BTR Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Hi all. Something about how Soviet based tanks looked in CM:BS was making me uneasy. It took me a while, but I think I finally figured it out. First "issue" is universal to all tanks, and consists of wrong glacis geometry. In real life K-5 era plate sticks out, but there isn't a large "plateu" after it as seen here.That leads me to believe that, either the angle of the slope is too steep, or it is moved too far to the front. The second issue, this one being a T-90A specific (but I decided to include it here anyways), is K-5 era not ending right on the angle, and wiring "cover" piece introduced in all T-90A's post 2005. The reference can be seen in previously attached image. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Looks like you found a bug. None of the T-90As i found via google had the glacis geometry shown in the screenshot you posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreDay Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 On a somewhat related note, has anyone noticed how in-gake PKP's (Pechneg) bipod is mounted in a same spot as PKM,rather than all the way my the end of the barrell (whcih gives it a very unique look in real life). Not a huge deal as far as I am concearned, but might as well add this one to a list of "not so" accurate models... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 well.. it seems to me that info on russian equipment was way scarcer and/or getting russian equipment right was of lower priority Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 well.. it seems to me that info on russian equipment was way scarcer and/or getting russian equipment right was of lower priority ho ho ho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offshoot Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 The bolts look very big too. I doubt they would have modelled this so it is likely a normal map issue - if so, it would be an easy fix for a modder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Bolt size looks fine. The ss is much closer than the real pic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTR Posted June 26, 2015 Author Share Posted June 26, 2015 Bolts are textures and can be replaced by anyone who can use photoshop . Glacis geometry is not that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offshoot Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) Glacis geometry is not that simple. Are you sure it is geometry? Turn shaders on and off: if they remain with shaders off, they are geometry; if they disappear when shaders are off, then they are done using normal maps, which can be fixed by a modder. I don't have the game to check myself. EDIT: actually, I'm starting to think I am looking at the wrong thing. I can't tell from the description what the actual problem is but saw differences bewtween the model and the photo with regard to the plates on the side of the tank. Edited June 26, 2015 by Offshoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 The problem is that the three ERA plates at the side of the tank don't show up the external face as they did (should) but the lower part. What you see in the screenshot above is what you'd see as a result of the block being hit, (the surface plate blown up). For some reason, after the last patch, the side panels (the surface panels) don'' show up, they are transparent. It's a bug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highlandcharge Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) Yes back on track, there is no better tactical battle simulated than CM As for pathing, I make sure to manipulate my paths\movement so they are spaced apart enough so that there are no fill ups or tangles occur, its not that hard :-) As for laser warning, I prefer the pop smoke and reverse action rather than just stay there and be killed.... EDIT ignore this post, wads meant for another thread Doh!! :-) Edited June 26, 2015 by highlandcharge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFF Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 well.. it seems to me that info on russian equipment was way scarcer and/or getting russian equipment right was of lower priority Nonsense 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 If you have limited resources . and your main market is US for the game, i would make sure the US is modelled right and prefer to cut corners on the Russians and fix them in a patch, its not an evil conspiracy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Nice catch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 I wonder what the hit boxes for the vehicles look like. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTR Posted June 27, 2015 Author Share Posted June 27, 2015 (edited) I've made a more thorough pass on the Soviet and Russian tanks this time. Some discrepancies are fairly criticals because they reduce rear, side and lower front protection. Most apparent is T-64BV which is missing entire side turret ERA mount. http://community.battlefront.com/topic/120047-soviet-russian-tank-models/ Edited June 27, 2015 by BTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 (edited) I wonder what the hit boxes for the vehicles look like.Like the vehicles. Additional ERA can be added if missing. I'll report missing ERA, but note that ERA arrangement is not always consistent between various T-64BVs. This is the most important issue as it directly affects protection in game. Core model problems like hull geometry are likely inherited from CMSF and probably won't be fixed, as it would require completely reworking the model. T-90A side hull K-5 panels are a LoD problem that I think only affects a single LOD. I believe its already been reported, but will double check. Edited June 27, 2015 by akd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTR Posted June 27, 2015 Author Share Posted June 27, 2015 (edited) Additional ERA can be added if missing. I'll report missing ERA, but note that ERA arrangement is not always consistent between various T-64BVs. This is the most important issue as it directly affects protection in game. There are only two variations for T-64BV (early and late), and only 1 variation for T-64BVK (shame it isn't in game). T-64BV obr. 1985 = Side 1 section of 3 blocks 1 section of 6 blocks 5 sections of 4 blocks Turret 1 section of 7 blocks Link T-64BV obr. 1987 = Side 1 section of 3 blocks 1 section of 6 blocks 4 sections of 4 blocks Turret 1 section of 7 blocks Link T-64BVK obr. 1985 Side 1 section of 3 blocks 1 section of 6 blocks 5 sections of 4 blocks Turret 1 section of 14 blocks Link Everything else is either a field mod, or a lack of supplies. Edited June 27, 2015 by BTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 If you have limited resources . and your main market is US for the game, i would make sure the US is modelled right and prefer to cut corners on the Russians and fix them in a patch, its not an evil conspiracy But it' s baseless speculation. As far i know we have only proof of a single Russian vehicle beeing incorrectly modeled, that' s all. At best this could be counted as incidential evidence for you claim, but that' s by far not enough to prove that there is an intentional pattern in the accuracy of the way Battlefront modeled & researched the vehicles in CMBS. AFAIK it hasnt been examined yet how accurately the US vehicles are modeled, it hasnt been examined yet how accurately the other Russian vehciles are modeled, we dont have an explanation from Battlefront (who are really the only ones who can give a first hand account of the events that led to the T-90A beeing incorrectly modeled), so basically, we no nothing about why the T-90A in CMBS looks the way does. It' s entirely possble that the 3D modeler just made a mistake, for exmaple. I did some 3D modeling myself and i know it can easily happen that some polygons end up beeing improperly aligned, and really all it takes are some ambigous blueprints and you end up with a weird looking model. But that' s specualtion too, the truth is, we dont really know why the T-90A in CMBS ended up looking like it does. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 I have the sensation that all T-64/72/90 hulls come from the original T-72s from Shock Force. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFF Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 If you have limited resources . and your main market is US for the game, i would make sure the US is modelled right and prefer to cut corners on the Russians and fix them in a patch, its not an evil conspiracy Sorry, but you still don't know what you are talking about here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFF Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 (edited) I have the sensation that all T-64/72/90 hulls come from the original T-72s from Shock Force. It is true that many of the vehicle models in Black Sea came from Shock Force, yes. Edited June 27, 2015 by LukeFF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L0ckAndL0ad Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Man, I've always had this feeling that something is wrong with how T-90A looks in CMBS, just couldn't tell what exactly. Now I know why Wonder how much RHA millimeters that difference is worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 It' s entirely possble that the 3D modeler just made a mistake, for exmaple. I did some 3D modeling myself and i know it can easily happen that some polygons end up beeing improperly aligned, and really all it takes are some ambigous blueprints and you end up with a weird looking model. But that' s specualtion too, the truth is, we dont really know why the T-90A in CMBS ended up looking like it does. Usually im the one to bang on about this but we cant see how much the actually effect that the incorrectly modelled gear has in game unless we see the hit boxes - that is if they have hit boxes at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum15 Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) I have the sensation that all T-64/72/90 hulls come from the original T-72s from Shock Force. I would Say that 90% of CMBS comes from SF and 90% of all other WW2 titles comes from CMBN... It's called recycling old stuff for a new full price game. Edited July 1, 2015 by Wiggum15 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts