tiger123 Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 What I refer to is the rocking back and forward motion any tank makes when it fires it`s main gun. looking at contempory footage there is virtually no motion -ecept muzzle recoil. Considering that CM love to be realistic as pos this just looks daft.(and wrong) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger33 Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 It's been discussed before, this won't be changed. I like it but I guess I can see how it might bother others. I barely notice it most of the time though. I still remember how in the first mission in the CMSF campaign, I parked my MGS Styrkers and Abrams up on that ridge and watched them start blasting away while rocking back a bit, I thought it looked awesome. So I guess I favor stuff looking cool over absolute realism. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amizaur Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Some lighter tanks armed with powerfull guns (like T-34/85 or Sherman Firefly) could rock a bit, after shooting. But Panther and Tiger were so heavy and with well designed suspension, that they were very stable firing platforms with little rocking, the recoil was well absorbed by the recoil mechanism. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darknight (DC) Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 From what I remember reading, the rocking had nothing to do with the Firefly being an unstable platform, because it was stable, it had to do with the 17pdr gun being retro-fitted to the Sherman turret. There wasn't room in the turret to properly absorb the recoil, so a system was designed that used the tank itself to absorb the recoil energy using the suspension system. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerDog Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 What I refer to is the rocking back and forward motion any tank makes when it fires it`s main gun. looking at contempory footage there is virtually no motion -ecept muzzle recoil. Considering that CM love to be realistic as pos this just looks daft.(and wrong) Holy snappin saffire .... :eek: Well, I can tell you that a Sherman M4 rocked somewhat when I was in it. Enough on firing the master weapon that my head would roll backwards a good 6"+ away from the sighting telescope and I'd have to re-lay the master weapon for another shot. The suspension contracted, the barrel rose up and the rear end went down, even with the muzzle brake on the 76mm M4A2E8.... The only time it didn't rock was when we're firing blank rounds on training exercises. The darn barrel never even moved with those loads. I also don't remember a lot of rocking with Smoke or WP rounds.... I was wondering for a minute if I was having a senior's moment and if I had forgotten my personal experiences, or was remembering them incorrectly. So, I just checked some real world footage to see if I was confused and having a bout of early onset dementia. :confused: Here's just a quickie video I found with Google..... Some of the most obvious examples are at about 3:15 into the video. There's different angles and different terrain (which does affect rocking motion), but the bottom line... she ROCKS !!!! Now, the question is.... does the animation in CMBN etc, exaggerate the real life rocking ... perhaps... but it's a freakin game and I love the rocking motion, which I actually thought was a nice real life touch compared to past games I've played using tanks. Regards, Doug 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Shortly after the game came out, I thought that if they halved the rocking effect, it would both look and feel realistic. Not sure why they felt it needed to be overdone. Pity. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Now, the question is.... does the animation in CMBN etc, exaggerate the real life rocking ... perhaps... but it's a freakin game and I love the rocking motion, which I actually thought was a nice real life touch compared to past games I've played using tanks. This. This "problem" is so overblown; no offense guys, but I think some of you are starting to spend an unhealthy amount of time being concerned with a really minor feature. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 The exaggerated motion you speak off may be necessary given the animation scale. If it were more subtle, or a strict representation of actual tanks in motion, the player wouldn't notice. Personally, I don't really care. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Shortly after the game came out, I thought that if they halved the rocking effect, it would both look and feel realistic. Not sure why they felt it needed to be overdone. Pity. Agree, cannot see why it cannot have a normal, reduced, setting for vehicle firing, stopping, starting. As for M4's rocking, sure, given the gun v's the weight of the tank, but a Panther/Tiger, they barely twitch. For me a suspension of disbelief killer, especially if they have to stop, start, fire, makes the uber kitties look like dodgem cars. Still, BF has drawn a line, so s'not happening, now lets get really worked up over the precise angle of the German helmets! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Really disappointing. You would think that reducing or killing this would be flipping a single variable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 That variable is in your head, and it's up to you to flip it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Perhaps those who mind actually have an idea what is correct and those that don't mind really don't know or care. However if you claim that your game is realistic down to wallpaper and milestones you might hope that inaccurate motion of tanks like rocking like a jelly just from stopping and starting let alone firing was dealt with. Now it may be that CMSF armour was re-skinned and loaded into CMBN and that is why when it first came out we had daft accuracy and firing on the move and rocking and everything else. And reversing as fast as forwards. And some of this has been made better. But seeing it wrong every time I play really makes me peeved. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crushingleeek Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 looking at contempory footage there is virtually no motion -ecept muzzle recoil. The only time it didn't rock was when we're firing blank rounds on training exercises. The darn barrel never even moved with those loads. I also don't remember a lot of rocking with Smoke or WP rounds.... could tiger123 have been looking at footage of training exercises using blank rounds? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 This. This "problem" is so overblown; no offense guys, but I think some of you are starting to spend an unhealthy amount of time being concerned with a really minor feature. +1 on that, but heck in a game that now has more helmet mods than there are hats in a department store it kind of goes with the turf. The exaggerated motion you speak off may be necessary given the animation scale. If it were more subtle, or a strict representation of actual tanks in motion, the player wouldn't notice. Personally, I don't really care. Good point, not being a coder I really do not know technically what is or isn't possible. Really disappointing. You would think that reducing or killing this would be flipping a single variable. It seems we all tend to minimize what it would take to make a change we'd prefer. It is after all easier than saying "I think this would be really hard but could you change this"? The video certainly challenges the assumption that they do not rock at all and to Childress's point would minimizing it almost eliminate the effect? Maybe, then you get into the question do you want it to rock too much or not at all? I am with BadgerDog, I like em rockin. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerner Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 If the tank's a rockin' don't come knockin'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerDog Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Some of you guys need to start worrying about some more important stuff ... I used to whine about having no shoes, until I met a man with no feet Regards, Doug 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Well, I can tell you that a Sherman M4 rocked somewhat when I was in it. Enough on firing the master weapon that my head would roll backwards a good 6"+ away from the sighting telescope and I'd have to re-lay the master weapon for another shot. The suspension contracted, the barrel rose up and the rear end went down, even with the muzzle brake on the 76mm M4A2E8.... BD So that explains why the 17pdr and the 76mm had a lower rate of fire than the 75mm in RL - other than just loading times. Designing out this reaction was a good thing for accuracy in tanks. Not just Shermans. Churchills and the 57mm? Ok so the Churchill only weighs about 40 tons and the recoil from 57mm would be something fierce and will all those bogies holding the tracks flat to the earth it was just so it did not go backwards aswell as rock about. Lucky that. BTW you know that blobby thing on the end of the gun? Called a muzzle brake. On a Tiger it would take 70% of the recoil force, the hydraulic buffer 25%, and 5% would be taken by the hydro-pneumatic recuperator to put the gun back into position. Clever stuff. However I cannot see how they used to rock the tank in any book - is the modelling wrong!? BD. While I appreciate you may not think it a big problem some like claimed realism to be in the game. Perhaps in your experience with tanks you can say how fast in reverse they were. And what difficulties arise when reversing. It is nice to have someone with some experience. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerDog Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 However I cannot see how they used to rock the tank in any book - is the modelling wrong!? I have no idea what you're talking about... :confused: However, according to my wife, if you give me a coffee break, you'll have to retrain me ... To be honest, I should have just let this thread go and spent the time actually playing the game and enjoying it, instead of trying to convince anyone that the M4 Sherman did rock when firing. I was simply trying to address the original poster's incorrect assumption, at least about the Sherman ... I apologize for commenting at all... lesson learned. I'm off to get my daylights punched out by my long time PBEM partner .... Regards, Doug 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerDog Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 BD. While I appreciate you may not think it a big problem some like claimed realism to be in the game. Perhaps in your experience with tanks you can say how fast in reverse they were. And what difficulties arise when reversing. It is nice to have someone with some experience. Thanks for the feedback ... appreciate the sentiments, but to clarify my previous post, I really don't want to get involved any further with more book technical specifications versus real world experience type arguments.... all over a GAME !!! Indulge me here, just for a minute. The reverse speed according to the manual is X, however is that with a worn "sun gear" or not? Let's start a new thread about worn sun gears. Also, you lose about 10% of X if you haven't cleaned the air filters, so maybe we could start a thread over that variable and argue until the cows come home. Do you see what I mean? I'm out .... Thanks for listening ... Regards, Doug 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 The sad part is calculating how many programming hours were spent on the "unrealistic" rocking motion when the time could have been spent on other features. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amizaur Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 It's a graphical, visual "issue" after all. Not important at all to the gameplay (IMO). But if we are talking about it and if for someone visual look and feel is important - I would say that I didn't see any rocking of a Panther or a Tiger on archival videos of combat or practice shooting. Or ot was so subtle, I didn't notice it. The gun recoil was full, so I doubt all those shots were blank rounds. Those tanks are so heavy and big (big base footprint, length, width) that recoil seemed to be fully absorbed by gun recoil system, the tank didn't rock at all *, just the dust raised from it's hull. * - didn't rock at all when looking at it from 10 or 20 meters. If the tank rocked for few centimeters back and forward after the shot, it would not be visible at the video, but of course the crew would feel it. On the other hand, in other cases of lighter tanks, where the proportion between tank mass, shell mass, shell velocity and recoil distance is different, the rocking may be visible. When a relatively light and smaller tank is equipped with a powerfull gun (like T-34/100 prototype) the recoil and after-shot rocking can even make the combination unpractical. Do I think it should be corrected ? Well, if it takes half an hour to change some data that is responsible for how much tanks are rocking to cut the rocking to half of current value, that's ok. If it takes more than half an hour, and if it require separate testing - then I would prefer this time was spent on more important issues. * * - correcting wrong or making a new helmet shape I don't personally see as an important issue but rather other things which have greater influence on the gameplay 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George MC Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 The sad part is calculating how many programming hours were spent on the "unrealistic" rocking motion when the time could have been spent on other features.# Errmm...is not the sad part calculating the hours spent? I'm starting to lose the will to live with all this OCD ****e TBH. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 However if you claim that your game is realistic down to wallpaper and milestones you might hope that inaccurate motion of tanks like rocking like a jelly just from stopping and starting let alone firing was dealt with. The amount of rocking when starting and stopping is realistic. What could use a tweek is the speed of the rocking, i.e. they rock too fast. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 To be honest, I should have just let this thread go and spent the time actually playing the game and enjoying it, instead of trying to convince anyone that the M4 Sherman did rock when firing. I was simply trying to address the original poster's incorrect assumption, at least about the Sherman ... I apologize for commenting at all... lesson learned. I'm off to get my daylights punched out by my long time PBEM partner .... Regards, Doug Now there's a guy with his priorities in order. It wasn't time wasted..at least not totally. As one with no experience or firsthand knowledge that would like the game to be as accurate as possible (within the time and resources BFC has), I for one am happy to hear from someone with actual experience and footage to boot that says "sorry BFC is closer than you think to being correct no matter what you might want to assume". Thanks BadgerDog. As for me, I am only here because I am either at work and can't play, or am waiting for a turn. (hear that guys..I am waiting for a turn ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Lee Irked Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Honestly Tiger123 has a gripe ... well so be it, that is his right, hell we all have game gripes. If it is an easy fix I hope BF works to improve it. If not oh well ... meh In the end it is a game and because it is it will vary just slightly from real life. Slightly. I appreciate his input and hope it makes its way to the host of wish improvements we all have, but at the end of the battle I still am having fun with what it is... a game. Still hoping for strudel to be implemented, heck Skyrim has it! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.