Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Strat_84

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 25
A little bump for people still using those awesome sound cards (with worse than pathetic drivers). 1rst post updated.

I exhumated an X-Fi Titanium (PCI-e) from its box and performed some tests. In short, all drivers starting from 2.17.0008 are junk and may cause BSODs with EAX 5.0 enabled in BF2. Version 2.17.0008C which was supposed to fix this doesn't work. Neither does any newer driver.

Fortunately there is one driver that seems to work properly, version 2.17.0007. The very first driver provided on the CD with the card also seems to work without BSOD but it has other flaws like issues with the microphone input.

I hope this will be useful.  ;)

Gaming / Re: Recommendations and sales
« on: 17-03-2014, 19:03:52 »
Have you ever played Panzer General ? Panzer Corps is very similar. You can call it an updated version.  ;)

Gaming / Re: Total War games
« on: 12-09-2013, 09:09:57 »
Reloading saves doesn't disrupt the ai, don't know where you pulled that out of. Ai acts normally when you reload. It'll still do the same things as that's what the ai was going to decide to do in the first place...

I don't know if it's still true for Shogun 2 (never dared to play it actually), but in previous Total Wars that indeed happened, reloading disrupted the AI.
It's like the saves don't keep track of the "plan" the AI is following at this moment, so for example if an army is moving for a likely successful attack, or currently besieging a settlement, it may simply leave and go somewhere else if you reload a save.  ;)

Gaming / Re: Total War games
« on: 10-09-2013, 13:09:24 »
I gave it a try with Athens, just for the sake of laughing. Speeds of the units modded for the game to be at least playable.
I did a few naval battles, the ships are hoovering above the sea, no resistance from the water, no inertia, it's like they had diesels and antigrav engines. On the top of that my navy can get stuffed by a few transports, no matter what you do. My ramming doesn't do anything, theirs sinks a ship when barely touching it.
The flag system in regular battles is simply ridiculous. Why the hell would a smart man defend a grass plain in the open when there are hills and some forest 300m away ?
Let's not talk about the ton of magical unit abilities, it makes me sick.
Then there's the AI. When I finally declared war on Macedon, I could actually crush its starving capital. There was an army around, it RAN AWAY instead of defending. And the assault was a real joke, the AI doesn't even use the phalanx formation with phalanx pikemen ...
Sparta (his ally) was definitively a threat. About 50 units, they could have done a lot of damage while I was busy with Macedon. These armies just kept derping around Sparta ...
And then a Celt nation decided to declare me war. I thought "Oh nice, a 5-towns fat one, at least maybe a challenge, combined with Sparta and Macedon" ... And the game crashed.  ;D

Not worth a cent, I'm glad I didn't buy this.

my panzer is already warming up.

Good, that will save some US fuel when we melt it completely !  :D

General Discussion / Re: Development progress?
« on: 19-08-2013, 12:08:26 »

Just choose from one of the two answers: Does their so called "actual way of AP", blue curve, bend up or down? Up or down?

And again this is not what I tell you, it's what you should have seen in the pic by yourself.

It bends up WHEN the DOWN SIDE of the shell is in contact with STEEL (important forces) while most of the UP SIDE of the shell sustains only the resistance of the AIR (almost nothing).

If the shell penetrates, the DOWN SIDE of the shell will finally get OUT OF THE STEEL, while the UP SIDE of the shell will still face FULL STEEL RESISTANCE, thus reversing the balance of the forces you have at the entry point. The shell will tend to turn DOWNWARDS.
Follow with your finger when reading please.

And BTW, I asked you to look at the forces and momentums on that drawing, not the "trajectories". They both give an idea of what happens at the entry point but they are more or less false regarding the actual travel of a round inside the armor.

General Discussion / Re: Development progress?
« on: 18-08-2013, 17:08:57 »
The curve should bend to the opposite side if that's the case.
So you absolutely want to be right but you don't have a clue about the way things work right ?
First you claim a shell would magically turn on impact to be more effective against slopped armor, now you tell me that if it doesn't it should turn toward the steel plate on exit ?

Ever tried to pull your finger through some air ? You can easily.
Then try pulling it through some steel ...

Now have a look at the drawing published on the website Lightning linked, have a look on how the forces influence the trajectory of the round (red arrows) and extrapolate for the exit point of a shell that penetrated. If you still can't understand, I'm afraid nobody can help you.

General Discussion / Re: Development progress?
« on: 18-08-2013, 16:08:36 »
Why are Shermans coded like this, with different front armours and different hitpoints? No idea. Probably for the same reason the panzerfaust 30 has a different penetration from the 60 and 100.

The hitpoints are more or less consistent. There could be some refinement about the armor thicknesses but it's more or less the proper value.
Except the Jumbo is underated, it deserves a 140 or 150mm.  >:(  :P

General Discussion / Re: Development progress?
« on: 18-08-2013, 15:08:05 »
A "skilled physicist" who first time heard (I'm not saying agree) this theory? Hmm...
What do you think, that people have to get informed about every single bizarre theory that anyone may produce in the world ?
It's the same as if you were saying I, as an Energy specialist, had to know every single detail about the shitload of different "perpetual movement" machineries that generations of scammers kept popping out for more than two centuries.

And in case you believed it, no you can't generate energy with any device of that kind.  ;)

And he uses quote marks ... He's not meaning "your" normalization, he's meaning an effect that would make penetration easier with negative values, and harder with positive value. Did you read the bloody chart ?  :-X
Ok, so a higher value of normalization means harder to penetrate, right?
Right, if you use the "normalization" term as in the article.

“normalization” gets higher values with a greater shell diameter (that means more mass per mm²).
Greater shell diameter makes it harder to penetrate.

In other words: Small calibers are worse against sloped armor.
Small calibres are even harder.........
Right, but said a misleading way.

The proper formulation is:
The slope of the armor makes penetration even harder than simply comparing the penetration power of a shell to the apparent armor thickness ( armor thickness/sin(angle) ).
This additionnal effect exists for every AP type of shell, and decreases with caliber increase.

And again, as I told you previously if you read what I wrote, you don't need much observation sense to see that your picture doesn't prove anything.
I don't prove it, what happens is happened and is clearly shown on the photo. I brought up shell normalization because that's a one theory to explain this phenomenon. You have your own explaination to it on the other thread, fine, but does it make a difference? Isn't the armor plate of the vehicles have the same shape of cross section as the plate in the photo I post? It would make a difference if it's a triangular cross section.
It's not that I have my explanation, it's only that there is NOTHING on your bloody picture related to that normalisation theory. You're bringing a theory when there's NO phenomenon to explain !

The lower part of the entry point on right is STRAIGHT, which can't be if a shell turned like shown in your animation.

So what do you want to explain with this ? The slight curve at the exit point on left ? The basic balance of forces easily explains this, you don't need any other theory. And anyway it's the bloody EXIT point, who cares about the way the round exits, your point is all about it should penetrate with a turning round !

General Discussion / Re: Development progress?
« on: 18-08-2013, 13:08:57 »
Maybe the projectile of the panzerfaust 30 isn't as big as the others ? Or that's a panzerfaust 30 klein we have ingame (even though the model doesn't look like the picture I've found) ?

I know the panzerfaust 30 klein has a lower caliber, but the informations I could find with a quick research about panzerfaust 30 are rather confusing and contradictory.

General Discussion / Re: Development progress?
« on: 18-08-2013, 11:08:55 »
First I don't agree with that article, normalization is not an effect imagined by WoT devs, it's broadly accepted and proved by actual test(like the 120mm penetration pic I posted).

That's the first time I've ever heard about this theory. Calling it broadly accepted and proven when it goes against all the laws of physics is definitively a bit presumptuous.
And again, as I told you previously if you read what I wrote, you don't need much observation sense to see that your picture doesn't prove anything.

Second, the article itself had been contradicting in using the term normalization:

“normalization” gets higher values with a greater shell diameter (that means more mass per mm²). In other words: Small calibers are worse against sloped armor.

If "nomalization higher" here means increasing the target armor, then the first sentence means larger calibre and more mass per mm² helps increasing armor? Even if so, why the second sentence says small calibres are worse?
And he uses quote marks ... He's not meaning "your" normalization, he's meaning an effect that would make penetration easier with negative values, and harder with positive value. Did you read the bloody chart ?  :-X

Third, we are talking about obivious case that shell should penetrate despite angle, like tank AP hitting an APC. The force per space a tank shell apply to 10mm of APC armor is way beyond its resistence, even it's shot from 10 degree.

Things are not just simple trigonometric, if it is, did you ever see a paper bounce off bullet?
This smoky theory may seem obvious to you, but for any skilled physicist it is obviously plain bullshit. And it's a bit more complicated than just trigonometry.
If you ever have the possibility, try with a rigid steel sheet as thin as paper. Or maybe you would like to claim normalization proven if you manage to penetrate a 120mm thick paper plate ?  ;D

General Discussion / Re: Development progress?
« on: 17-08-2013, 08:08:38 »

As it shows the shell is turning into the armor.

Absolutely not.  ;)

If the round had turned like your animation shows, there wouldn't be a perfect straight cut in the lower part of the "penetration tunnel" from the entry point.
The upper part of the entry point in bent because in the first centimeters of travel, the armor left  above was very thin, the friction with the shell was propably enough to soften the metal, and the velocity force of the shell did the rest.

Talking about the exit point yes, the shell turned, but simply because it didn't encounter any resistance below, while there was still something to go through above.

Something that would also be interesting to know is what kind of shell did this hole.  :)


“normalization” gets higher values with a greater shell diameter (that means more mass per mm²). In other words: Small calibers are worse against sloped armor.

That means angle has less effect on the penetration of large calibre shells(large compare to the thickness of plate it penetrates). That's why a 75mm or 88mm AP should penetrate an APC even it's hit on 10 degree.

You didn't understand the article I think. Yes, he says that larger calibers are more effective than smaller ones, but NOT that the deflection effect doesn't exist with bigger shells.

In other words, there's an actual effect INCREASING the armor effectiveness with sharp slopes whatever the caliber (a positive one, the OPPOSITE of your normalization theory), BUT this effect decreases with shell size.

General Discussion / Re: Development progress?
« on: 16-08-2013, 15:08:04 »
Strat84, I do understand your point and have been to Munster and other places that exhibit tank shells.
The question is, what will a tank shell, with that energy (50m) at that angle do)

a) at the spot of impact (deform the metal, maybe get stuck and deflected downwards by any protruding objects)?
b) where will it bounce to? (I suppose directly into the driver's compartment, killing the people inside if they are not very lucky)

That's a good question. In your example, yes there's a quite high probability the shell would be deflected into the driver's armored shutter, and it probably would penetrate it. Or the trajectory might be messed up by the bounce and the shell deflected a 2nd time by the shutter with some luck, that's hard to know.

But shooting the top of the engine of a halftrack while being right in front of it is a worst case scenario. That's one of the very few situations where the game engine doesn't allow to model exactly what would happen in real life, but that's the best tradeoff we can have.

General Discussion / Re: Development progress?
« on: 16-08-2013, 10:08:28 »
But a 75mm solid armor piercing round should at least penetrate that 10mm no matter how sloped it is.

That's elementary mechanics, the shell will bounce with very low angles, even if it's only a 10mm thick plate.

If you have ever seen a picture of a tank shell, you should understand the shape of the shell makes any penetration at angles below 10° (maybe even a bit more) VERY unlikely.
Only an insignificant proportion of the shell's velocity force would be applied on the side of the sharp end of that shell when it hits, and it can only slide on that surface, not penetrate it.

General Discussion / Re: Development progress?
« on: 06-08-2013, 19:08:16 »
Shut up you ungrateful piece of shit.

Cool. It's funny that when you criticize here something, you usually are attacked by dev's ass-licking fanboys (usually Betatesters and Moderators) with response like above... ^^

Pity that theres no contact with developers on this forum. I haven't seen any explanations from dev side why the last release is so buggged and when it will be fixed...  ::)

You should consider yourself lucky that people work on this mod because they love the game. If it were only to please people with such a rude attitude, they would have given up a long time ago.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 25