Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Belial on July 31, 2009, 06:07:03 PM
-
The sherman round is like an old man without his viagra now what happened! I gv'ed so much because I loved that tank now its botched! What happened! :cry
-
The sherman round is like an old man without his viagra now what happened! I gv'ed so much because I loved that tank now its botched! What happened! :cry
hehe I thought I was crazy but their is actually quite a few things changed with gvs it seems.
1. The tank shell seems to drop more then on previous version (seriously throwing off my aim).
2. The panzer's rate of fire seems to be increased. I thought I was the only one who noticed but another player commented on it in the MA today.
-
I just tested the Firefly in version 2.14 as well as version 2.13, offline using .target.
At both 1000 & 2000 yards, there was no difference in shell drop
-
Well, I always thought it was really odd that I could easily hit targets at 4 or 5 K yds... With a Panzer, LOL!!!
Sometimes farther!!! A few ranging shots to dial my zoom and reticle, and there ya go! Thats not right!!!
Its fun to tap on somebody from so far away that they cant even see you, but its not right, LOL!!!
I mean, this IS WWII we are playin right?
RC
-
I just tested the Firefly in version 2.14 as well as version 2.13, offline using .target.
At both 1000 & 2000 yards, there was no difference in shell drop
Does the offline version change as far as that crap goes? Or do we just get new vehicles and HUGE changes to the gameplay when they come out with one?
-
Does the offline version change as far as that crap goes?
Weapon ballistics are always identical in on- and offline mode.
-
OK then, just wondering. Humans are prone to some pretty stupid mistakes and forgetfulness sometimes.
-
I just tested the Firefly in version 2.14 as well as version 2.13, offline using .target.
At both 1000 & 2000 yards, there was no difference in shell drop
i believe im gonna go with the GVers on this one. sorry bro
-
i believe im gonna go with the GVers on this one. sorry bro
Test it yourself. I prefer a methodological approach.
-
Hey guys, did the brits come up with a good tank to use in the late war? It seems like it was mostly shermans and vc's on the Western front. I know that the VC is technicly british...right? but did they come up with a design of their own?
-
Test it yourself.
ill do that right now :)
-
BTW... what's necessary to be considered a GV'er?
-
Oh boy, Skuzzy finally relized the M4 isn't the best tank in the game, or even close to it, so he remodeld it. :x
-
Hey guys, did the brits come up with a good tank to use in the late war? It seems like it was mostly shermans and vc's on the Western front. I know that the VC is technicly british...right? but did they come up with a design of their own?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Comet_tank_1.jpg)
-
i just tested, it does seem to be dropping out more than it use too.
i dont know if its the terrain messing with me or the GV has had its manhood taken.
but it does seem to be lacking.
and im a range shooter, it was very hard to find my range in it
-
i just tested, it does seem to be dropping out more than it use too.
seem to be... how did you determine that?
My approach was to remove any subjective judgement:
base at sea level. set target to 1000. center of gunsight at a fixed specific point on the target (upper edge). fire. see where the shell hits.
Then switch to other version, and repeat.
(Of course making sure that head position relative to gunsight is exact the same)
-
seem to be... how did you determine that?
from my 6 year of owning in a GV
thats how i can tell
bro ask anyone.
i use to pop guys 6 and 7 k away in 1 or 2 shots every time.
when i just tested it. it took me forever to find range, and ive never had that problem
-
Test it yourself. I prefer a methodological approach.
Way to be empirical Snailman... Only meaningful testing is against a known control... :salute
-
How about an objective approach, BP?
-
when i just tested it. it took me forever to find range, and ive never had that problem
This would most likely be because you're not used to the new terrain. Double as much if you're using low detail.
'It feels kinda different' means nothing.
-
Add up my kills in a tank from tour 102 to now I think its near 20,000 in a gv.....the Sherman projectile is NERFED!
-
How about an objective approach?
When youve GVed as long as i have. and most GVers. you see the tank, and right off, you know about how far out it is. by sight only. you dont need to see the buildings or trees to get a guess. the GV tells us all we need to know. 2 shots max is all it takes. 1st shot is always a range shot. but now, is seems more like i was throwing curve balls out there. something does seem off with them
-
When youve GVed as long as i have. and most GVers. you see the tank, and right off, you know about how far out it is. by sight only. you dont need to see the buildings or trees to get a guess. the GV tells us all we need to know. 2 shots max is all it takes. 1st shot is always a range shot. but now, is seems more like i was throwing curve balls out there. something does seem off with them
Sorry, but I don't think 6 vs 5 years is that much more of an experience
Second, both doesn't matter at all. What you just did was judging by feeling. On a new terrain. Completely subjective, regardles whether you leet 6 year tanker or me noob 5 year tanker were doing it.
That's whay I measured it.
Do an objective test with a verifiable method.
-
Sorry, but I don't think 6 vs 5 years is that much more of an experience
Second, both doesn't matter at all. What you just did was judging by feeling. On a new terrain. Completely subjective, regardles whether you leet 6 year tanker or me noob 5 year tanker were doing it.
That's whay I measured it.
Do an objective test.
i dont need too, like i said, forget terrain, you dont use it to guess the distance on a GV, you are only focused on the GV and that GV only (tunnel vision).
you see it, you know round about how far out it is.
Bro, i know what im talking about here,
i trained some of the very best GVers this game has seen,
and i taught them that very way,
NEVER go on what the building size is, NEVER go on the tree size.
look at the GV from a distance long enough, and youll start figuring out how far away they are.
it comes with time,
-
:rofl
Thanks for explaining how to tank after 15,000 GV kills. Never would have thought it needs practice and will "comes with time"
But nice to see you refuse to use any verifiable and comparable approach.
:rofl again
-
:rofl
laugh it up all you want.
all the top GVers in the game WILL agree with me.
but you have your opinion and i have mine, and im pretty sure all the GVers of the game would back me up
-
I think the folks who are calling nerf need to post some films of pre-update vs. update... Otherwise, Lusche seems to hold the high ground... Of course, Lusche, posting some screenies of your target tests might be helpful too...
Falling into the forum e-peen comparison fight is a mistake on all sides...
-
Lusche you are straight up wrong I KNOW ranges I have shot enough rounds out of a Sherman to know within 10-20 yards where my round will fall.
-
laugh it up all you want.
all the top GVers in the game WILL agree with me.
but you have your opinion and i have mine, and im pretty sure all the GVers of the game would back me up
I don't give anything about opinions in such a matter. Not your's, not mine.
I prefer objectivity and transparency. Measuring beats feeling.
-
Kills per Death + 1 15.36 3
Kills per Sortie 4.55 4
Kills per Hour of Flight 18.94 133
Kills Hit Percentage 84.28 46
Kill Points 369833.05 2
Damage per Death 80178.48 11
Damage per Sortie 23756.59 19
Damage Hit Percentage 233.33 8
Damage Points 7697133.71 3
Field Captures 21 32
there ya go bud, i do believe thats still the AH record for GVing
from me :)
tour 86
95% were range kills
-
Opinion doesn't matter much... lusche tested in a factual manner. You can't really dispute it, you have no proof other than 'you suck I know what I'm talking about'.
Kills per Death + 1 15.36 3
Kills per Sortie 4.55 4
Kills per Hour of Flight 18.94 133
Kills Hit Percentage 84.28 46
Kill Points 369833.05 2
Damage per Death 80178.48 11
Damage per Sortie 23756.59 19
Damage Hit Percentage 233.33 8
Damage Points 7697133.71 3
Field Captures 21 32
there ya go bud, i do believe thats still the AH record for GVing
from me :)
tour 86
95% were range kills
Somehow I doubt it... you didn't even rank #1 in any of the categories for that tour...
-
Lusche you are straight up wrong I KNOW ranges I have shot enough rounds out of a Sherman to know within 10-20 yards where my round will fall.
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 ;)
-
Kills per Death + 1 15.36 3
Kills per Sortie 4.55 4
Kills per Hour of Flight 18.94 133
Kills Hit Percentage 84.28 46
Kill Points 369833.05 2
Damage per Death 80178.48 11
Damage per Sortie 23756.59 19
Damage Hit Percentage 233.33 8
Damage Points 7697133.71 3
Field Captures 21 32
there ya go bud, i do believe thats still the AH record for GVing
from me :)
tour 86
95% were range kills
How does this prove anything other then you are good in a GV in the old version? This shouldn't be hard to test... Take the end of the world emotion out of it...
-
Opinion doesn't matter much... lusche tested in a factual manner. You can't really dispute it, you have no proof other than 'you suck I know what I'm talking about'.
Somehow I doubt it... you didn't even rank #1 in any of the categories for that tour...
give it a go, check stats :)
we as GVers know what we're saying. And we all agree.
lusche is a camper, not a GVer IMO.
i dont have a clue as to why youre in this as his corner man, but ok.
he cant tell me that the rounds arent dropping more when i just seen it with my own eyes
-
How does this prove anything other then you are good in a GV in the old version? This shouldn't be hard to test... Take the end of the world emotion out of it...
not in it. lol
you guys arent GVers, so you have not one clue as to what im trying to say here.
dr7, B, stodd, vanscrew, flk4, be, ask them what they think.
im 110% sure they'll agree with me on this.
im not trying to have a pissing match with anyone,
im just trying to make him understand where we are coming from.
it's like 2nd nature for us
-
not in it. lol
you guys arent GVers, so you have not one clue as to what im trying to say here.
dr7, B, stodd, vanscrew, flk4, be, ask them what they think.
im 110% sure they'll agree with me on this.
im not trying to have a pissing match with anyone,
im just trying to make him understand where we are coming from.
it's like 2nd nature for us
Well heck, if there are so many "GV'ers" who agree with you, then it shouldn't be hard to get some REAL evidence of what you are saying... Films are films... There are folks who can still run the old version...
I don't think it is unreasonable to think that the new terrain might throw your experten GV skills out of whack... I also don't think it is out of line to ask for more then your "feelings" as proof...
-
just tested my baby the tiger.
its still a beast.
its not lobbing them out like the sherman is
-
i dont have a clue as to why youre in this as his corner man, but ok.
Because he tested it.
not in it. lol
you guys arent GVers, so you have not one clue as to what im trying to say here.
dr7, B, stodd, vanscrew, flk4, be, ask them what they think.
im 110% sure they'll agree with me on this.
im not trying to have a pissing match with anyone,
im just trying to make him understand where we are coming from.
it's like 2nd nature for us
I don't care what anyone thinks. Thinks being the key word. Lusche tested it. It's the same. End of story, whatever your perception may be.
-
Well heck, if there are som many "GV'ers" who agree with you, then it shouldn't be hard to get some REAL evidence of what you are saying... Films are films... There are folks who can still run the old version...
I don't think it is unreasonable to think that the new terrain might throw your experten GV skills out of whack... I also don't think it is out of line to ask for more then your "feelings" as proof...
just checked tiger, its fine, the sherman is nerfed
-
just tested my baby the tiger.
its still a beast.
its not lobbing them out like the sherman is
Wow... More touchy feeley crap... Give us PROOF!
-
just checked tiger, its fine, the sherman is nerfed
PROOF! Is that so hard to grasp! You might be totally right, but your butt hurt "feelings" of Shermy nerfiness don't mean anything!
-
Because he tested it.I don't care what anyone thinks. Thinks being the key word. Lusche tested it. It's the same. End of story, whatever your perception may be.
Lusche is no one in a tank,
he dont sit in them for hours on end like these other guys with complaints do.
These guys do nothing but tank. ill take their word over anyones about it.
and i have tested it, from a REAL GVers veiw, the tiger and panzer are fine, the sherman is lacking now
thats from a REAL GVer
-
A test from a monkey would mean more to me than the opinion of the most experienced tanker in the game. Opinions are just those; opinions; they don't mean anything.
-
A test from a monkey would mean more to me than the opinion of the most experienced tanker in the game. Opinions are just those; opinions, they don't mean anything.
+1 Precisely
-
A test from a monkey would mean more to me than the opinion of the most experienced tanker in the game. Opinions are just those; opinions; they don't mean anything.
exactly, so why are you still replying to me bro?
you arent a GVer
-
exactly, so why are you still replying to me bro?
you arent a GVer
Is this PROOF of anything? Uh... Nope...
-
its like this
i was watching this cake maker guy on the food network, (yes i watch it)
and hes been making cakes so long, he made one blind folded, perfect cake.
why did he make a perfect cake blind folded? Cause it comes 2nd nature after so long doing something.
You dont need specs, or graph poop, to tell me i know what i know.
and that is the sherman is lobbing rounds out like its throwing curve balls.
-
Is this PROOF of anything? Uh... Nope...
why are you stalking me on here?
what do you want?
-
its like this
i was watching this cake maker guy on the food network, (yes i want it)
and hes been making cakes so long, he made one blind folded, perfect cake.
why did he make a perfect cake blind folded? Cause it comes 2nd nature after so long doing something.
You dont need specs, or graph poop, to tell me i know what i know.
and that is the sherman is lobbing rounds out like its throwing curve balls.
You know what, my wife watches all those whacked out cake maker shows on Food Network... Guess what... All of those fancy cakes they make are INEDIBLE!...
So is all your "experience"....
It amazes me that you totally reject the opportunity to compare REAL version vs version data... Oh wait... I guess I shouldn't be surprised since what little version vs version data that has been collected appears to CONTRADICT your claim...
-
why are you stalking me on here?
what do you want?
Stalking you? Don't flatter yourself. I'm just a bit tired of the "sky is falling" crap from people like you who aren't willing to actually study the issue...
Your "feelings" are worthless...
-
You know what, my wife watches all those whacked out cake maker shows on Food Network... Guess what... All of those fancy cakes they make are INEDIBLE!...
So is all your "experience"....
It amazes me that you totally reject the opportunity to compare REAL version vs version data... Oh wait... I guess I shouldn't be surprised since what little version vs version data that has been collected appears to CONTRADICT your claim...
and you are who?
dude why are you so bent out of shape?
simmer down guy, its not about having a pissing match
you arent even a GVer, so you wouldnt know.
hell for that matter, have the time i see you ive either shot you down or youve augered trying to pick someone.
oh and they ate that cake too :)
-
Stalking you? Don't flatter yourself. I'm just a bit tired of the "sky is falling" crap from people like you who aren't willing to actually study the issue...
Your "feelings" are worthless...
i will no longer reply to you on here. your just a troll fishing bud, have a good day sir :salute
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
its like this
i was watching this cake maker guy on the food network, (yes i watch it)
and hes been making cakes so long, he made one blind folded, perfect cake.
why did he make a perfect cake blind folded? Cause it comes 2nd nature after so long doing something.
You dont need specs, or graph poop, to tell me i know what i know.
and that is the sherman is lobbing rounds out like its throwing curve balls.
The cake guy doesn't say there's more sugar in the cake when there is in fact no more sugar in the cake.
If there was no sugar in the cake and he said there was more sugar in the cake, who would you believe?
-
LoL! Says the guy spouting "feelings" with NO evidence whatsoever... Take your meds.
6 years of playing...hundreds if not thousands of hours in tanks, ill take his opinion any day.
-
6 years of playing...hundreds if not thousands of hours in tanks, ill take his opinion any day.
Hey, there's this bridge in Harrisburg. It's for sale. If you've ever wanted a bridge, this is your chance. Believe me, I've lived in Harrisburg all my life. I know what I'm talking about.
-
6 years of playing...hundreds if not thousands of hours in tanks, ill take his opinion any day.
And reject Lusche's actual empirical testing? Really? I've been around here for long enough to know that the Snailman doesn't seem to have an agenda other then informational fact finding when posting here...
Can you say the same about BiPoLaR's posting history?
Riiiiiight...
You might also note that I've done little more then ask Bipolar to actually post some EVIDENCE, rather then the emotional garbage we have seen so far... I'd accept that he might be right, if he can provide some actual PROOF.
-
6 years of playing...hundreds if not thousands of hours in tanks, ill take his opinion any day.
I'll bite again... what's the advantage of opinions about over objective measurement? With a published method so that evrybody could actually disprove it?
I could just have said: "I tested it, it's that way, if you don't believe you're wrong i have 15000 kills and 1200 hours in GVs..."
But I explained my method in detail, se everybody can go and disprove me... which would be fine with me.
-
Well, I always thought it was really odd that I could easily hit targets at 4 or 5 K yds...
It is odd... and one of the reasons I don't do a lot of GVing. A long tank shot during WW2 by any gun other than a 88mm was 600 yds.
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.
-
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" ?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Hmm to make sure it's not in the sight I only used the center of the gunsight.
-
I remember the good old days too Bip, Took this screen shot the other day, man HTC really has nerfed the Sherman.
(http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt86/splittiebus66/4x4yugo_137.jpg)
Hitech was opting for fuel effiency vs accuracy of fire when he had Waffle model this baby
-
I remember the good old days too Bip, Took this screen shot the other day, man HTC really has nerfed the Sherman.
(http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt86/splittiebus66/4x4yugo_137.jpg)
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :salute 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?
-
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)
-
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.
-
And reject Lusche's actual empirical testing? Really? I've been around here for long enough to know that the Snailman doesn't seem to have an agenda other then informational fact finding when posting here...
Hey slow down a bit man! I dont doubt the all knowing snailman. He is very helpfull and his facts/graphs/statistics are always very interesting. I didnt mean that in any way as an insult or bash against him)(<S> snail).
All im saying is 6 years and probably thousands of hours in a tank is worth something IMO.
Bipolar is always colorfull. :D :aok
-
If I say its totally different why cant you believe me?
This is why.
(http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/AK_Comrade/213214composite.jpg)
That is an image of the Sherman's gunsight from 2.14.3 laid over an image of the Sherman's gunsight from 2.13.1, both zoomed the whole way in in the default head position, using the .target command to make sure the range ticks are properly marked.
You'll notice it looks like there's only one gunsight; because they lay over each other exactly, with not a pixel of deviation.
-
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.
For me it has been always that way. Because I have my head position moved forward to the gunsight as far as possible, and I never could get my head that close in FF. So shells that did land on "400" in a Panzer did land at ~700 or so in a FF.
I dont doubt the all knowing snailman.
I was proven wrong more than once on this forum, so please spare me the "all knowing" - reserve that for Widewing ;)
-
Hey slow down a bit man! I dont doubt the all knowing snailman. He is very helpfull and his facts/graphs/statistics are always very interesting. I didnt mean that in any way as an insult or bash against him)(<S> snail).
All im saying is 6 years and probably thousands of hours in a tank is worth something IMO.
Bipolar is always colorfull. :D :aok
Agreed, but going with Bipolar's scattered 6 years of opinions, against Lusche's 5 years of opinions and facts seems a bit odd...
-
from my 6 year of owning in a GV
thats how i can tell
bro ask anyone.
i use to pop guys 6 and 7 k away in 1 or 2 shots every time.
Add up my kills in a tank from tour 102 to now I think its near 20,000 in a gv
When youve GVed as long as i have.
Bro, i know what im talking about here,
i trained some of the very best GVers this game has seen,
and i taught them
all the top GVers in the game WILL agree with me
there ya go bud, i do believe thats still the AH record for GVing
we as GVers know what we're saying. And we all agree.
you guys arent GVers, so you have not one clue as to what im trying to say here.
dr7, B, stodd, vanscrew, flk4, be, ask them what they think.
im 110% sure they'll agree with me on this.
im not trying to have a pissing match with anyone,
im just trying to make him understand where we are coming from.
it's like 2nd nature for us
and i have tested it, from a REAL GVers veiw, the tiger and panzer are fine, the sherman is lacking now
thats from a REAL GVer
(http://www.funnyforumpics.com/forums/Youre-Awseome/1/Win-Retard_Prize.jpg) (http://"http://www.funnyforumpics.com")
-
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.
I think hes on to something
-
I still dont understand why the shermans round is falling so short?
-
For me it has been always that way. Because I have my head position moved forward to the gunsight as far as possible, and I never could get my head that close in FF. So shells that did land on "400" in a Panzer did land at ~700 or so in a FF.
Always been that way?
Really??
Dang -- explains a few things . . . :(
-
Why not adapt if its different now? Seems like a jedi GVer could sense the new calculations just the same as he did the original ones.
-
I still dont understand why the shermans round is falling so short?
It's actually not falling short.
It's the gunsight, they are not relfecting sights. The "validity" (sorry, my english fails here) of the range marks is depending on having exactly a specific distance from your virtual head to the sight.
For example, go into a panzer and shoot at a target 800yds away. Now aim again, and then start to move your head forward - you will notice the range maks moving, all while your actual aim doesn't change at all.
I'm not sure if I have made my point clear now :(...
-
Why not adapt if its different now? Seems like a jedi GVer could sense the new calculations just the same as he did the originol ones.
You know what? That's really only the answer if we learn that HTC has changed the Sherman ballistics on purpose and for a reason... If the folks claiming a Sherman nerf are correct and can prove it, then we should expect HTC to give us an answer as to why it was done... Maybe the Sherman has been too effective... Seems like I have heard that argument a few times before...
But until somebody can provide empirical evidence that the ballistics model has changed, all the crying seems over done.
-
Welllllllll I have been drinking but I am postive my jedi senses sense a change in the force of the sherman, I may have to adapt or fade into the force. I spent 180$ on upgrade but i'd rather not even have the headache. At this point i'm not having that much fun....
-
Always been that way?
Really??
Dang -- explains a few things . . . :(
Did youuse to have your head position adjusted in tanks? Moved your head closer to the gunsight?
-
Personally, since the Beta, everything looks bigger/closer to me. GV's or aircraft. Especially when I was going between Beta and the last version.
I've been having trouble aiming in anything. I think it's the terrain/background but maybe the sights are "off" a bit versus the Firefly's gun being "nerfed".
wrongway
-
Welllllllll I have been drinking but I am postive my jedi senses sense a change in the force of the sherman, I may have to adapt or fade into the force. I spent 180$ on upgrade but i'd rather not even have the headache. At this point i'm not having that much fun....
Maybe you should spend the perkies for a Tiger, perhaps then your senses would be assuaged...
Many have claimed the "over" effectiveness of the Shermans in the past, and the inbalance of the perk system...
Is the Sherman now more worth its perk value?
Just thinking out loud...
-
Personally, since the Beta, everything looks bigger/closer to me.
I also have noticed that Air to Air targets seem closer, no complaints from me though.
-
Many have claimed the "over" effectiveness of the Shermans in the past, and the inbalance of the perk system...
Is the Sherman now more worth its perk value?
Just thinking out loud...
I'm very curious about next tours GV stats :)
-
I'm just not at in to AH2 right now.....I'm sure when winter rolls around I will be bored again.....just in a rut right now i guess.
-
I also have noticed that Air to Air targets seem closer, no complaints from me though.
No complaints either. It'll just take some getting used to.
Seems odd that all the "gv experts" seem to be having such problems adapting to the "new" ballistics.
wrongway
-
I'm very curious about next tours GV stats :)
Me too... Well, not really... LoL... I actually don't give a ratt's butt about GV scores... Maybe I will next tour, just out of curiosity! :D
-
For me its more a combination of the stutters and now I cant even gv normally. It wasnt about camping and such it was more about seeing that gv and knowing where to aim, now i'm all messed up.
-
For me its more a combination of the stutters and now I cant even gv normally. It wasnt about camping and such it was more about seeing that gv and knowing where to aim, now i'm all messed up.
I have the same problem with flying. Everything seems really off, but I wait until all those technical problems are solved, before I start to look if it's just me or if something has changed.
-
im going with belial on this. i was with him tonight and something isnt right. i was even experiencing weird things in my t34-85, like not being able to kill a t34-76 after directly hitting it with 20 rounds of hvap in all kill places along with another 15 rounds of normal ap from a close distance.
-
im going with belial on this. i was with him tonight and something isnt right. i was even experiencing weird things in my t34-85, like not being able to kill a t34-76 after directly hitting it with 20 rounds of hvap in all kill places along with another 15 rounds of normal ap from a close distance.
Is it that something isn't right? Or is is that something is different?
Can you illustrate it?
-
Not sure about 85 vs 76 model but t34/76 vs t34/76 if you dont hit in the right place can take 30-50shots! Try getting into a gv battle in EW. ;)
-
What would convince both sides to end the argument?
I don't tank, but I have two desktops, one with the old and one with the new version. I'd be willing to do a comparison if you'd like...
-
What would convince both sides to end the argument?
I don't tank, but I have two desktops, one with the old and one with the new version. I'd be willing to do a comparison if you'd like...
Do it. Please repeat my test.
But I doubt if you can repeat my results too, it would "convince" the other side...
-
'gv experts?" " new ballistics?"
What gv experts & what new ballistics? I don't think there is either & why would it "be odd" for them if there was new ballistics?
I hope the over modelled Sherman has been fixed but that is doubtful.
There is very little consistency with gv's so this might just be another.
-
Pending screenshots, I'm going with Lusche and other empirical testers over the guys with a gut feeling.
-
I typically spend more time GVing each camp than any other category and have since AW. I haven't had a chance to try the Sherman yet but the Panzer, Tiger and T-34/85 seem normal as do the Wirble and Osti.
One thing I did notice today though was sometimes I didn't see a puff of dust or a splash (against LVT's) when firing and, with no reference, that makes it harder to range.
Guess I'll have to try the Shermie but I typically don't like it's slower rate of fire.
-
Here are some pictures. Unfortunately the "holes" tank shells are producing are small as BB hits so I had to mark them for easier spotting
the method again:
1) making sure that the head position relative to gunsight is the same in both versions. I always move my head fully in, so i made sure both tanks were set up the same way.
2) select a base with a northern coastline to have unobstructed view to the target
3) roll into position
4) set .target 1000
5) aim at a clearly defined point with thecenter of your gunsight as a reference, just in case there is any difference in the range ladders between both versions
Version 2.13:
(http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/6184/sherman213ranging.jpg)
Version 2.14
(http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/1892/sherman214ranging.jpg)
Both views zoomed fully in. We can see that the gunsight marks are identical on both versions by the way.
6) fire
7) .set target to 200 to determine the point of impact. Take a screenshot.(If you have trouble seeing the point, moving the view (or scrolling across a zoomed in screenshot) will help you)
Version 2.13
(http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/1424/sherman213hit.jpg)
Version 2.14
(http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/9100/sherman214hit.jpg)
You see: both hits are almost on the same spot, just above the second target circle from outside.
Everybody that doubt these pictures can easily check himself by following the above steps.
In case you don't have 2.13 anymore: http://downloads1.hitechcreations.com/AH2131.EXE
Please don't hesitate to point out any flaw in my concept or present different results. That's why we do such stuff.
-
Could it be the difference in the tiles used in the new version?
-
For me its more a combination of the stutters and now I cant even gv normally. It wasnt about camping and such it was more about seeing that gv and knowing where to aim, now i'm all messed up.
adapt, overcome......This new version has alot of things that seem different, my depth perception is way off with the water so I keep augering, water isnt moving up it just seems like it is :aok
-
Can anyone compare the trajectory of the old and new sherman? The old sherman round fired very flat and didnt arc much like the panzer does. It seems to arc alot now, this would throw off aim because its harder to hit an exact target with a mortar than a cannon.
If I am 10 yards short or 10 yards long because of the curvature that could be whats leading me to see it as nerfed.
-
When youve GVed as long as i have. and most GVers. you see the tank, and right off, you know about how far out it is. by sight only. you dont need to see the buildings or trees to get a guess. the GV tells us all we need to know. 2 shots max is all it takes. 1st shot is always a range shot. but now, is seems more like i was throwing curve balls out there. something does seem off with them
That is exactaly it. I can range someone in 1 shot and the 2nd shot is the kill shot. Sometimes I dont even need the 1st shot to range someone. <S> Btw. But after this new upgrade I guess HTC messed with the resolution of the game making everyones resoultion default to the max. So when they did that it made my game look weird to me. So I had to get used to it. But I have seen that the Sherman has been shooting alittle wierd. The rounds droping a few yards then usual.
-
the graphics upgrade has thrown off my visual references while in a GV. as a dedicated base porker, I wanna get as close as i can w/o setting off the auto-ack, esp if i'm in a M8. still trying to suss out where that is with the new graphics. everything looks closer, prolly due to the sharper video resolution.
-
everything looks closer, prolly due to the sharper video resolution.
Maybe that is the answer to the 8 page question. Maybe it just looks closer, and therefore they don't aim as far as they need to.
-
Can anyone compare the trajectory of the old and new sherman?
Lusche did.
-
adapt, overcome......This new version has alot of things that seem different, my depth perception is way off with the water so I keep augering, water isnt moving up it just seems like it is :aok
I have been Captain Lawndart myself the last couple of days.
As far as the Sherman I see no difference, and have been getting kills with no issues.
-
Can anyone compare the trajectory of the old and new sherman?
:huh
That's what I did! Both versions have identical points of impact both at 1000 as well as 2000 yards...
So as we have 3 identical points on the trajectories, we can say: Nothing has changed.
-
Because the terrain model just updated, your experience in "knowing" a GV's range by looking is void and null. The terrain just changed as did many other aspect of the way the game works, once you get use to it you will be able to judge the distance by looking once again.
-
It going to be interesting to see someother comments.
My guess is its an optical illusion having to do with the new terrain.
They did say that they changed the color and "Materials" of the Sherman...............What does "Materials" mean?
I must say everything is clearer and sharper on my end Im not having any ranging problems that I am aware of, but then again I miss all the time anyways.
<S>
-
They did say that they changed the color and "Materials" of the Sherman...............What does "Materials" mean?
That's some optical properties.
-
optical .........................upgr aded the optics on the Sherman? or changed optically the look of the Sherman?
-
optical .........................upgr aded the optics on the Sherman? or changed optically the look of the Sherman?
"Materials" in 3d rendering are responsible for how the object is interacting with light. In other words, how it does look-
-
Wouldnt it make things clear if pyro or skuzzy chimed in and said wether or not the sherman has been remodeled for the new version. This would probly put this entire discussion to rest. just a thought
-
I think Snailman is right nothing has changed, but perception. I too have to use a little more elevation of all my shots in a Sherman. Think it is not so much the trajectory, but our perceptions that we were used to in gauging distance with size of target in our turret view. The enhanced graphics probably is the contributing factor. Course I could be way off here. I mean I had to start wearing reading glasses just to see those lil bitty targets from way off. :P
-
Wouldnt it make things clear if pyro or skuzzy chimed in and said wether or not the sherman has been remodeled for the new version. This would probly put this entire discussion to rest. just a thought
I seriously doubt that.
wrongway
-
It's clear that the ballistics of all the tanks are consistant with each gunsight as I tested them all at ranges from .target 400 to .target 3200 and the shells hit exactly where they should. So if the gunsights have not changed since the previous version (as one person clearly showed by overlaying them) then the ballistics have not changed.
What's perhaps changed is the default field of view and the apparent visual size of targets in the viewfinder. Some people are apparently highly skilled at judging range via the apparent size of the target. If the FOV is different, or the image quality different, this judgement may be thrown off. For example, some are saying things look "bigger" and others are saying their shots are falling "short". Well if the target looks bigger and you judge range by target size then you're going to estimate a shorter range and the shell is going to "lob short".
I am not highly skilled at judging range just by looking at the target. Instead I use the gunsight hash marks (for example if a Panzer is presenting its side view and it is exactly one hash mark wide, it is at 1200 yds range). This gives an internal calibration so if the FOV changes I still aim the proper distance.
Perhaps this is the source of the discrepancy?
-
Look at my pictures. FoV is the same, gunsights are the same, ballistics are identical.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,270401.msg3380522.html#msg3380522
-
Look at my pictures. FoV is the same, gunsights are the same, ballistics are identical.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,270401.msg3380522.html#msg3380522
Yeah, your FOV is identical but the game now has a FOV setting. That might have gotten changed somehow for some people. However, as I posted, I agree that the gunsights and ballistics are identical.
-
Nice work Lusche! I was just about to do something similar myself, but I needed to sleep this morning after working last night.
-
1. The tank shell seems to drop more then on previous version (seriously throwing off my aim).
Havent tried GVs with this version yet. But I thought the same thing after the last version too.
-
I have been Captain Lawndart myself the last couple of days.
As far as the Sherman I see no difference, and have been getting kills with no issues.
Yea Im pretty nasty in a Tank when i get in them for a bit and I noticed one thing in the new M4....1 shot 1 kill everytime, might just be me
:saluteWay you havnt been on for a bit
-
I'm guessing the powers to be have already chimed in.....Did any of u read the info file... why would they take the time to mention the Sherman specifically and not say anything about the trajectory?
I think its just graphical... your brain will adjust to it pretty quick.
-
Did youuse to have your head position adjusted in tanks? Moved your head closer to the gunsight?
I am sure early on I was told to move my head all the way forward into the sights. I never realized that changed the calibration of the hashmarks. Explains my difficulty in ranging targets when I switch vehicles several times in one night . . .
Also have been times when a plane has pointed out an incoming GV, and I've tried to use the icon distance to range my first shot. It never seems to work out. Now I know why.
-
I'm guessing the powers to be have already chimed in.....Did any of u read the info file... why would they take the time to mention the Sherman specifically and not say anything about the trajectory?
I think its just graphical... your brain will adjust to it pretty quick.
I spent many hours honing in my 1 shot no ranging skillllls....I dont whanna start over :cry
-
As a side bar the 8inch cruiser guns zoom seems to have a little more magnification with details turned up. The zoom is defiantly a lot clearer. With many years experience my ranging has been by site.... Oh that's about 16.5 to 17.5 or what ever. If that's so (clarity of zoom) it makes sense to me that ones previous perceptions would induce a "short shot".
Give it a week and you'll be back to normal.