Firefly

[dirt911]

Or let me re-write that,the Tiger was fixed and the Firefly had a bug with its shells.Now that both of the isues are fixed the perk price wont effect anything,as long as there are diehard Firefly drivers in AH the perk price means nothing.

[RTHolmes]

I must have missed something - what was fixed on the Tiger and what was the bug with Firefly shells?

[Nemisis]

The only bug was that the M4A3 was had extra armor on th gun mantel (the area around the barrel of the gun), and that shell hits at angles greater than 70 degrees (hitting 70 degrees off of perpendicular to the armor) were being truncated at 70 degrees.

[dirt911]

The only bug was that the M4A3 was had extra armor on th gun mantel (the area around the barrel of the gun), and that shell hits at angles greater than 70 degrees (hitting 70 degrees off of perpendicular to the armor) were being truncated at 70 degrees.

Oh i thought they fixed the Fireflys shells.They hit there target but act like rubber.

[Nemisis]

The Firefly's gun shouldn't be causing tiger to blow up at 2000 yds, if thats what you mean. Up close, and on the other tanks, its still very effective.

[dirt911]

All I know is that the Tiger's gun was effective up to 1,600 meters,I have no clue what the effective ranges are on a tiger for the QF17lbr.

[321BAR]

I must have missed something - what was fixed on the Tiger and what was the bug with Firefly shells?

the problem with the tiger was the damage model angle of shell impact. if shot in the the turret by any of the shermans it would show it hitting the top instead of the side. so instead of a 75mm round hitting 100mm of armor it was technically hitting 20mm. so basically if the sherman hit at 70 degrees from the vertical (on the side of the turret) it would turret the tiger.

[RTHolmes]

ok, pretty sure that was for all gv rounds, not just the firefly/tiger example, but I see where dirt got it from.

[Pyro]

the problem with the tiger was the damage model angle of shell impact. if shot in the the turret by any of the shermans it would show it hitting the top instead of the side. so instead of a 75mm round hitting 100mm of armor it was technically hitting 20mm. so basically if the sherman hit at 70 degrees from the vertical (on the side of the turret) it would turret the tiger.

Your first sentence is partially correct but the rest of your post is completely wrong.  The problem was simply that hit angles were being truncated to 70 degrees.   Hits below 70 degrees work as expected, hits above 70 degrees were treated as 70 degrees.

[321BAR]

Your first sentence is partially correct but the rest of your post is completely wrong.  The problem was simply that hit angles were being truncated to 70 degrees.   Hits below 70 degrees work as expected, hits above 70 degrees were treated as 70 degrees.

so what would that mean for a 75mm shell hittin 100mm of armor at 70 degrees?

[Lusche]

so what would that mean for a 75mm shell hittin 100mm of armor at 70 degrees?

It means nothing has changed for this case

[321BAR]

It means nothing has changed for this case

i am confused beyond belief right now...

[SlapShot]

i am confused beyond belief right now...

I'm confused that you are confused ...

[AWwrgwy]

From 70^o to 90^o has been "added" to the damage model.  Before the patch, any hit at an angle of 70^o to 90^o = 70^o.

I think part of the confusion in people's minds is "what is 90^o?

It is straight down.  (Isn't it?)

A perpendicular hit to a tank, i.e. right in the side, ---------->, is 0^o IIRC.

Or, maybe I'm the confused one.

wrongway

[Lusche]

A perpendicular hit to a tank, i.e. right in the side, ---------->, is 0^o IIRC.

Or, maybe I'm the confused one.

wrongway

You are. 
It's the other way round. In this context, 0° is a perpendicular hit, 90° is a shell flying parallel to the surface.