Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Nemisis on March 22, 2010, 06:59:24 PM
-
I would like to know how we have damage modeled for our tanks. Does the angle of your armor relative to a round hitting your tank affect its thickness, or do we have it so that a round hitting an 80mm thick armor plate has just as much chance of a kill when hitting at 70 degrees (\ \-) compared to 90 degrees (flat on, []-) provided it doesn't ricochet? Or does the damage model take into account how thick the armor would be at 20 degrees, if thats the angle you're hit at?
I would really like to know, as it seems to vary at times: I've had perfect hits on the rear armor of a tiger at 40 degrees and 1000yds out and not gotten a kill, but have been hit in the side armor of a panzer by a T-35 at around 35 degrees from 1500 yds out, and it was an instant kill.
-
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n277/1bronk1/squeakr.png)
-
Lol, not it at all. I'm just asking since it would affect how I drive a tank (is it better to angle your tank giving you thicker frontal armor, but also exposing your thinner, but also thickened, side armor? Or is it better to give them your front? Also, would I do better to climb a small (JUST enough to get me a shot at his top) hill to get a shot at a tiger's engine deck, or would I do better to circle around and shoot him in the rear?).
I think this is a reasonable question, and one that won't give away secrets to HTC's (failing) competetors.
-
Sometimes with GVs you just have to go :headscratch:
I've kill a Tiger with a Panzer at 3200 yrds with one shot, then turned around 1/2 hour later and hit a M8 9 times in the wheels at less than 200 yrds until he finally killed me. Note: He wasn't "tracked" and just kept going.
I've also been hit 28 times during one sortie while driving a panzer, it took almost 20 minutes before someone got me. Of course I lost my turret on the second hit :furious I did kill 2 IL2s with my pintle gun though....
Course you've been around long enough to know all that. Just smile and know your time will come if your luck sucks today...
-
I would be curious to know the answer as well because I've always felt the damage model on GVs was one of the more lacking areas of the game. Of course, that probably stems from not fully understanding how the damage is calculated in regards to ground vehicles.
ack-ack
-
Sometimes with GVs you just have to go :headscratch:
I've kill a Tiger with a Panzer at 3200 yrds with one shot, then turned around 1/2 hour later and hit a M8 9 times in the wheels at less than 200 yrds until he finally killed me. Note: He wasn't "tracked" and just kept going.
I've also been hit 28 times during one sortie while driving a panzer, it took almost 20 minutes before someone got me. Of course I lost my turret on the second hit :furious I did kill 2 IL2s with my pintle gun though....
Course you've been around long enough to know all that. Just smile and know your time will come if your luck sucks today...
Speaking of luck, I killed Dr7 yesterday in a Panzer, with him in an M4. I'd guess the engagment took place at around 2500 yds. I was up on a rise, and had a side shot on him, it was a nerve wracking experience regardless. I took 3 hits from him before I finally put enough shells onto him to get a kill. Point of the story is that after being killed, I took ONE hit from a T-34/85 from 2500yds or so, and got instant-killed.
-
I would be curious to know the answer as well because I've always felt the damage model on GVs was one of the more lacking areas of the game. Of course, that probably stems from not fully understanding how the damage is calculated in regards to ground vehicles.
ack-ack
If The Damage Models are fixable...Then why was a WW1 version created without fixing what has been a Very long standing issue. If Not fixable then admit it and tell us its the best they can do. Either way, we are in the dark and have been for many many years.
Kam
-
If The Damage Models are fixable...Then why was a WW1 version created without fixing what has been a Very long standing issue. If Not fixable then admit it and tell us its the best they can do. Either way, we are in the dark and have been for many many years.
Kam
I don't think anyone has implied that if there is (the keyword here being is) something wrong with the damage model in GVs that it's unfixable. Nor do I think that HTC would add a feature to something that was essentially broken. You have to remember that the new damage model is an update of the existing damage model that allows ore objects to be damaged, at least on a plane. We haven't seen how the new damage model will work on GVs, maybe it will fix whatever issues that maybe affecting GVs.
ack-ack
-
I don't think anyone has implied that if there is (the keyword here being is) something wrong with the damage model in GVs that it's unfixable. Nor do I think that HTC would add a feature to something that was essentially broken. You have to remember that the new damage model is an update of the existing damage model that allows ore objects to be damaged, at least on a plane. We haven't seen how the new damage model will work on GVs, maybe it will fix whatever issues that maybe affecting GVs.
ack-ack
There ya go!!!! :aok. I don't think HTC would add a feature to something thats broken either. And if they did, they probably wouldn't go and say "yup guys, its broken. And the bad news is that its unfixable. Sucks to be you, you're gona have to limp on with what ya got". They would say "yes, there is a problem with the damage model for GV's, we're checking it out to see whats wrong, and we'll try to have it fixed as soon as possible. Thanks for your patients, I know its been kind of hectic the past few weeks."
-
I recall hitech or Pyro (don't recall which, but think it was hitech) state that the tank damage model was the most complex part of AH.
-
I have a little trouble buying that. What with the new additions to the aircraft damage model, AND the one in WW I.
-
I have a little trouble buying that. What with the new additions to the aircraft damage model, AND the one in WW I.
The quote predates that by a long, long shot. That said, I don't see anything in the new damage model that would change it. The reason is that armor thickness, angle of hit, range and so on is all counted into the tank model whereas the aircraft model was just a hit point system. I don't know about the new one for sure, but it seems to just be a hit point system with more granularity.
-
Don't forget that range comes into effect, at least for the MG's. But you do raise a good point sir.
-
Don't forget that range comes into effect, at least for the MG's. But you do raise a good point sir.
Yes, range comes into effect for all guns in AH, even the cannons are slightly affected by the loss of velocity in how much damage they do.
I recall them saying that one of the reason the tank damage seems off is because it is so detailed. Consistent results are very hard to produce with it because of how much it works with. A simpler model would be more consistent, but not really more realistic. It just depends on if people want consistency or a more detailed model.
-
Yes, and complex doesn't mean accurate. I could have a complex damage model, and if I coaded it, it would be fubar. Planes could kill tanks with 303's and .30's, and it would take 5 hits from a tiger's 88 to down a plane :devil. But that doesn't mean it won't be complex.
And to think all this started when I asked if the angle of the armor relative to an impacting shell affects its thickness.
-
I believe that angle of impact does matter. I recall seeing HTC say that in other places.
-
I have a little trouble buying that. What with the new additions to the aircraft damage model, AND the one in WW I.
nemesis i buy it because HTC actually does try to help GVers to the best they can. GVs are much harder to model like stated above because im pretty sure one of em did say that. on another thread HiTech said he would check into helping stop the graphics advantage problem that has hindered realism in the GV land for years... This problem was never stated on BBS until today for the most part. Point is is that theyre trying...
-
I just wish the damage model would be more obvious rather than having ping... turret out, ping... engine out
ping ping ping... track out, come on really? that's not realistic at all...................
I'm not going to lie, WW2OL has a much more realistic and detailed damage model and I would take it any day over our current damage model.
Also I would like to see out ballistics model updated, having the same dirt splash for both HE and AP is a little ridiculous.
Its been over a year and a half or atleast close to now since us gvers have gotten anything new to play with, I do not count the new terrain because dirt is dirt, you drive over it with a vehicle and that's that, nothing happens, except when you touch a tree and do somersaults with a tank.
It feels like we have been left out again... :(
Im sorry for the selfishness feeling thats coming from my rant, I just wanted to put my two cents in...
opposum
-
WW2OL is stinky like poopoo concerning damage our soon to be PNG'd little buddy.
I'm not going to lie, WW2OL has a much more realistic and detailed damage model and I would take it any day over our current damage model.
opposum
-
Its been over a year and a half or atleast close to now since us gvers have gotten anything new to play with, I do not count the new terrain because dirt is dirt, you drive over it with a vehicle and that's that, nothing happens, except when you touch a tree and do somersaults with a tank.
Actually we have lost a good aspect of the gv game. The small "hills" that were spread out throughout the terrain have been removed. Someone at htc said that its on their list to put back in however, I just hope it makes it into one of these updates.
-
I just wish somehow the Tiger could be re-crowned "king" of the battlefield.
-
I just wish somehow the Tiger could be re-crowned "king" of the battlefield.
+1
-
I'm not going to lie, WW2OL has a much more realistic and detailed damage model and I would take it any day over our current damage model.
Possum...did you happen to notice how stupid the flight models and damage models were on the aircraft in WW2OL? With AH the ground war is a secondary element that is not the main focus...in WW2OL the ground war is the primary focus so the air element suffers...you get the idea.
I'm betting if HTC had more staff to create all the WWII goodness everyone is wiggling for...it would be included and accurate beyond what others are doing.
-
I recall hitech or Pyro (don't recall which, but think it was hitech) state that the tank damage model was the most complex part of AH.
I have a little trouble buying that. What with the new additions to the aircraft damage model, AND the one in WW I.
You don't have to buy it ... but it's true.
I have been to 3 cons and GV damage is always a subject of discussion. From what I gleaned from those 3 cons was that the GV damage model is not really connected to the aircraft damage model ... 2 different beasts.
The GV damage model does take into effect armor thickness of the different components and also the slope of the armor and probably doesn't really cover all the components it needs to really keep track of. Calculating damage across a GV would definitely be more complex than that of an aircraft IMHO.
I have a sneaky suspicion that HTC would love to go thru the GV damage model from head-to-toe, but it seems to fall to the wayside due to what they perceive to be more important issues, and HT probably can foresee the convoluted mess that lies in front of him and most likely gets a headache just thinking about it.
-
Its been over a year and a half or atleast close to now since us gvers have gotten anything new to play with, I do not count the new terrain because dirt is dirt, you drive over it with a vehicle and that's that, nothing happens, except when you touch a tree and do somersaults with a tank.
It feels like we have been left out again... :(
Well ... when the day comes that there are more GVs on the ground (consistently) than there are planes in the air ... GVs might get the same attention that the planes now get ... until then ... they will have to settle for being 2nd class citizens.
-
I just wish somehow the Tiger could be re-crowned "king" of the battlefield.
Those were the days ... the only thing that could kill a Tiger were hellish IED devices disguised as little white rocks ... roll over one of them bay boys and your sortie was over ... :rofl
-
I just wish somehow the Tiger could be re-crowned "king" of the battlefield.
Lower the tigers perk price to 15 and raise the M4's to 10. Would be fair ("what, theres a tiger up? Hang on, let me up an M4 real quick and I'll blow his turret off from 2500 yds out." It happens and you all know it.)
Well ... when the day comes that there are more GVs on the ground (consistently) than there are planes in the air ... GVs might get the same attention that the planes now get ... until then ... they will have to settle for being 2nd class citizens.
Go to hell fighter jock. If a sizable portion of the community (Gv'ers) wants hills, then its important. Just because the game is mostly aircraft doesn't mean that tanks have to wait till no one wants anything else. Honestly, I think new GV's and getting our hills back supercedes the WWI arena in importance.
-
Go to hell fighter jock. If a sizable portion of the community (Gv'ers) wants hills, then its important. Just because the game is mostly aircraft doesn't mean that tanks have to wait till no one wants anything else. Honestly, I think new GV's and getting our hills back supercedes the WWI arena in importance.
Yes, this happens. :rolleyes:
-
I can't find it, so maybe someone else has a better memory and/or search skills than I . . . But the recesses of my brain say that someone posted some screenshots or perhaps a link that showed some of the calculations going into the damage model of eithe red orchestra or wwIIol or some other game, and said something to the effect that he wished AHII's GV damage model was as detailed. To which, one of the staffers answered / asked: What makes you think it isn't?
-
Actually we have lost a good aspect of the gv game. The small "hills" that were spread out throughout the terrain have been removed. Someone at htc said that its on their list to put back in however, I just hope it makes it into one of these updates.
i want my hedgerows baaaack!!! :cry and hte old Vbases! :cry and me want it now! :cry
I just wish somehow the Tiger could be re-crowned "king" of the battlefield.
++1
Lower the tigers perk price to 15 and raise the M4's to 10. Would be fair ("what, theres a tiger up? Hang on, let me up an M4 real quick and I'll blow his turret off from 2500 yds out." It happens and you all know it.)
shove the panther in there to have the same effect... but i remember the time when people actually freaked when they heard TIGER TANK ROLLING TO THE BASE!!! EVERYONE UP TO DEFEND!!! WE NEED PANZERS AND BOMBS!!!!!!! :eek: just give me AHI back and the old days and ill be happy because with the M4 Firefly those days are long gone
-
I can't find it, so maybe someone else has a better memory and/or search skills than I . . . But the recesses of my brain say that someone posted some screenshots or perhaps a link that showed some of the calculations going into the damage model of eithe red orchestra or wwIIol or some other game, and said something to the effect that he wished AHII's GV damage model was as detailed. To which, one of the staffers answered / asked: What makes you think it isn't?
I remeber that post, it was about this clip I think
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzpUVtVUBTI&feature=youtube_gdata (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzpUVtVUBTI&feature=youtube_gdata)
can't remember what the staff said.
-
Now there's an idea!!! :aok
shove the panther in there to have the same effect...
-
Go to hell fighter jock. If a sizable portion of the community (Gv'ers) wants hills, then its important. Just because the game is mostly aircraft doesn't mean that tanks have to wait till no one wants anything else. Honestly, I think new GV's and getting our hills back supercedes the WWI arena in importance.
:lol ... a little touchy eh ? ... I guess the truth hurts.
HT and company knows what lines their pockets with money and that would be WWI/WWII aircraft simulation ... that is their mainstay ... that is what keeps the lights on.
From what I can see, the introduction of WWI has brought back previous players that put AH to the side and god knows how many new people it has attracted or will attract as it's development progresses. I doubt the introduction of a new tank would achieve the same results.
I too think the introduction/development of new GVs would be great ... but I am a realist and have been around far too long to try and second guess what is best for HTC ... Dale's and Doug's track record for being successful is second to none.
-
the damage model is the least of the problems (if it even is a problem) with GVing.
#1 for me is terrain stuff - little bushes that flip a 60 tonne battle tank, thin foliage that stops a tank round, then lack of usable terrain (the hills/berms we used to have.)
#2 object visibility stuff - depending on your settings its not a level playing field like the air combat is.
I like the odd sortie in a tank but #1 and #2 mean I cant take it seriously :(
-
Possum...did you happen to notice how stupid the flight models and damage models were on the aircraft in WW2OL? With AH the ground war is a secondary element that is not the main focus...in WW2OL the ground war is the primary focus so the air element suffers...you get the idea.
I'm betting if HTC had more staff to create all the WWII goodness everyone is wiggling for...it would be included and accurate beyond what others are doing.
I agree, WW2OL damage model for the airplanes SUCKS 100% but I absolutely love the ground vehicles damage model, I would rather it any day over ours we have now
opposum
-
I think the funny part is the kid is assuming......... Anybody looking at your score would know GV'ing is 2nd most in your book. :bolt:
:lol ... a little touchy eh ? ... I guess the truth hurts.
-
I agree, WW2OL damage model for the airplanes SUCKS 100% but I absolutely love the ground vehicles damage model, I would rather it any day over ours we have now
here ya go:
We already are doing all you are asking for. In fact that would almost be an exact film of the way we do things with vehicle damage.
HiTech
:aok
-
I think the funny part is the kid is assuming......... Anybody looking at your score would know GV'ing is 2nd most in your book. :bolt:
Yup ... don't spend much time in them anymore outside of using them for defensive purposes ... I did more GVing back in the AHI days and was pretty deadly in a tank back then ... :D
-
Last night, I was repeatedly attacking a Panzer that was on a downslope who in turn was shelling an airbase. A Wirb was over the crest of the hill protecting his flank. So this limited me to attacking the Panzer's front left quarter / topside, then popping up, rolling inverted, and flying back down the slope to avoid the flak. I easily had 8 runs on him - probably more - scoring hits with a Yak from D3 or less - I could see the impacts, including the top of the turret. He never died (although I augered once, ok, twice, giving him the kill.) I've killed Panzers with the Yak 37mm before, so this seemed very strange.
-
Last night, I was repeatedly attacking a Panzer that was on a downslope who in turn was shelling an airbase. A Wirb was over the crest of the hill protecting his flank. So this limited me to attacking the Panzer's front left quarter / topside, then popping up, rolling inverted, and flying back down the slope to avoid the flak. I easily had 8 runs on him - probably more - scoring hits with a Yak from D3 or less - I could see the impacts, including the top of the turret. He never died (although I augered once, ok, twice, giving him the kill.) I've killed Panzers with the Yak 37mm before, so this seemed very strange.
:rolleyes: So not being able to kill a tank outright with a HE round is bothering you? I suggest you check the real world penetration for that round vs. the real world armor thickness of a Pz IV. Let us know what you find. :rofl
Just because you used to be able to do it is no reason to expect that you can still do it.
-
:rolleyes: So not being able to kill a tank outright with a HE round is bothering you? I suggest you check the real world penetration for that round vs. the real world armor thickness of a Pz IV. Let us know what you find. :rofl
Just because you used to be able to do it is no reason to expect that you can still do it.
Wow. About 3 weeks ago I could kill a Panzer with the Yak. Haven't flown it again until last night. So, was there a change in the round characteristics, or the Panzer, or the damage model? A legitimate question.
-
321BAR, the problem stems from tanks either (seemingly) takeing too much damage and still staying usable, or guns being seemingly too strong.
The M4 is unrealisticly tough to take out unless its an uparmored version as well (I don't think it is). At one time, Dr7 either took NINE HVAP rounds from a T-34/76 to the turret with no effect, or has found a way to make the resupply repair his tank again. I would have gone for a hull shot, but he was hull-down behind one of the ridges that have replaced our hills and burms (but not filled their shoes), as most effective cover.
And the tiger's gun is unrealisticly weak against some tanks (notably the M4 and T-34/76). Yesterday, I survived a hit from a tiger AT POINT BLANK RANGE in a T-34/76 TO THE REAR.
I even killed Lunatic1 (he was the tiger driver) when tracked, and after taking 4 hits from panzers at various ranges (can happen), 7 from an M4 at medium-long range (around 2000yds) to the rear, and 2 from his tiger at point blank range. Litteraly, he was maybe 20 feet from me (feet, not yards).
And you all
If lunatic1 has a BB account, I would like him to come confrim this.
-
I loaded up COD1 yesterday for some old school play. Got to the russian tank level. I steered clear of all the trees until I couldn't anymore and stopped. Then it confused me when the drone tanks ran them over. So I tried running them over and did it successfully. Too much AH I guess. ;)
-
I remeber that post, it was about this clip I think
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzpUVtVUBTI&feature=youtube_gdata (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzpUVtVUBTI&feature=youtube_gdata)
can't remember what the staff said.
here ya go:
:aok
Glad Ripper and RTHolmes had a better memory than I did.
The post link . . .
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,263279.0.html
-
321BAR, the problem stems from tanks either (seemingly) takeing too much damage and still staying usable, or guns being seemingly too strong.
The M4 is unrealisticly tough to take out unless its an uparmored version as well (I don't think it is). At one time, Dr7 either took NINE HVAP rounds from a T-34/76 to the turret with no effect, or has found a way to make the resupply repair his tank again. I would have gone for a hull shot, but he was hull-down behind one of the ridges that have replaced our hills and burms (but not filled their shoes), as most effective cover.
And the tiger's gun is unrealisticly weak against some tanks (notably the M4 and T-34/76). Yesterday, I survived a hit from a tiger AT POINT BLANK RANGE in a T-34/76 TO THE REAR.
I even killed Lunatic1 (he was the tiger driver) when tracked, and after taking 4 hits from panzers at various ranges (can happen), 7 from an M4 at medium-long range (around 2000yds) to the rear, and 2 from his tiger at point blank range. Litteraly, he was maybe 20 feet from me (feet, not yards).
And you all
If lunatic1 has a BB account, I would like him to come confrim this.
One: HVAP is only effective under a certain range. pretty sure thats 1,200.
TWO: The Sherman Firefly had 89MM frontal turret armor! :rolleyes:
Three: The T34/76 AND /85 both have equal frontal and rear armor protection.
Four: Just because youre in a tiger doesnt mean you know where to shoot on tanks...
Five: Range means everything to every tank here. The tigers rounds went straight through your tank and didnt explode cuz of how close u were. If medium range is 2000yds then im flying a beaufighter everytime i get into AHII. Now if only i knew what you were in and i can destroy this post even more :aok
-
Five: Range means everything to every tank here. The tigers rounds went straight through your tank and didnt explode cuz of how close u were. If medium range is 2000yds then im flying a beaufighter everytime i get into AHII. Now if only i knew what you were in and i can destroy this post even more :aok
:confused: WHUT?
-
I agree, WW2OL damage model for the airplanes SUCKS 100% but I absolutely love the ground vehicles damage model, I would rather it any day over ours we have now
opposum
incorrect, the damage model for WW2OL is amazing, the flight model is the area that suffers.
The damage model for WW2OL aircraft is what AH is pushing towards now
-
:confused: WHUT?
what? am i wrong? and i consider 1000 yards to be medium range.