Tim Hughes
-
Posts
22 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tim Hughes
-
-
You'll be lucky (or at least will need to acquire some tools over and above the usual CD writing software)! SafeDisc is specifically designed to prevent you making copies.Originally posted by General Bolt:EULA sez you are allowed to make one copy of the CD.
-
Looks like both sets of calculations are wrong when calculating the J/mm^2.
The X-sectional area is pi*r*r (no factor of .5), but it looks like Jason has calculated pi*d*d (d = 2*r).
So, for the 7.92mm ATR you get
9097/pi*(7.92/2)^2 = 184J/mm^2
And, for, say, the 50L42
507000/pi*25^2 = 258J/mm^2
(Of course, there could be a factor of 4 allowance for the fact that the projectile has slowed down by a factor of 2 travelling from the muzzle to the target.)
In any case, the exact numbers don't matter. Since the factor of 4 is linear, comparisons are valid with either set of figures.
-
That's a binomial distribution. You won't see two peaks. It'll look just like a normal distribution at first glance.
The problem here is that the distribution is too flat to be normal or binomial - at least as they are usually understood. There just aren't any low or high tails. And the dip at '5' is so clear.
I find it easier to believe the chance is something like 45% for 0, 1, 5, 7, or 8 rounds and 55% for 2, 3, 4, or 6 rounds with the probability split evenly within each group giving:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"># shots probability
0 0.09
1 0.09
2 0.14
3 0.14
4 0.14
5 0.09
6 0.14
7 0.09
8 0.09</pre>
-
I can do statistics at work with some plausability (I'm on GMT/BST). Running full screen CMAK might be pushing it a bit
-
Looks real to meOriginally posted by ww2steel:Now, how do I use this standard deviation to determine how likely say, the dip at 5 is to be real, and not statistical noise?
There are a number of sophisticated tools statisticians (and others) use to determine if an observation is significant. I haven't been a practicing physicist for 21 years now so I've forgotten it all.
In any case, the data here isn't really useful for what you want. Are you even sure the distribution is normal and not binomial? Poisson? Completely random?
See (for example) Does this data come from a normal distribution? for more ideas on checking - there's also the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test if you want to go that far (try Google). But just stuffing the data into OpenOffice and drawing a chart gives me severe misgivings about the normality of the distribution - it just doesn't look like it. If it's not normal then most high-school statistics aren't valid and speculation on the importance of the SD is close to pointless.
-
You do the SD calculation *down* the columns, not across the rows.
The calculation (assuming I haven't cocked-up somewhere) gives
Series Mean SD
1(250) 3.96 2.2
2(376) 4.16 2.5
3(376) 4.29 2.4
Sum(1002) 4.16 2.4
Mean given to 2dp and SD to 1dp
You should treat the results and their interpretation carefully because (a) the number of trials is still quite low (although with 1000 trials we should have random error down in the 3% range), and (
the distribution clearly isn't normal (consistent dip at 5), so the meaning of SD is not what one might expect. -
I have a friend who works at the IWM Duxford, he regularly drives tanks (apparently rather enjoyable) and had this to say on the subject of turning tanks when I asked (for other reasons):
I believe some WWII tanks could do the "neutral turn" number, but maybe not.What I can tell you is that a Second World War tank steers because of
the speed differential between tracks. To turn right the right hand
track is slowed and the 'outer' (faster) track pulls the tank round.
(but you knew that.) This is all done via braking (some WW2 tanks have a
differential whereby as one track is braked, extra power is applied to
the other track - thus increasing the differential and allowing a
sharper turn at a given speed.)
Post war tanks (the Chieftain for example) can vary the power output to
each track via the gearbox (in some cases, the T-72 for example - the
tank has two separate steering gearboxes - one for each track). This
means steering is not dependant on braking (but it still has a part to
play - brakes are still applied when steering is initiated.) Another
upshot of this is the so called 'neutral turn'. This means that on many
modern tanks equal and opposite power can be applied to each track at
the same time and the vehicle can therefore turn 'on the spot'.
Back to WW2 tanks..
The faster you are going forwards when steering (and therefore braking)
is applied the wider the turning arc of your vehicle. I suppose that
this is because although there is still a speed differential between the
tracks at higher speeds when the turn is initiated both tracks are
travelling that much faster and the tank will have moved further by the
time the rather crude braking system comes into effect (does this make
sense?) Also a tank weighing 25 tons moving at 20mph is going to have
much more resistance / inertia than one moving at 10mph. Thus the
mechanical systems controlling turning will need more time and
application to work effectively. I think? Any how all the manuals give
wider turning arcs at higher speeds.
There comes a point (depending on the inertia of your tank and the
capability of its braking system) where you try and turn a tank and you
just go straight on! This is quite easy when tank driving, it is quite
easy to 'lose' say a Sherman when trying to turn at speeds as low as 15
miles an hour. This point varies considerably dependant on the ground
you are moving on. You have to turn at much lower speeds on wet ground.
A vehicles tank driver manul will tell drivers at what speeds and in
what gears turns are safe and what expected arcs of turn should be in
'average' conditions (but there are many variables.)
In just the same way that an experienced racing car driver can feel
when a car is on he edge of spinning or skidding a tank driver can feel
when he is about to push the vehicle past it limits. This only really
comes with experience of driving that sort of tank.
Your turning arc will depend on variables such as ground pressure,
power to weight ratio, forward inertia (your arc will be wider if you
are heading down hill) - this is why one of the main tank accidents is
the roll - inexperience drivers assume that because they have turned at
a particular angle on the flat, at a given speed, they can do the same
on a slope - nope they can't.) state of the ground you are moving over,
the quality of your brakes, the quality of your steering mechanism, do
you have a differential to switch extra power into the faster track (if
so how good is it?) - there are probably others.
I don't think you can extrapolate all turning circles from one set of
tank data. You can possibly get a formula but the parameters of that
formula would change from tank to tank because of the different
mechanical capabilities of their braking, steering, gearbox & power
systems (and the interrelationships of these - you may have a very
powerful tank that can apply a lot of power through a track but has a
crap steering linkage system or a tank that has low power but a
fantastic way of directing the power through to the track quickly.)
Which would be best? I am not a mechanic either, I haven't a clue - you
will have to talk to tank designers about this one!)
WW2 tanks cannot turn on the spot. There needs to be forward (or
rearward) motion. Without this there is no speed differential between
tracks and thus no turn can take place. This is a real bugger for non
turreted tank destroyers lurking in ambush. If an enemy appears 'out of
arc' the tank destroyer may well have to edge forward out of cover to be
able to fire at it (this means they must lurk with engines running, with
all the implications that has for overheating and engine smoke giving
away your position or they lurk with engines switched off and face the
prospect of trying to start whilst in action (not that easy) or
starting, backing out and abandoning a position, all because the enemy
are not straight ahead.)
There is also a minimum speed at which a turn can take place. Unless
sufficient power (and therefore forward or rearward motion) is applied
to pull the tank round obviously nothing happens. What tends to happen
in tight turns (e.g. street fighting turns) is that the driver slows to
a halt before the turn and applies power, a 'biting point' is reached
where power output suddenly overcomes the vehicle inertia / resistance
and the tank 'jerkily' slews round. This is often where the 'inside'
tank tracks come off - ripped off through sideways force. Or something
else gives (like the gearbox or power train). The driver has tried too
hard. He is trying to put the tank through a very tight turn and has
applied a lot of power to overcome both the weight of the tank and the
fact that he has got the brakes full on one side. It is much safer to
turn steadily at say 5 miles an hour, than to turn sharply at 2 mph. But
if you imagine turning steadily in a street fighting situation what
happens is that your turning arc brings you out into the centre of the
street and for a few seconds your vulnerable side armour is what the
enemy anti-tank gunner sees in front of him. If you can slew it round
without taking the track off then all he sees is your front armour.
Of course in very tight turns the length of the tank itself dictates
what a minimum arc can be.
-
You might want to clarify that you are talking about CW brigades here (and it's already been noted above by JDS). If you mean US formations then it's a case of "Veni, Vidi, you talked rot".Originally posted by Splinty:Just to confuse things further, companies are not lettered across a Brigade. For example the companies in 1st battalion 2nd BDE are lettered HQ, A,B,C,D. and so are the companies in 2nd battalion.
-
You might want to clarify that you are talking about CW brigades here (and it's already been noted above by JDS). If you mean US formations then it's a case of "Veni, Vidi, you talked rot".Originally posted by Splinty:Just to confuse things further, companies are not lettered across a Brigade. For example the companies in 1st battalion 2nd BDE are lettered HQ, A,B,C,D. and so are the companies in 2nd battalion.
-
Come on BF, whoever writes the patch installer should make sure it works with CDV installations as well as BF ones. There is intelligent life outside North America.
This is not rocket science, but it sure is annoying to all us CDV customers if it isn't done.
At the very least it should be made very clear which folder is the one to select. It's been a while since I patched my installation but I remember it wasn't at all clear.
-
If you see John, tell him he owes me turns!
-
Interesting comment from Martin in an interview/panel discussion over at SimHQ (http://www.simhq.com/_all/all_009b.html)
"
Martin (Battlefront): So far, every anti-piracy scheme has been cracked sooner or later. Like you say it's a problem that will never go away. So the main purpose of such programs is to buy time for the publisher to keep his "first to market" advantage. Important for shelf distribution (otherwise retail will be reluctant to buy games from you to put on their shelf), but far less important for our distribution method. Which is why we have never used such programs.
Let's also not forget that it is questionable how many people who play the pirated version of your game would turn into paying customers if you try to force them to. This isn't to mean that we condone piracy, but we try to counter it by making darn good games and hoping for support because people will want more of the good stuff, rather than wasting thousands of dollars on the attempt to force them against their will.
"
Emphasis added.
-
Stuff to keep:
1) PBEM
2) Realism(?) over eye-candy
3) Straightforward/easy artillery system (for those of us who don't want to pre-plan the trajectory of individual shells)
4) WWII emphasis - don't compromise tanks/infantry/artillery for the sake of horses/flaming pigs/space lobsters
5) WEGO
5a) Did I mention PBEM?
Things to change
1) PBEM - just two messages per turn please
2) Open up the file formats allowing 3rd party map design/scenario design/campaign management
3) SOPs - at least convoy movement
4&5) All the good stuff you've already told us about
-
-
My background is quantum field theory rather than soil mechanics
But the following comes to mind:The crucial issue for influencing the height and longevity of the dust cloud is the radius of the particles making it up.
(Very loosely) the force pulling the particles down (gravity) depends on the mass, hence radius cubed, of the particles, whereas the force resisting this - air resistance - depends on the cross-sectional area, hence radius squared (also the velocity, but that's another story).
So, the ratio of force down/force up is proportional to the radius. For large particles (say people, or cats) the force up is pretty well negligible for speeds less than several tens of metres per second and they accelerate downwards at the usual 9.81m/s^2. For small stuff with large area/mass ration, say a paper airplane, the force upwards can pretty well compensate for that downwards at even low velocity so the plane flies (rather than plummets as a sheep does).
Back to dust clouds. One of the major determinates of particle size in earth/soil is the moisture content - wet stuff sticks together better as the water can act like an adhesive (again very simplified). Wet clods of earth thrown up by tracks will drop straight back down again with almost no air resistance. Fine grains of sand will return to the ground much more slowly. Similarly, any tendency of hot rising air to lift particles up is only going to be effective where the upwards force exceeds that of gravity - this will only be possible for small particles.
Go to the beach, throw up a handful of dry sand from above the high water mark and a handful of the wet sludge from where the water is washing back and forth. The wet stuff comes straight back down unaffected by the wind (except if there's a gale blowing) whereas the dry stuff (a) falls back more slowly; and (
is easily blown downwind.I haven't checked, but (if Charles is doing his stuff) dust clouds should be a lot less pronounced when the weather is wet.
-
-
I don't want *you* to do it - although obviously that would be better - I'm happy to do it if either:
a) the installer you provide can take language and pathname arguments; or
a list of the changed files and where they go was available.If (a) is either too hard or too much work (and I appreciate you may have a lot more important things to work on at the moment than making my life easy), then, presumably, you've got the list of files as you need it to build your own installer. Let me have that. I'd be more than willing to post the result - an installer for CDV customers using English at the least, one for everyone (BFC and CDV) in all languages if that was feasible.
As a last resort I can always diff the original and patched trees (or just hold my users' hands).
-
It's a patch to the batch for the patch
I'd probably write an NSIS installer rather than risk someone not being able to run a batch file, or not having the patch executable for the batch file to run, or Saturn being in the house of Libra, or whatever.
Users, eh. Who needs 'em ?
(Of course, whoever writes the patch installer for BFC could look for the CDV registry entry if the BFC one isn't there and then (part of) the problem would go away. Or, better, CDV could stop messing about with where the damn thing installs and which registry entries it uses. But then what do I know? I only write software and installers for a living
) -
Obviously I *really* meant
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">CMAK_v103_Patch.exe /language English /location D:\Games\CMAK</pre>
-
In the original thread about the patch which is now closed I said:
and Madmatt respondedI'm the unoffical tech support for several of us who play CM.
I'd like to be able to script the installation for the others so no human interaction is necessary.
Can command line arguments be given to the installer to specify the language to use and the location to install to (we use the CDV version here in the UK) ?
If not, can they be added for the 1.03 patch?
With the context set, I'll continue.Tim, the installer does prompt you as to which language you wish to install (English, French or German) and you can install the files wherever you wish. By default, it looks for the install path in the registry but the CDV version of CMAK doesnt have that registry entry so it allows you to browse to wherever you wish to put the files. I actually detailed the exact install procedure for CDV customers on the online download page which will be up once the new patch is ready.
Matt, I agree with what you say, it's all there in the notes, but I'm trying to make it even easier for "my users". There's a (different) registry entry for CDV versions indicating the installation location and, in my case, all the users are English.
So, I want to have a batch file or, better still, an installer (say one written using NSIS) that *automagically* sets the language to English and locates the installation directory from the registry entries and executes the BFC provided installer with that information ready provided so the user can't make a mistake.
I want to be able to say something like
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">CMAK_v102_Patch.exe /language English /location D:\Games\CMAK
</pre>
-
I'm the unoffical tech support for several of us who play CM.
I'd like to be able to script the installation for the others so no human interaction is necessary.
Can command line arguments be given to the installer to specify the language to use and the location to install to (we use the CDV version here in the UK) ?
If not, can they be added for the 1.03 patch?
the distribution clearly isn't normal (consistent dip at 5), so the meaning of SD is not what one might expect.
Quick question regarding armor
in Combat Mission - Tips and Tricks
Posted
Long time since I did solid-state physics, but generally speaking these sort of simple observations are reasonable (this particular one is not, see below) only in ideal-cloud-cuckoo-physics world where all horses are spheres. In reality, things are always much more complicated.
In any case, back in the land of make-believe, you only have to think about this for a short time to see that:
</font>
PS. Manufacturing tolerances are going to add thousands of extra 'layers' of hard stuff in different places which would also swamp these edge effects. In this case, we would expect to see more variation across the 80mm plate than between 80mm and 30+50mm. AFAIK these variations are not seen.