wokelly
-
Posts
285 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by wokelly
-
-
Um 1C made the game, not battlefront. But again doing a little looking might have revealed that.
From the web site:
Notice how it says 1c is the developers, not battlefront.Since we first announced the game last fall, we (Battlefront.com) have been working hard with the developer (1c) to enhance the overall realism of the game as well as add new game features and options. Below is just a short list of the dozens of improvements that have been made so far.
To be honest I am not really pointing the finger at you, just at those who whine that they paid hard earned money for a game yet did not bother to look beyond the battlefront logo. If it was so hard earned it was then their responsibility to themselves to seek out all the info about the game.
Well to be honest I was one of the Rash ones to pre-order. But luckily for me I liked the game I got. Regardless if I had disliked it at least I would have been able to accept it was my fault for being rash.
[ May 03, 2007, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: wokelly ]
-
Yeah the Sherman really is the most under-rated tank of WWII. I really hate all the people who claim the sherman was a POS. Its simple not true. It was a fine medium tank.
-
Ah nvidia 6600. How bout that one?
[ May 03, 2007, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: wokelly ]
-
At least your were responsible enough to try the demo rather then rashly pre-order it and then whine about it.
Yeah hopefully after a few patches it will be top notch. For me I love the game, even with its short comings.
-
Yes, this one is funny, there was a lighter brand with that name that was famous for always fire at first try even whith wind. The Shermans also usually catch fire with the first hit. Spooky.Originally posted by MikoyanPT:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tofke:
-The Germans used to call the Sherman Tanks of the Allies "Ronsons" or "Tommy Cookers"
Beer killer
</font>
-
Hey could you tell me where to go to do that. I am a complete moron in terms of knowing how computers work.Originally posted by Xerxes the Great:Wokelly, Flint, and all
I figured out how to make the game look even prettier! The problem was I was letting the game to adjust the AA and AF. Unfortunately, this game does not handle AA/AF internally. Most games do but not this one. I wish the mods and developers would have alerted us earlier.
So, what I did was to manually set the AA and AF and the contrast/brightness/Gamma in the ATI control panel for my ATI 850XT card and WOW what a difference that made!!
I must say my graphics look nicer than Flint now!! I am not jealous any more and I will enjoy this game even more now!
Do yourself a favor and if you haven't done so, let the Video card manually set the AA/AF and contrast/brightness (by default most cards are set to allow the game adjust these settings).
It will take a few trial and errors to find the optimum setting but when you do, you will be amazed.
Happy hunting.
Over and out.
-
Turret is where you want to aim. Have your Tanks target the turret with ALT 1 and those 75mm's have a better chance.
-
I have to agree, it looks like the German penetration values are at 30 degrees while the allies are at 0 degrees.
-
Well at least the crispness of the image is done by the way I said. Its pretty simple to see how, bring up one of your screen shots and look at it stretched to fit the whole screen. Then adjust the size of the screen to fit a quarter. You will see the resolution becomes much sharper.Originally posted by Xerxes the Great:Wokelly,
So you are saying that he is not getting these crisp images and resolution in the game itself?
As for everything else, well it could be his video card or some photo shop.
-
Yeah to be honest I really do not terribly mind the lack of historical accurateness, it makes the game quite interesting. However I am looking forward to some custom missions by players with more historical TO&Es.
-
Its actually not that hard. He is just using a high resolution and pasting it in a small resolution. From say 1280x1024 of the original screen shot to 640x480 makes the image quite sharp since all those pixels are in a smaller area. That is how you get those sharp resolution screen shots.Originally posted by Xerxes the Great:Flint,
I believe a few folks have already asked you this. Could you please share with us what video settings and resolution you are using and what video card you have.
Do you use photoshop on some of these pics or they are direct screen shots?
I have the video settings at MAX but can't get this quality! Should we use anti-aliasing manually on the card or let the game adjust it?
Appreciate your help soldier!
Over and out.
-
[ May 01, 2007, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: wokelly ]
-
-
Well this may be a bit off topic, but I guess I will post it since we are talking about the panthers armor:
sources used:Note: This is an informational posting...not some attempt to get armor quality issues or degradation of armor during a production run into the game.A question was raised some time ago concerning the degradation of german armor quality over time. A few even went so far as to say that this degradation was an assumption on the part of some, or presumed, and wasn't based on anything factual.
That is not in fact the case. The US - along with the UK - conducted periodic metallurgical testing of German, Italian and Japanese armor coupons throughout the war. A section of armor plate was flame cut from a captured vehicle (always a non-burner or flamer as this affects the testing), and in the case of the US was shipped to Watertown Arsenal or other US testing facilities.
For those interested in this question you can use the DTIC document library to order the various testing reports. If you want Tiger info try WAL 710/542 - Armor and Welding on a Pz VI Tiger Tank...for example...or WAL 710/608 - Armor and welding on a Pz-IV etc. All these documents are now public domain, and thus its easy to follow the metallurgical trail so to speak.
Over the course of 1944, with most fingers pointing to early in same, the Germans changed the alloy composition of their armor. Prior to this time the usual Cr-Mo type steel was used. All testing showed the plates to be sufficiently cross-rolled and both fracture and Charpy tests showed good fracture and shatter characteristics.
By the beginning of 1944 things changed. Mo was dropped and the plates started their trend to .5% carbon, 2% Chromium, and .14% Vanadium composition. Obviously Mo was running short or had disappeared, and a substitute had to be found that was generally acceptable...and that substitute was the move to vanadium.
This had a couple of effects...first high carbon is generally counter-indicated when it comes to obtaining good welds and shock/shatter performance. The deterioration of weld performance was witnessed in combat by both the German tank crews themselves and the Allies, and became a consistent feature in German armor samples from that point on. Good RHA in the US or UK typically is no higher than .3% carbon at worst. Poor quality steel such as was found in some of the Italian AFV ran as high as .5-.6% carbon, and that of course yields generally horrid shatter performance. Instead of clean penetrations typical of 'good' armor you see large tears in a plate with considerably more material/spall forced into the AFV.
Another issue with this composition is quench cracking...if you dont quench the plate properly in manufacturing you can generate cracks that are inside the plate and invisible to the naked eye. Armor with interior cracking or non-uniform composition is obviously a bad thing when you hit it with a high velocity projectile.
Then, and this is especially true of plates greater than 2" in thickness, the same mad rush to satisfy quantity (thus screwing up your quench cycle) can also affect the quality of the plate. In case of a vandium based steel, you will use less alloy to make it for a given weight, but between that and improper quenching you end up with steel of inferior hardness.
Finally we top all that off with improper tempering...and you actually induce brittleness into what is already a faulty plate. The faulty tempering occured in one of two fashions...either the plate was allowed to cool too slowly or the temperature ranged in the 400-1000 degree F range and didn't exceed that. (Ideally you want 1200-1700 degrees followed by an appropriate quench) A further side effect of this is variable hardness in a plate of a given thickness...and again this was noted in the Panther's armor.
The Panther glacis armor sampled in 1944 demonstrated all these characteristics, and more. Its not that the design of the plate or the weld was bad, it was simply that Germany was out of alloys required for good steel production, and the substitute process adopted was inferior in every way to the material it was replacing. When you throw bad manufacturing process on top of that (improper quench and temper) in hurry to get the vehicle out the door, you get what was seen in combat...brittle and shatter failures in plates which shouldnt have those issues.
When we come off the glacis and to the side armor with much less thickness, its all a formula for outright disaster. In the case of some Panther Chassis, 75mm Sherman HE not only cracked the armor, but literally blew sections of armor plate off the tank...and obviously that should never happen on anyone's vehicle if the armor is up to snuff. I'm sure US officials were surprised to see such a large drop in quality...and they certainly noted in their reports that they believed Germany was (materially) approaching the end of the line.
Other nations had their issues as well...early war matildas for one had issues with castings with regards to both metallurgy and process control early on. These were often a function of a single manufacturer and the controls in place at that location.
So - there you have it. The reduction in armor quality was a product of nothing more than facts. A lack of appropriate alloys and a lack of attention in materials manufacturing...all of which made for brittle and shatter prone tanks and welds.
Could Germany have avoided this fate? Yes...if they had more invested in quality control checks, re-quenching and re-tempering the armor would have eliminated some of these faults. That too was demonstrated in US testing. The barbarians were already at the gates though...and I am quite sure some of the T-34s rushed off the line early on would have similar problems. Heck some of the JS series tanks late in the war had severe quality issues...something which should have never happened given the strategic situation by that time.
I hope this puts this particular myth to rest once and for all. Anyone interested in a late war panther sampling can order ADA 954940 or 954952 for ord. dept comments as well as the full metallurgical workups of a typical late model panther. No use taking my word for it...let the spectroscopy and microscopes in the reports do the speaking...
- WAL 710/542 - Armor and Welding on a Pz VI Tiger Tank
- WAL 710/608 - Armor and welding on a Pz-IV etc.
- ADA 954952 - Metallurgical examination of 3.25" thick armor from a german Panther tank
- ADA 954940 - Metallurigical exmaination of armor and weleded joints from the side of a panther tank.
-
I really dont have a problem with it. The red icon goes fills up when your unit sees an enemy tank. If the enemy is behind a hill or something, then of course the first thing it will see is the enemy tanks turret. Hence you need to aim for the turret because that may be all it actually sees and can target.
It makes sense really, though yeah it would be nice for the designers to have it auto aim if the tank is hull down.
-
I have to agree benpark, it gets tiresome fighting an enemy with 2-3x more men and tanks then you in each battle.
-
At some point we will start to see Custom Missions and Campaigns submitted for this game. Personally I looked at the mission editor but I have no idea how to work it. Couldn't even edit an existing mission let alone start one from scratch.
However the most dissapointing aspect of the campaign we were given was its lack of accurate TOE's. I mean it seemed just about every mission you played as the Russians you ran into 4-5 Tigers, or as the Germans in 1941, 3-4 T-34s. I mean I am all for a challenge, but not all battles on the Russian Front involved Tigers, and not all battles in Russian in 1941 involved T-34s. Or when playing Germans, the amount of 76mm armed Shermans in 1944. Something that was more common, like maybe T-34s vs Mark4s or long barrel mark3s, or Shermans 75's and Cromwells vs Mark4s.
I just want some missions without the uber God tanks, battles that were a bit more reflective of how things were.
What exactly are you guys looking for?
-
I am sure I have seen it work. When my guy doesn't fire, usually when I hit Alt 1 he starts to fire. However the part about the default hull targeting is a theory that I heard. For what ever reason aiming for the turret usually does the trick for me.Originally posted by K9crump:Nice theory! Have you seen it work for real?, or are you speculating. It sounds good, but it sucks when you fire a bunch of rounds trying to hit the turret. I wonder if it would be wiser to just get into a better position where hit probability would be better. It seems like they never give you enough good rounds to be wasteing on trying to hit a turret from too far away.
Mike
I could be wrong, but it seems to start getting my tank to start firing at the enemy tank.
Well no need to be critical. It would be nice for it to be fixed so the tank automatically fires if the enemy tank is hull down, but again hitting Alt 1 does the trick. Not a big deal really, though you do lose a few critical seconds realizing the tank is not going to fire.Originally posted by SirReal:More importantly, you'd think most of the tank training programs during WW2 would have included the simple instruction "if you can only see the turret, don't aim for the chassis".
Of course, in this particular simulation, they opted for the Truth, namely, all tank gunners must await a personal order by the local battalion commander, before aiming at an enemy turret.
Oh wait, it's a russian developer...
-
I have had some problems where my tankers see the enemy tanks (icon is red when I have the tank my tank selected). I think the problem is your tank targets the enemy tanks hull automatically, so if it cant see it it wont fire. What I have found is if you aim for the turret (ALT 1) the tank will fire the round because the enemy tank is hull down, so aiming for the turret means it will fire at the turret rather then the hull which the tank has no LOS.
So in conclusion, if you tank is not firing, hit Alt 1 and it should start firing at the enemy tank.
-
Thats not the point bad. Its the simple fact the tanks you are facing are better then yours and they have MORE of those superior tanks then you have inferior tanks. I too managed to get past "Strong at Heart", but quite simply followed by a similarly terrible mission where you face 4 tigers, and many Mark4s, all of which are superior to you with tanks with 20 AP shells and 80 HE shells, well what the hell do you expect.
Personally I would love some missions that had realistic TOE's. I mean when I play Kursk I should be facing lots of Mark3s and Mark4s. But it seems like I have run into just about every Tiger or Elephant Platoon that took part in the battle.
The St. Lo mission had M24's in it, which are not exactly hard tanks to kill, but they damn well should not be in game in a 1944 battle. Another Russian Mission has you facing 4 Kind Tigers when at best you could manage to buy 3 T34-85s and a T-34 1943 tank. I mean are you serious?
-
Yeah there are some screwy things in this game, ie M24's in the St. Lo mission
-
Actually I found an easier method. I went into options, clicked the "Ignore Campaign Loss" button and lost the mission. Bam, on to the next mission.
-
Whats the MOD utility? ATM I cant get into mission editor so I can do anything there.
Yeah may try the map on easy this time.
-
Which explains why the T-34s mod 43s in game have 10 APBC shells, 10 APHEBC rounds, and freaking 80 HE rounds. Because it just makes sense to have 80% of your ammo HE...
</font>
Theatre of War Screenshots
in Theatre of War
Posted
I dunno, my 6600 is doing fine. Everything is at max except for a few things. Shadows are gone, grass is medium, tress medium, sky detail off. Thats it, runs fine. But I guess it cant be helped.