In-game spotting system: are you kidding me?

[antaress73]

There should be 1.03 already !!!

[Stagler]

Maybe it would be a good idea to have some sort of better bug reporting and seeing what is being currently worked on framework like github or devheaven.

[Wiggum15]

It already would be enough if BFC would show some kind of activity here on the forums, especially in bug report threads...

[sburke]

It already would be enough if BFC would show some kind of activity here on the forums, especially in bug report threads...

rarely do the "bug" report threads in the forum have enough info to warrant them responding.  If you really want to contribute for bug reporting, the proper place is not the forum but the helpdesk and be prepared to provide enough info to be useful otherwise they will simply not proceed.  Don't be offended, the beta testers are held to the same standard.  Anecdotal observations are not accepted for bug reporting.

[Leka]

Quick spottin test:
T-90AM, T-72B3, BMP-3M, BMP-2M, BMP-2, BRM-3K and Ural are trying to spot single abrams (empty) 3000 meters away. Regular, +0. Vehicles have been separated by tall wall and  electronic warfare is set to: strong (to prevent them from communicating). Map is flat and  weather is clear. Test is run 8 times. 

Test results:

On average
T-90AM spot ? after 53s and got positive id at 1min 4s
T-72B3 spot ? after 1min 23s and got positive id at 1min 34s
BMP-3M spot ? after 44s and got positive id at 1min 5s
BMP-2M spot ? after 2min and got positive id at 2min 17s
BMP-2 spot ? after 1min 54s and got positive id at 2min 8s
BRM3K spot ? after 2min 1s and got positive id at 2min 24s (longest spotting time, though ew might have some effect on radar. "dismounts" are also missing)
Ural spot ? after 24s and got positive id at 39s! ( Uaz and at least some humvees have also insane spotting times)



 

[akd]

You can't test spotting in this game quickly, so quick spotting tests do not yield results that conclusions can be drawn from with any confidence.

[Thewood1]

I would have thought the response would be something like...

"Boy, that UAZ spotting does seem odd.  Can you post the scenario for us to look at."

Seems rather dismissive for an issue that generates so much angst.  You beta testers have stated that you are the front lines for bug finding and that particular post would send up a few red flags regardless of how it was conducted.

Even I can see a couple holes in how the test was laid out, but would have at least asked a couple clarifying questions.

[akd]

I have run spotting tests involving hundreds of iterations. It is sadly necessary.  The spotting system is highly variable, so individual or very small sample outcomes really bear no examination whatsoever unless a unit is spotting in a circumstance where it should never spot something.

Although looking at the results again, I'm not clear on what they represent.  When you say you ran the test 8 times, do you mean once for 8 vehicles, or 8 times for each vehicle?  I skimmed too fast and thought the former, but if the latter then what do the results represent?  Average of 8 values?  That might bear a bit more examination, but a single crazy outlier can throw this off badly in a very limited sample set.

Still, the test setup is flawed and would need to be reworked (for spotting, you should always test spotter and subject in isolation).

Edited December 31, 2015 by akd

[Oakheart]

This might be pointed at before, but just an open field with the vehicles staring at each other is pretty unrealistic in game, these vehicles rely on alot more then just "who can spot its equivalent first". Mainly concealment and recon, most...well, alot of my spots are done via recon relays via radio.
I'm a huge critic of the ai in this game and for the most part I believe the ai is garbage but the spotting & communication aswell as the rest of the systems in place are pretty solid. You just have to the hold the AI's hand.

[Leka]

yeah, 8 runs is a bit small sample, but is it even possible to see tank 3km away with naked eye? 

 Scenario file attached.

 

 

spotting test.btt

[Thewood1]

I just built my own test to look at a tigr spotting at 3000m and a Ural at the same distance.  Ural takes 10-20 sec to get a ? and 20-30 sec for an ID.  The Tigr takes 2-3 seconds and almost instantly IDs the M1.  I ran each ten times.

There is something wrong with either the original test or the description of it.

btw, in software QA, as well as in manufacturing/engineering, the outliers are what drives solutions.  Poor quality comes from rationalizing away outliers.  That is the point of continuous improvement...killing the outliers.

[akd]

But the spotting system is meant to capture a human element, so I think the outliers are intentional.

[Vanir Ausf B]

You beta testers have stated that you are the front lines for bug finding and that particular post would send up a few red flags regardless of how it was conducted.

We are on the front lines, in the trenches, ect. And we have the PTSD to prove it

Just to back up what AKD said, the spotting tests I submit to BFC typically have a minimum of 300 iterations each although you could probably get by with 200 most of the time. Yes, it sucks.

I just looked at a data set of 100 M1 Abrams spotting T-72s at 2000 meters that another beta tester did for Black Sea. The quickest spot time was 1 second, the longest was 667 seconds.

 

 

 

Edited January 1, 2016 by Vanir Ausf B

[Vergeltungswaffe]

...is it even possible to see tank 3km away with naked eye? 

 

Absolutely.  You can visually resolve a human sized object out to almost that distance.  

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Quick spottin test:
T-90AM, T-72B3, BMP-3M, BMP-2M, BMP-2, BRM-3K and Ural are trying to spot single abrams (empty) 3000 meters away. Regular, +0. Vehicles have been separated by tall wall and  electronic warfare is set to: strong (to prevent them from communicating). Map is flat and  weather is clear. Test is run 8 times. 

Test results:

On average
T-90AM spot ? after 53s and got positive id at 1min 4s
T-72B3 spot ? after 1min 23s and got positive id at 1min 34s
BMP-3M spot ? after 44s and got positive id at 1min 5s
BMP-2M spot ? after 2min and got positive id at 2min 17s
BMP-2 spot ? after 1min 54s and got positive id at 2min 8s
BRM3K spot ? after 2min 1s and got positive id at 2min 24s (longest spotting time, though ew might have some effect on radar. "dismounts" are also missing)
Ural spot ? after 24s and got positive id at 39s! ( Uaz and at least some humvees have also insane spotting times)



 

So, assuming this is accurate the Abrams is spotted 3000m away when stationary and in perfect test range conditions. In reality of course, under battlefield conditions the terrain will not be flat and visibiity will not be great  - there can be a lot of smoke around sometimes and plenty of crops/vegetation.

It may well be that the T90 can see the Abrams but at 3000n the commander chooses not to ire as the chances of a good, penetrating hit are too slim.

[Leka]

Another test 
Same map & conditions, abrams spotting abrams. test is run 20 times.
On average:
? 40 seconds
Identification 46,35 seconds

and M1152 Humvee spotting abrams, (two man crew, binoculars available) this test is also run 20 times.
On average:
? 20,75 seconds
Identification 43,3 seconds

At least trucks need some further inspection... Abrams seems to be ok.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I guess the implication is that the Abrams should spot much quicker because of thermal sights but I question that premise. The Mk 1 eyeball has a huge field of view advantage and the guy with the binocs can switch to them instantly as needed. On a sunny day I don't accept that there would be a dramatic difference.

Now change the weather to light haze or the time of day to after sundown and you should see a larger difference.

Edited January 1, 2016 by Vanir Ausf B

[akd]

No, very high quality thermals (like some of the powerful sensors in the world) operated by 2x tank crew should have a huge advantage over a humvee driver with binocs behind a dirty windshield. (But perhaps the game treats him as an unbuttoned spotter. Still...)

If we were talking handheld 4x thermal versus 6x glass optics all other conditions the same, there might be some level of equivalence or even superiority for the latter in clear daylight.

 

 

Edited January 1, 2016 by akd

[Vanir Ausf B]

(But perhaps the game treats him as an unbuttoned spotter. Still...)

I suspect the level of dirt on the windshield may not be modeled

If we were talking handheld 4x thermal versus 6x glass optics all other conditions the same, there might be some level of equivalence or even superiority for the latter in clear daylight.

The CITV is x2.6 at 3.4° narrow field of view and x7.7 at 10.4° wide field of view. The gunners primary sight is 3x wide FOV and 10x narrow although I don't have the exact FOV numbers handy.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

The human eye is much better at finding things given clear conditions simply because it's pretty much max WFOV combined with better using whatever monkey level survival skills we have in finding something that doesn't belong.  There's a reason the Israelis used to espouse commanders hanging out of the tank's turret, and why the Abrams has "open protected" as a hatch position*

On the other hand the human eye is much easier to defeat by virtually anything (dust, smoke, darkness), and thermals are good at picking up things at very distant ranges in more complex terrain.

They both have their advantages.  One of my happiest memories at Armor Officer's School was hanging out of the hatch and fighting the tank from there as it gave you amazing situational awareness (especially in the 300-500 meter maximum range you had in the training area).  On the other hand there's plenty of training events where looking into even a light fog, I couldn't tell you if godzilla was out there, but in the thermals I could see literally everything out to max engagement ranges.

Spotting is, and should be when simulated a very weird and inconsistent event.  I've never felt like the CMBS manner of spotting was especially unrealistic outside of a very few occasions. 

*the hatch itself hinges, so while it is "open" in open protected, the hatch itself remains parallel to the turret roof, allowing for the commander to look out with his own eyeballs, while still having reasonable overhead cover.

[akd]

If the times were the same, it would still be questionable, because we are taking about one 6-8x glass optic versus 2x equally or more powerful optics, with added thermal capability.

Edited January 1, 2016 by akd

[snarre]

hym i had then ask , is it beter in game whit T72 / t90 am to spot commander out of turret or trought optics ?