side of the turret or rear of the turret.. Like true to life tanks. You are shooting a thinner material.  For simplicity and game play. Armor values were assigned to the most average thickness for a given area. It was not setup so that each peice of armor would be X thickness or have X value, as we can't really compensate for sloped or angle of degree in the armor.

Therefore, some stuff will be realistic and some will not be so realistic. Also, this is an internet based game. Two people could have tanks in identical places and shoot the exact same target in the exact same place and get two different results. Just because one person shoots tank X in the center of the hull and gets a one shot kill. Does not mean that the next person doing the exact same thing will also get a one shot one kill.

The game is a complex thing.  What one may experience, another may end up with a different experience. All we can hope for in the end is an averaging of it all.

[General_Henry]

It's okay Slayer.. We can't do any of these mathematical ideas anyway. There are way too many variables and calculations that are involved.  I also like to keep the projectile collision mesh simple. (FYI Guys.. The projectile collision meshes of the tanks are not just simple boxes. It is a little more detailed.)

We also do try and make things as realistic as we can, but still have to compromise for gameplay reasons. We cannot always build into the equation angled thickness. While still keeping the collision meshes somewhat simplified. Remember the more complex the collision meshes get. The more calculations the game engine has to do. The more calculations that are done by the cpu. The higher the requirements are for good gameplay. Eventually, at some point. The engine bogs down and game play suffers.

The little angled pieces that some suggest should be added would perhaps stop certain shots, but in the same sentence, you've now increased the overall physical size of the projectile mesh of the target. Where a shot might have passed over the hull of the tank on a different angled shot is now caught by this new little angled piece that was added to stop the other shot.  Now we have bullet impacts occurring in "thin air" above the actual "physical" mesh of the tank. Not very realistic in my view. All we do is trade off one set of problems for an entirely different set of problems.

Currently the materials are such that projectile A strikes surface B and X damage is dealt to the target.  Conversly, if surface B has thickness C or material F, projectile may bounce or explode and do nothing.  If you are above the tank and shoot downards on the tank. You are hitting a lesser thickness material.

If you shoot the side of the turret or rear of the turret.. Like true to life tanks. You are shooting a thinner material.  For simplicity and game play. Armor values were assigned to the most average thickness for a given area. It was not setup so that each peice of armor would be X thickness or have X value, as we can't really compensate for sloped or angle of degree in the armor.

Therefore, some stuff will be realistic and some will not be so realistic. Also, this is an internet based game. Two people could have tanks in identical places and shoot the exact same target in the exact same place and get two different results. Just because one person shoots tank X in the center of the hull and gets a one shot kill. Does not mean that the next person doing the exact same thing will also get a one shot one kill.

The game is a complex thing.  What one may experience, another may end up with a different experience. All we can hope for in the end is an averaging of it all.

I mostly agree with you then, though I never think shooting thin-air thing would ever happen if correcly implemented(unless there are lags, yeah, this is internet)

[Gunnie]

Henry,

I don't think you understand the actual "construction" of the game engine and how the collision meshes work.  There are three basic collision meshes within BF2. Projectile, Object and Soldier. I am sure that you do know that the collision mesh on items that stop projectiles have to approximate the physical mesh that you see. This is so that bullet impacts and impact effects show and appear appropriate.

If you have a little "fence" or "wall" on the col0 (projectile mesh) sticking up all around the edges of the hull and turret of the tank designed to deflect shots at x angle or are designed to deflect an angled shot from "above". You have then then think about  any angled shots that are fired from "below".  As this little "fence" or "wall" will stick up and be visible to the projectile.  

What you are not remembering, is that the col's are invisble and the effects are played upon this "invisible" mesh. Therefore, if you were to walk up to the tank with your rifle, pistol or any weapon and shoot "above" the edge of the "Physical" mesh (The actual tank hull that you can see.)  The sparks, bullet impact, etc. is going to register upon this fence or wall. Hence, in "thin air".  

Now you say this would not happen if properly implemented. I think this would happen no matter how it is implemented, as this fence or wall is going to protrude into the space above the surface of the physical mesh. Therefore, there is no other way to prevent effects from playing out upon this mesh or this mesh from catching things shot at it from an angle below.

It's a nice concept, but not for this game engine. Believe me.. As someone who has coded and exported well over 100 vehicles into BF2. I am pretty sure about what you can and cannot get away with and this is something that is just not going to be practical. I am not saying it could not be done, but the practicality of it does not offer any benefit to making it worth implementing.  I fear it would cause more issues than solve.

[General_Henry]

Henry,

I don't think you understand the actual "construction" of the game engine and how the collision meshes work.  There are three basic collision meshes within BF2. Projectile, Object and Soldier. I am sure that you do know that the collision mesh on items that stop projectiles have to approximate the physical mesh that you see. This is so that bullet impacts and impact effects show and appear appropriate.

If you have a little "fence" or "wall" on the col0 (projectile mesh) sticking up all around the edges of the hull and turret of the tank designed to deflect shots at x angle or are designed to deflect an angled shot from "above". You have then then think about  any angled shots that are fired from "below".  As this little "fence" or "wall" will stick up and be visible to the projectile.  

What you are not remembering, is that the col's are invisble and the effects are played upon this "invisible" mesh. Therefore, if you were to walk up to the tank with your rifle, pistol or any weapon and shoot "above" the edge of the "Physical" mesh (The actual tank hull that you can see.)  The sparks, bullet impact, etc. is going to register upon this fence or wall. Hence, in "thin air".  

Now you say this would not happen if properly implemented. I think this would happen no matter how it is implemented, as this fence or wall is going to protrude into the space above the surface of the physical mesh. Therefore, there is no other way to prevent effects from playing out upon this mesh or this mesh from catching things shot at it from an angle below.

It's a nice concept, but not for this game engine. Believe me.. As someone who has coded and exported well over 100 vehicles into BF2. I am pretty sure about what you can and cannot get away with and this is something that is just not going to be practical. I am not saying it could not be done, but the practicality of it does not offer any benefit to making it worth implementing.  I fear it would cause more issues than solve.

ouch I only considered tank fire, oops. my fault.

[Strat_84]

Just a question, as different weapons have different effects when they hit an object (penetrate and deal X or Y damage, bounce etc ...), isn't it possible to build those "walls" with a material that only stops AP shells, and nothing else ? This way it would have the right fixing effect, without creating other noticeable problems.

I think that is possible, as there are static steel plates you can shoot through with an MG ingame, but stop any other gun projectile.  

[General_Henry]

Just a question, as different weapons have different effects when they hit an object (penetrate and deal X or Y damage, bounce etc ...), isn't it possible to build those "walls" with a material that only stops AP shells, and nothing else ? This way it would have the right fixing effect, without creating other noticeable problems.

I think that is possible, as there are static steel plates you can shoot through with an MG ingame, but stop any other gun projectile.  

well, you know, the word "static"...