What happened to the sherman?????

[Lusche]

I did many years on tanks in the Army. (22 of them) Even on a M1A2 you didn't take 4000 yds shots..... why? You can't ID targets at that range. Can't tell if it's a tank, tree, school bus or a house that far out.

Hmm.. do I understand you right that, among other things, our tank optics are kinda "too good" ?

[Belial]

Then why dont you test it and prove it? I mean, that's why I published my method - I have absolutely no prblem with being disproved. Unlike BP, my ego isn't that much involved

How exactly do I get films from the old version?  I know for a fact as I have killed sooooooooo many gv's in my time playing when i put my pipper on the tank nowadays its WAY off.

[Lusche]

How exactly do I get films from the old version?  I know for a fact as I have killed sooooooooo many gv's in my time playing when i put my pipper on the tank nowadays its WAY off.

I have both versions installed & running .. no, I have three, I have an old AH I version too

And a dumb question... do you use default head position?

[PFactorDave]

Hmm.. do I understand you right that, among other things, our tank optics are kinda "too good" ?

There's an opinion I can get behind...  For me, the biggest reason NOT to GV is the unrealistic long range accuracy that we have in game...  Fuzz up the optics at long range, sounds more realistic to me.

[E25280]

Different method of testing -- different results.

Offline mode, .target 400.

Using the target reticle (that is what it is there for, correct?), placing crosshair of the "4" mark at the center of the target.  Fire.  Shell hits almost exactly at that 400 level, albeit a bit to the left of my actual aimpoint.  Just to be sure, I line up the center horizontal line on the dot that indicates where I hit, also level with the "4" mark, and fire again.  Second dot, slightly to the left of the first, but dead even in terms of height -- right where I would expect it.

This is what I didn't expect.  I took a Panzer out.  Same target distance.  Lined up the 4 mark on the Sherman's dot . . . And the Panzer's shell hit above the Sherman's.  

Repeat with T-34 and Tiger, same results.  

Not sure that means the gun is "nerfed", but it does seem to indicate the aiming "hashmarks" are different on the tanks, which I would not expect.

I should probably repeat it at different distances.

[Belial]

I judge range based on the size of the gv in the screen I have done this so many times I know exactly where to shoot its called experience.  If I say its totally different why cant you believe me?

[Lusche]

Hmm to make sure it's not in the sight I only used the center of the gunsight.

[BillyD]

                 I remember the good old days too Bip,  Took this screen shot the other day, man HTC really has nerfed the Sherman.
       




Hitech was opting for fuel effiency vs accuracy of fire when he had  Waffle model this baby

[PFactorDave]

                 I remember the good old days too Bip,  Took this screen shot the other day, man HTC really has nerfed the Sherman.
       
(Image removed from quote.)



Hitech was opting for fuel effiency vs accuracy of fire when had Waffle model this baby

LoL!  My first car was a Red 1980 VW Rabbit...  Mine didn't have the turret and monster truck wheels, like your illustration, though...

[Belial]

OK if its not the sherman gun then all of the gv aiming crosshairs have been moved, all i'm saying is its NOT the same.

[Lusche]

I judge range based on the size of the gv in the screen I have done this so many times I know exactly where to shoot its called experience.  If I say its totally different why cant you believe me?

Because it's not about "believing". If you want, It's it the scientific way.  People (including me) are seeing every kind of things. Some guys are credible, others none, some are right, some are wrong.

So everytime theres a question like this, I try to devise a method that's as objective as possible, not based in hearsay, opinions, feelings. And I do explain my approach, so I can be proved or disproved, because a single tester can err. I do this not to "win" - In that case I would act like BP.

If I'm right. Fine, i'm happy. If not (and that does happen), I learned something again. If someone now comes here and points out any flaws in my method, or get'S different results - fine! Thank you.

And by the  way... I have experience too.

[BillyD]

LoL!  My first car was a Red 1980 VW Rabbit...  Mine didn't have the turret and monster truck wheels, like your illustration, though...

dude that's a YUGO bro. Bow before it.

[PFactorDave]

Because it's not about "believing". If you want, It's it the scientific way.  People are seeing avary kind of things. Some guys are credible, others none, some are right, some are wrong.

So everytime theres a question like this, I try to devise a method that's as objective as possible, not based in hearsay, opinions, feelings. And I do explain my approach, so I can be proved or disproved, because a single tester can err. I do this not to "win" - In that case I would act like BP.

If I'm right. Fine, i'm happy. If not (and that does happen), I learned something again. If someone now comes here and points out any flaws in my method, or get'S different results - fine! Thank you.

And by the  way... I have experience too.

I   the Snailman...  Even if he turns out to be wrong in the end, at least logic seems to be his method...  Not Magical Mystery Walrus Mojo...  Everyone knows that Magical Mystery Walrus Mojo will give you odd results anyway....  Right?

[PFactorDave]

dude that's a YUGO bro. Bow before it.

LoL, that doesn't really surprise me...  The VW Rabbit and the Yugo looked a lot alike...  Of course the Yugo was actually a recreation of a "fine" (ahem) Italian motor car...  (Not Ferrari, FIAT...  LoL)

[E25280]

Different method of testing -- different results.

Offline mode, .target 400.

Using the target reticle (that is what it is there for, correct?), placing crosshair of the "4" mark at the center of the target.  Fire.  Shell hits almost exactly at that 400 level, albeit a bit to the left of my actual aimpoint.  Just to be sure, I line up the center horizontal line on the dot that indicates where I hit, also level with the "4" mark, and fire again.  Second dot, slightly to the left of the first, but dead even in terms of height -- right where I would expect it.

This is what I didn't expect.  I took a Panzer out.  Same target distance.  Lined up the 4 mark on the Sherman's dot . . . And the Panzer's shell hit above the Sherman's.  

Repeat with T-34 and Tiger, same results.  

Not sure that means the gun is "nerfed", but it does seem to indicate the aiming "hashmarks" are different on the tanks, which I would not expect.

I should probably repeat it at different distances.

Repeated at .target 800.  Went from field 15 in offline mode, spawned north (so I ended up on a slight slope so the center of the target was not obscured by the ground).

Again, the Firefly seems to be hitting the center when the hashmark is on 8 -- as you would expect.  All other tanks hit the target above.  They are hitting the center of the target when using the 4 to aim my distance instead of the 8.

If you are used to aiming based on the distance marks, the Firefly's certainly seem to be calibrated differently -- which would explain the cries of "nerfed gun" as all of your shots would appear to land shorter than expected.