88 thru motor- not immobilized!

[A co]

This T-34 has been penetrated all the way through the hull by an 88, and it is still running and mobile several minutes later. Check the location of the entry and exit hit decals- there's no way the shell could have missed the motor (and transmission).

So if the ideal is 'what you see is what you get', I humbly suggest that the way damage is calculated needs a new look. If this issue has been raised, touched upon, or flogged to death previously, I missed the thread.

If a save game file is needed, I can provide one of the tank moving, and possibly the older file from when it got hit. (I only recently noticed the exit decal.)

http://imgur.com/mlJyrU1

http://imgur.com/pbhFJYB

[costard]

Just a case of "We'd really like to have it too." I suspect. The game pushes processors pretty hard for numbers of calculations. The different sets of detail that are intersecting but not producing a meaningless output are all there by design and the level of complexity is running up against the number of calculations. Combinations and permutations get big, fast.

I'm pretty sure I watched an SU152 get knocked into reverse by an 88 last night, then get knocked into forward again - no stopping for that 45 tonne beast, instantaneous direction change (accompanied by a somewhat humorous boing as the shell ricocheted). So the momentum models might do with a little tweak.

[Oddball_E8]

I've actually seen motors working after having pretty severe damage done to them.

It's possible the shell just didn't do any fatal damage.

Sure, the engine might grind to a halt half an hour later in real life, but that's not simulated in-game.

Kinda a case of getting shot through the brain but surviving... it's rare, but it does happen.

[LukeFF]

I have a very hard time believing an 88mm shell wouldn't cause fatal engine damage with that sort of hit.

[Kieme(ITA)]

I agree with Luke,

engines are very sensible machines, more than one would imagine. Cut a 5mm wire somewhere and it won't start, scratch a small rubber pipe and it will leak to Death in few minutes if it's running, bend a metal part and it might crash.

Yeah sure soviet miths and durability all you want, but I see 60 years old engines that run better than new ones only when they have been conserved well during their years by caring people, and they still are fragile.

As Ossball says,

Generally, even though it is possible to imagine a trajectory that would not touch the engine (a bullet can sink inside your belly and miss a vital organ by few millimiters) I'd say that shot really had to show some damage to the engine or transmission.

[Thomm]

That tank should not be running any more.

Best regards,

Thomm

[JonS]

I'd say that shot really had to show some damage to the engine or transmission.

How do you know it isn't?

It is quite possible that the engine of that tank is now down to a red-dot in terms of damage. That's kind of the point of FOW ... you don't know how damaged something is.

[Bulletpoint]

I think a Battlefront guy recently confirmed that damage is not modelled based on trajectory intersecting internal parts. Instead, it just rolls to check for penetration, then rolls on a damage table with some modifier for the remaining amount of energy in the shot.

With the game looking more and more realistic (hit decals), the internal bits of the game haven't quite caught up.

[Lt Belenko]

I've actually seen motors working after having pretty severe damage done to them.

It's possible the shell just didn't do any fatal damage.

Sure, the engine might grind to a halt half an hour later in real life, but that's not simulated in-game.

Kinda a case of getting shot through the brain but surviving... it's rare, but it does happen.

Somefink like getting stabbed in an unimportant part of the heart. :eek:

[Bil Hardenberger]

You can't let things like this eat at your enjoyment of the game. Who knows how that round might have bounced around as it traveled through the hull. Weirder things have happened so chalk it up to fortunes of war and move along.

Bil

[Kieme(ITA)]

Well, generally I'd agree with you Bil, but we got a situation here where at least one of these things happened:

-the damage models inside the tank are bugged (or they don't even exist)

-the damage roll is bugged (if there's one)

-the hole textures are not very precise on where they exactly hit

Probably Bulletpoint made the right point about this.

In any case if a projectile has the kynetic energy to go through all that tank and exit where the second screenshot shows, it should have hit something concerning the engine and/or the transmission. And this should have been massive, either tearing apart half of the engine or making a big hole within the transmission, screwing the gears, not to mention all possible damage caused by spall lining etc.

We can guess the projectile trajectory because we got both the in and out holes...

So, in conclusion, it's not like a small hole on a side, where you could say the projectile lost its momentum and died there with no more energy, the shot here passed through the entire tank, and the engine/transmission is hardly to be safe with that.

Yes, there's 1 chance that the engine and trans wouldn't be touched, or at least would be still operational, as I said: a bullet can miss an organ by a millimiter and you would be very lucky, but in this case I'd say for the game's sake some engine damage should be there.

When I say that the tank had no damage of this kind I just assume the words of OP are correct, the tank moved on without problems for the successive turns, maybe the OP can give more info, but I base my thoughts on his words-

[A Canadian Cat]

In any case if a projectile has the kynetic energy to go through all that tank and exit where the second screenshot shows, it should have hit something concerning the engine and/or the transmission.

Actually I could argue that since it had enough kinetic energy to penetrate and exit then it must *not* have hit anything substantial inside the tank otherwise it would not have had enough energy to exit.

We have had several threads that show that the internal damage model is pretty abstract so we will be seeing this kind of thing frequently and I agree with Bill 100% we just have to move on. Direct tracking of internal damage is just not a game feature at the moment.

[womble]

Well, generally I'd agree with you Bil, but we got a situation here where at least one of these things happened:

Oh no it isn't.

-the damage models inside the tank are bugged (or they don't even exist)

Unless by "damage model" you mean "component model" at which point you're correct, they don't exist.

-the damage roll is bugged (if there's one)

Of course there's a damage roll. And just because it doesn't always produce results according to your expectations (however realistic those expectations are) doesn't mean it's "bugged", it means it's not designed to meet those expectations. It's abstracted.

-the hole textures are not very precise on where they exactly hit

We're told they're very precise.

It bugs me when every little imperfection in the game's modelling (and this is undoubtedly one of them) gets called a "bug". Bugs are errors, not design decisions, and the abstract nature of the damage tables is a design decision.

It's a game. It's the best rendition of WW2 armoured combat yet seen. Its future iterations will exceed the current one. It's not perfect, but if you waited for a perfect game, you'd never get it because BFC would go out of business before it was released (and it never will be perfect, because nothing ever is). Sure, agitate for a 3D component model that determines damage by where the internal round trajectory intersects said components; gimme a pom-pom and I'll agitate right there with you. Just don't call it a "bug" when it's nothing of the sort.

[Pelican Pal]

This would be a bug/a problem if it happened often. As far as I can tell this is currently a one off incident. There is no proof that this issue is a recurrent problem.

If 50% or more of 88 shots through the engine block did not result in a destroyed engine then we could call it a bug. But right now we are currently in the area of "strange things happen in war"

[Kieme(ITA)]

Actually I could argue that since it had enough kinetic energy to penetrate and exit then it must *not* have hit anything substantial inside the tank otherwise it would not have had enough energy to exit.

.

I absolutely agree, that's why I am surprised that the engine or transmission got away with it - looking at the in/out holes, there's no doubt it would have struck one of those.

If it wasn't for the exit hole anyting could be plausible, but with that kind of exit hole you know that the projectile passed though the engine and/or the transmission, therefore you would expect a result.

If the game is not set to show such a result because there's no "technology" within it to take account of that it's ok, but among the tank damage table there's the engine so I would imagine that such a shot would destroy it (if this doesn't what else can?), yet it didn't, that's why I presumed it was a bug or a wrong calculation of projectile trajectory or whatever, you just can't have such a shot not damage the engine...

Unfortunately we cannot reproduce the shot because we can't aim directly our guns, so this has to pass by. Yet it has been good in my opinion to point it out as the original poster did. This might be something BFC could consider to improve in the future, as it seems there's room for improvement. Ignoring it could be a wrong move imho.

[A co]

It's an abstraction, then.

Maybe the effect that startled me, "Surely x component was destroyed given the path of the shell, but it's not.", could be reduced by not having the shell represented so often going all the way through the vehicle. You would see the shell go in and what happens inside is up to the gods of armored warfare. As it is now, shells pass all the way through in what seems to me a high proportion of the time, and the paired hit decals are creating an expectation of component damage that isn't being met.

Let me say that I am writing this in a spirit of overall admiration of the game, and wanting to help reduce the instance of things that look 'off'.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

You can't let things like this eat at your enjoyment of the game. Who knows how that round might have bounced around as it traveled through the hull. Weirder things have happened so chalk it up to fortunes of war and move along.

Bil

Exactly this.

You can never say never.

[womble]

This would be a bug/a problem if it happened often. As far as I can tell this is currently a one off incident. There is no proof that this issue is a recurrent problem.

It still wouldn't be a bug, since it's working exactly as designed. Not everything that is wrong with a piece of computer code is a bug.

[Lethaface]

It still wouldn't be a bug, since it's working exactly as designed. Not everything that is wrong with a piece of computer code is a bug.

Things being bugs or not hings on the question: are you a customer or a programmer

If it were/is really a reproducible problem, the technical classification should not matter on this forum (improvement, bug, new feature, design flaw, whatever).

I personally always thought internal damage was simulated. Since it seems so be abstracted, I agree that it would be a little far fetched to address this as a problem, when it could just be an incident

[Pelican Pal]

It still wouldn't be a bug, since it's working exactly as designed. Not everything that is wrong with a piece of computer code is a bug.

The assumption is that 88 shells passing through the engine shouldn't leave the engine intact a high percentage of the time, and that BFC would agree with that. Therefore there would exist an error in how damage is calculated.

[76mm]

It still wouldn't be a bug, since it's working exactly as designed. Not everything that is wrong with a piece of computer code is a bug.

Just to clarify, if they meant to insert a 99% chance for damage to the engine but by mistake wrote 9.9%, it is a bug, but if they deliberately inserted 9.9% (for whatever reason), it is a "design decision"?

This is a gaming forum, not a computer programming forum, and I for one am OK with people calling flawed design decisions "bugs" even if it might not be completely accurate--especially because unless someone looks at the code, it might not be obvious if something is a "bug" or a "design decision".

[snarre]

again why this gind small thing is rised upp sou big thing , it dosent destroy game play .

[Cogust]

Isn't the fact that the round penetrated through the entire tank, engine and all, a bigger realism problem than the round not wrecking the engine?

[snarre]

nou its not destroy game play, some smart say all ready it on game engine and how its work. right now if we leave game engine 2.0 and we dont have hit decal . nou one ewen bother to post about this or ewen know hole thing , im right sure this gona fix sooner or later to 100% matching where ap shell hit and what damage its gona do.

[MikeyD]

I'm reminded of two stories.

First was an account told to me of an armor battle along the Vietnam DMZ 'that never happened' (wink-nod). The story (tale) ended with the U.S. M48 returning to laager and being shocked to find a 100mm round had pierced the hull through-and-through below the turret basket without the crew being aware of it. Since there were no 'official' battles between M48s and T-55s during the war make of that story what you wish.

The second story involved the first time an RPG round hit a Stryker in Iraq. the round exploded against the forward slat cage, slightly wounding the unbuttoned commander with metal spatter. It wasn't 'til 8-9 minute later that the driver noticed engine temps climbing. The RPG had penetrated the bow and cut the engine's coolant lines without anybody realizing it.

You look into a Panther's engine compartment, for example, and comparatively little space is being taken up by the engine itself. Wrecking a cooling fan might not cause immediate failure. Eventual failure, but not immediate failure.