Steiner14
-
Posts
1,410 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Steiner14
-
-
Such a long development time only for a few new models?
I don't see the missing amour cover-arc as new feature. This was already standard in CMx1 and that it is missing for many years now, is a shame. Even more, because BFC always claims that realism was their top priority.
If they can't code a very simple new order and add the button to the interface in more than a year, then the new engine can't be that much better than the old one programming wise.
And if i take the scope of the older CMx1 titles into account, i also don't see an increased output because of the gloryfied new engine. In fact now they have a second programmer and the output is roughly the same as with the CMx1 engine.
-
Mortars seem to be still the sniper-superunits rendering HMGs, ATGs useless.
For a few units such a long development time?
-
Ok, one excursion into german semantics and then I'll shut up.
If 'Lüfterl' is common to you I guess that puts your location somehwere close to the austrian or swiss border. I've never heard anyone use it.
'Mir ist da ein Lüftchen entfleucht' is probably the nicest way to circumscribe that you have been farting and apologize (somehow). How that is pornographic or disgusting is beyond me.
Because
1. As i have explained already, it is a misuse of words to use them in vulgar connections.
2. Flatulences have nothing to do with mortars or wind conditions.
3. I don't know where you are coming from, but where i live nobody is talking about his flatulences.
4. "Wind" or "Winde" is used by medicals for flatulences, too. Just like in English. Should the word therefore primarily bee seen in that connection?
Your statement about the word "Lüftchen" was plain and simple wrong.
It has been shown in this thread that the mortars are not working realistically while all the fanbois and "experts" were not even recognizing that by playing the game. I offered BFC how a simple mathematical solution could look like but since the response to this problem of modelling artillery is zero anyway, i will not participate to destroy this informative thread. So i leave it to the well known "experts" of this forum, who haven't contributed to nail down the problem but who are passionate defenders of vulgarity.
-
@poesel
"Lüfterl" is a very common expression and "Lüftchen" is the correct written word for it. I'm wondering what people are reading, consuming or doing, if they associate normal words always with a pornographic or other disgusting meanings. Or even believe the normal and usual meaning was the wrong one.
-
The demand for the construction was to have a tank that was at least as good as the T34.
Daimler-Benz and MAN received the jobs for development and the prototype from Daimler looked similiar to a T34, while the MAN prototype was a new construction which contained german experiences from the war and demands.
A special commission decided to propose the MAN model:
1. Turret from Daimler-Benz was not complete and could not be expected until Dec. '42 ready for production. The diameter was 5cm smaller then the ready Rheinmetall-turret for the MAN model.
2. The engine of the MAN model was capsulated and allowed underwater driving without much preparations.
3. The drive mechanism of the MAN was judged to be superior.
4. The radius of the MAN was bigger.
And a few other things that would have cost more development time for the DB model (diesel engine in the rear, suspension).
Not so good seems to have been the hydrostatic turret mechanism that could make it necessary to support the turning with hand, if the tank was standing inclined and the weak side armour, that made additional tanks for flank protection necessary.
Among the german veterans the judgement about the Panther was: very high overall combat effectivity, good front armour, good firepower, low ground pressure, a very good suspension and drive mechanism, reasonably fast, best german tank, best medium tank in whole war.
Here you can find a quite objective description of the Panther in english:
-
Comparison with the US M19 60mm we were discussing prior.
-----------------Probable Error
------------------in range [m]---in deflection [m]
@500 yd (460m).......9,1..................3,7
@1088 yd (995m).....16,5.................4,6
@1891 yd (1730m)....20...................7,3
What i conclude is, that the difference in accuracy between the 60mm US and the 81mm French at the tested distances in the game should be below 10% and the dispersion pattern should be quite similar, too.
So it seems, that the 81mm mortar in the game shows the same problem like the 60mm at the checked distances: it doesn't show a streched pattern like in reality and is too accurate.
-
So far i have found some data of a french 81mm mortar:
"Accuracy of the 81mm Mle1937/31 mortar :
• 8m x 17m square at 460m range
• 9m x 32m square at 995m range
• 17m x 35m square at 1730m range
• 32m x 42m square at 2060m range "
Q: "1) I assume this accuracy data is 50% data? Is it? "
A: "The previous data about accuracy are from "L'enseignement du combat dans le groupe et dans la section d'infanterie - 2e partie" by Commandant N. Bouron. It has been printed in 1938.
It is in an appendix about the 81mm type 1930 Stokes-Brandt mortar (therefore not the 1927/1931 model). It lists examples of dispersion 'rectangles' measured on test range. I have no more details about the number of shells actully fired etc. So far I guessed that these are actual measurement for all the shells. "
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=112&t=118276
If Rob Deans is correct (or if i understand it correctly), that the so called "50% data" is the inner four PE-areas, then the data of this french mortar should be:
-------------------Probable Error-------------
------------in range [m]---in deflection [m]------25% of the shots land within
@460m:........8,5...................4,0............................17m x 8m
@995m:.......16,0..................4,5............................32m x 9m
@1730m:......17,5..................8,5............................35m x 17m
@2060m:......21,0................16,0............................42m x 32m
-
A few more observations:
The four fields around the centre carry each a probability of 0,0625 or 6,25%.
That makes up a probability of 25% for the area around the target spot.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
According to the given data one field @400m has the size of 8 yd. in range and 4 yd. in deflection.
The inner four fields therefore would measure 16 yd. in range x 8 yd. in deflection.
They are drawn in yellow and should contain 25% of all 48 shots (=12 hits).
In fact the area contains 11 hits. That's impressively close.
The two additional thinner yellow fields in range beside the centre yellow field should contain 8% of the hits each or 16% both of them (7,68 hits). On this picture it are 9 hits (+17%).
The two bigger yellow field in range in front and behind the target should each contain 8% or 16% of the hits combined (7,68).
On this picture it are 1 (-74%) + 5 (+30%) = 6 (-22%).
What make sthis worse, is the 5 hits in the yellow field "too long" are massed on the side close torwards the target.
It would be necessary to check if the dispersion in the picture is a valid statistical representation, but if it is, i think the reason why mortars are that extremely effective lies in the fact, that the distribution of impacts is simply too close to the target:
The dispersion very close to the target seems quite ok (the 4 PE-areas around the target spot). But the dispersion slighly off one PE-area in range is way too small and instead the hits that should go into that area, are occuring way too close left or right from the target.
Because the lenght of the PE-areas is greater and grows faster with distance than the width of the fields, it makes a big difference, if the hits are off one PE-field in deflection (4-8m off) instead being off in range one field (8-16m off).
The suppressive and even more lethal radius of the smaller calibers against dug in units is relatively small. So it should make quite some difference, if the grenades impact too often only 4-8m (in deflection) away or instead are 8-16m too short or long.
-
Interesting. So the German 120 is a direct copy of the Russian? I wonder why they didnt add any improvements, or anything else.
What revolutionary should have been changed with a simple mortar?
And if they had no problem copying that, I wonder why they didnt say copy T-34s for example..Why copy, if the Panther was the answer to the T34?
-
I only have rudimentary painting skills, so please excuse the not very precise paintjob.
Since the distance between the two walls is 40m i have marked in black roughly 10m to find the 8m range of the action spot.
The red stripe shows the 2x8 m wide dispersion band in range.
The cyan stripe shows the 2x8 m wide dispersion band in deflection.
The numbers in green are the hits within and outside the 2x 8m red stripe.
The numbers in cyan are the hits within and outside the 2x 8m cyan stripe.
If this example is in the statistical norm, then the numbers show the following:
In range (within the red stripe) the hit probability lies at 58%. This is 16% above 50%.
In deflection (within the cyan stripe) the hit probability lies at 69%. This is 38% above 50%.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Following the statistical data in the manual of the 60mm unit, with charge 0, 1 and 2 the pecision in range should NOT be better but worse than the precision in deflection.
For example the manual gives for the maximum distance of charge 0 345m and a range : deflection dispersion of 8:1.
With charge 1 @400 yd. 8 range : 4 deflection.
With charge 2 @400 yd. still 7 yd. in range : 6 yd. in deflection.
Specifically the precision in range seems to be way too high (at least @400m and for the 60mm mortar). The pattern is not streched enough.
I don't know if BFC is absolutely satisfied with their model, or if they are open to suggestions.
I have derived a simple model with equations of a line, that allows to get a not so bad dispersion pattern only by using the the minimum and maximum values from manuals:
For an even easier calculation i'll set yard = meter. In case this should be compensated just convert the data from the manuals into m.
Let's say the minimum distance of the modeled mortar should be 50 m.
And the maximum distance is decided to be 1500 m.
Dispersion in range:
The manual gives us roughly
Min. distance: 50m, dispersion in range 1m.
Max. distance: 1500m, dispersion in range 22m.
The simple equation of a line y = k*x + d.
DispersionInRange = kInRange*TargetDistance + DispersionInRangeOffset
kInRange= (DispersionAtMaximumDistance - DispersionAtMinimumDistance) / (MaximumFiringDistance - MinimumFiringDistance)
Equation for the dispersion in range is already finished:
DispersionInRange = (DispersionAtMaximumDistance - DispersionAtMinimumDistance) / (MaximumFiringDistance - MinimumFiringDistance) * TargetDistance + DispersionInRangeOffset
Concrete numbers for the model:
DispersionAtMaximumDistance = 22
DispersionAtMinimumDistance = 1
MaximumFiringDistance = 1500
MinimumFiringDistance = 50
-> kInRange = 21/1450
DispersionInRangeOffset = 0,3
This gives for the dispersion in range:
@50m: 0,3 + 50 * 21/1450 = 1m (manual: 1m)
@100m: 1,7m (manual: 2m)
@400m: 6,1m (manual: 6-7m)
@600m: 9,0m (manual: 8-12m)
@1500m: 22m (manual: 22)
Dispersion in deflection:
DispersionInDeflection = kInDeflection*TargetDistance + DispersionInDeflectionOffset
kInDeflection= (DispersionAtMaximumDistance - DispersionAtMinimumDistance) / (MaximumFiringDistance - MinimumFiringDistance)
Equation for the dispersion in deflection:
DispersionInDeflection = (DispersionAtMaximumDistance - DispersionAtMinimumDistance) / (MaximumFiringDistance - MinimumFiringDistance) * TargetDistance + DispersionInDeflectionOffset
With some concrete numbers:
DispersionAtMaximumDistance = 6
DispersionAtMinimumDistance = 2,5
-> kInDeflection = 3,5/1450
DispersionInRangeOffset = 2,9
Results for dispersion in deflection:
@50m: 2,9 + 50* 3,5/1450 = 3m (manual: 2)
@100m: 3,1m (manual: 2-4)
@400m: 3,9m (manual: 4-8)
@600m: 4,3m (manual: 4-8)
@1500m: 6,5m (manual: 6-9)
This not too complicated model would deliver with growing distances nicely stretching hit patterns that could be easily adopted.
Want less precision over the whole distance? Just increase the offsets.
The mortar is too unprecise in range at higher distances? Decrease k and increase the offset for dispersion in range.
Want less accuracy proportionally with distance because wind is blowing? Multiply k with a certain wind factor.
Want to make wind influence the hit probability overall? Add a wind factor to the offsets.
Want wind even influence the shape of the hit pattern depending from the directions? :cool: Use cos(angle between target direction and wind direction) for increasing the DispersionInRange with the wind factor and sin(angle between target direction and wind direction) for the influence on DispersionInDeflection.
To make the model super-precise, for each charge one equation could be used:
i.e.
from 50m - 300m: equation1: data for charge 0 used.
301m - 450m: equation2: data for charge 1
...
-
I'm not at my computer for one week, too.
-
A test @400m would be very interesting.
-
YankeeDog,
the explosive radius is modelled in CM anyway.
In case the unit is not dug in, the effect is stronger, if dug in the effect is less severe.
I used a small area to show how small the probability is, for a direct hit against a dug in unit, while my impression is, we can see direct hits all the time in the game.
The calculation, if correct, supports the thesis, that the mortars in the game are too precise.
But let's use the size of an action spot: roughly 8 x 8 yards = 64 yard².
64 / 512 = 12,5% or every 8th round.
If the formula is correct roughly only 13% of all rounds should fall into the action spot @400m for that mortar type.
-
@Rob Deans
great post.
So let's try to derive the hit probability of a single shot, or how many shots are necessary to hit a certain area:
If this book is correct (http://www.scribd.com/doc/73158902/Der-leichte-Granatwerfer-36), the hit probability for the l.Gr.W. 36 was calculated with a rule of thumb that way (page 8):
"Die Trefferwahrscheinlichkeit wurde nach einer einfachen Faustformel ermittelt: Zielausdehnung dividiert durch eine 50%-Streuung ergab die Treffwahrscheinlichkeit."
Hit probability = target (area) divided by 50%-dispersion (area).
Now using your great source Fig. 3-12 (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/fm6-40-ch3.htm) shows, that the 50%-dispersion area is achieved by using two of the center lines - either the two inner range columns or the two inner deflection rows
With your example
400 yards
range: 8 yards
bearing: 4 yards
This results for an area @400yards containing 50% of hits:
Area with the whole two inner bands in range (2x 4 yard bearing = 8 yard)
x the whole range (8x 8yards = 64 yards) = 8 x 64 yard² = 512 yard².
Calculating the area again but this time using the deflection band: 2x8 yard x 8x4 yard = 512 yard².
Ok, that seems to fit.
So we have an area of 512 yard² @400m in which 50% of all rounds will fall.
Now back to using the rule of thumb for the hit probability of the l.Gr.W. 36 p[%] = (target area) / (50%area)
Let's assume the size of the target, for example a HMG with 3yard x 3yard = 9 yard².
Then following this rule of thumb the hit probability would roughly be 9/512 = 1,8% or 57 rounds for one hit in the target area .
-
For the german mortars the Heeresdienstvorschriften should contain the important data:
8cm:
H.Dv. 102 Der schwere Granatwerfer 34 (8 cm) 1938
H.Dv. 104 Ausbildung (training) am s.Gr.W. 34
H.Dv. 119/951 Schußtabelle (shooting table) s.Gr.W. 34 (8 cm) 1942
5 cm:
H.Dv. 101 od. H.Dv. 145 Der leichte Granatwerfer 36 (5 cm) 1937
H.Dv. 103 Ausbildung am l. Gr.W. 36
H.Dv. 119/941 Schußtabelle
Too bad there seem to be no downloads on the net available.
-
Why change another unit's behaviour, instead of solving the root of the problem of too accurate mortars?
Mortar units must have been the most decorated units in the whole war. Not for inflicting a certain amount of casualties, which seems to be peanuts, but for taking out ATGs, HMGs and armoured vehicles in the dozens on their own with a probability of success of 100% in max. 2 minutes with only 40 genades and without almost no risk of own losses.
Only losers need tanks for attacks. Instead of a tank company, give me ten light mortars and a walk in the park is guaranteed. :mad:
-
Graphics improvement: depth of field
It was stated that the screenshots were not photoshopped. Since the newer ones show a depth of field effect, i assume that will be one of the enhancements.
-
Wreck & JasonC,
great posts.
I don't understand why someone can defend the ridiculously über-weapon status mortars are right now, although the numbers speak for themselves.
I mean a factor of 3-5 less deviation than GPS guided shells? :eek: How stupid would be an army to invest into such ammo, if the cheap WWII technology would deliver unbeatable results against any stationary soft target?
IMO mortars destroy the balance, by rendering ATGs and HMGs almost useless because of their accuracy.
And it's also not fun to play, too: just move a mortar unit into place to take out every ATG or HMG is not only unrealistically, IMO it is also is BORING like hell.
BFC please fix or do somefink!
-
Translation:
"The Flivo observes and guides from a radio equipped armoured vehicle (in this case a Sd.Kfz. 250/3) the employment of bombers, usually Stukas. He was responsible that the ground operations of the army were supported at the exact time by fire from the air."
-
Damn, i can't stand to look at the original gfx no more! :mad: They look like from a C64 now.
If this could somehow be implemented via textures and with fx help from the graphic cards, i think the sales could skyrocket only because of the look.
-
Stunning. Incredible. Absolutely incredible.
Would you mind to explain, what could be needed GFX-wise in the game to get that look?
-
I can assure you that none of the screens are photoshopped other than to reduce them in size slightly from the native resolution they were taken in, and to add the logo.
Holy sh.t! Depth of field GFX?! :eek:
Would be a huge bone.
-
IMO that we have no battle replay yet is a consequence, that BFC doesn't offer any help for 3rd party developers. If BFC would offer interfaces, that allow to read information from and input certain data into the game, i guess we already would have map making utilities, tools for operational playing and also a player frontend, at least allowing to load the next saved turn in the background, while the current turn being watched.
They want to do everything on their own but have not enough manpower to do so.
For example i have read, that the map-maker is being improved. No wonder that a the CW-module took that long to see the light.
Instead of investing precious development time on things that others could also do, they could have implemented an interface that allows to design the maps outside and use the internal map-maker to fine tune. With such an interface i think we even already could have semi-automatic map creation from real world map-data. Imagine what that would mean for multiplayer campaigns...
Or the operational-layer: from a technical point of view, it can't be too difficult to export unit data/stats in a standardized format from the last saved file from a battle and read such data for picking units.
-
I have to commend the design guys at Battlefront for the tremendous detail on all the vehicles in CMBN. I like the way they look and move, the way the suspension works when they stop and I've just noticed that one of my Panthers even has a bucket hanging on the back of it between the exhausts. How cool is that?
Steve?
Manual is up!
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Friendly word of advice: In the long list of the incredible amount of tasks, the tasks of drinking, eating and sleeping are missing...