Jump to content

Russian Optics and Spotting in general


nuzrak

Recommended Posts

it has been stated that "external units acting as commanders and using the fancy optics"  to IFV crew communications are bugged. WHen that's fixed in 1.02 the Russian BMP-2M and BMP-3 will be nasty. Let's wait. Especially the BMP-2M since Chris has also stated that they will now use the new APDFS 30mm used by the BMP-3Ms which even slice through the side armor of an M1A2 abrams in some places.

Edited by antaress73
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example...here is a scenario I created just to test spotting times against each other for a BMP-2M and an M2A3.  Took me 10 minutes to build.  Ran it 5 times.  BMP spotted first every time but also died every time.

 

I didn't die or become ill from running a couple WEGO turns (2 each time specifically).  Run it yourself.  Run it in real time and see what happens.

BMP spotting test.zip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vanir, I'm not disputing that I occasionally experience some amazing runs of bad luck playing these games; just recently in fact in CMRT I had two T34/85's perform an almost perfect double flank on a Panther only to see the first ones shot ricochet off the Panthers turret and KIA the second T34 as it closed in... the Panther naturally proceeded to show the surviving T34 how it was done properly!

 

But I'm still not convinced that simple bad luck is what I'm seeing in these instances, but it also stands to reason that if I'm having a horrible run of luck and only seeing the outliers then I would think that!

 

I'm also not sure why vehicles performing a hunt move don't count as moving? The Bradley of course stopped as soon as it spotted the BMP but it made the spot while moving in the hunt command not after it stopped, whereas the static BMP in almost all instances failed to spot the Bradley as it moved up and even after it began firing.

 

How else can this be tested? My original emphasis was to test the how often static Russian AFV's failed to spot AFV's moving into their forward facing arcs, because I believed they were under performing and I believe the test does a good job showing that and reveals that they are really bad at it.

But the issue is clouded by the known commander bug, because the commanders did spot the Bradley a number of times; so it's probably not worth pursuing until the 1.02 patch is live.

 

But what I really don't know is if this is even a problem with the engine as such or just a symptom of the artifact as you suggest.  

 

Unfortunately I don't have the save file from that turn where my T90's got smoked, CM Helper clears them as I go and I wasn't fast enough to think of keeping it as an example, I only have the following turn where the T90's are all sad and perforated, which looks very pretty but won't tell you much - wish I could work out how to post images though as its quite the scene!

 

Thewood, I ran your test 10 times and the Bradley spotted the BMP first and KIA'd it 7 times. The other 3 times the Bradley released it's smoke as soon as it was lased. The BMP never fired once!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There`s something wrong with my computer? That`s not a very helpful statement, maybe there`s something wrong with your computer... see how that works?

 

I ran the test you posted more to prove what Vanir has already stated, that the results of spotting between two static vehicles means very little, it`s not unexpected that we would see wildly varied results on such a small number of runs, we would need to run it hundreds of times to get good numbers and of course I`m running it hotseat!!!

 

Your test is also not relevant to the issue at hand which has never been about how AFV`s spot each other from two static positions!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK...there is definitely something wrong on one of our computers.

 

35 test runs.

 

BMP averages 35 seconds to spot M2.

 

M2 takes at least 10 seconds longer on average.

 

20 times BMP kills M2, 15 times M2 kills BMP.

 

I run it on iron and with hotseat.

 

Someone else should run this because once of us isn't doing it right.  Or else there is something deeper wrong in the CM2 engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, it could be the Iron settings verses the Elite setting I`m using, but as far as I understand there is no difference in the spotting times between the two settings just the way information is populated along the C2 chain which is not relevant in this test.

 

But you`re correct, it is weird that we are seeing such different results though,, on average the Bradley has been spotting the BMP around 12 - 14 seconds on my box!

 

What type of box are you running? Mine is a Win7 64bit Quad core...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is relevant as a simple directional test.  I measure how long it takes each to spot the other because that is what people were complaining about.  They weren't complaining about each being able to spot a third vehicle.  The number of times I have run this points to at best, BMP-2Ms with an HQ spotting out-spot its M2 counterpart.  At worst, it shows the large variability in spotting.  So for anyone to come in based on a couple anecdotes and start to insinuate that BFC is somehow skewing results towards US units is is just looking for something to complain about.  I still have not seen any of those people post anything conclusive...no videos, no saves, and no tests that we can look at.  I am the only one that has even attempted to build something that is close to a test.

 

You want me to believe you, run the tests again, post the saves for the spotting turns.  I'll do the same thing tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From playing first person shooters and being in vehicles ive found sitting still is harder to hit and or spot sometimes a fast closing or moving enemy.

Depending on how close the unit is.

Spotting happens but hitting is hard.

In saying that auto targeters should help with hitting.

Alot of which im talking about is more infantry assaults vs stationary targers.

But it can effect vehicles.

Vehicle with motion is moving and crew are perhaps more observant.

Vehicle has momenteum and may see more moving.

Sitting still your fixed in your position

which isnt as beneficial.

Fire and movement is key.

Perhaps that is why moving units do better.

I think moving vehicles should be easier to spot from noise but harder to hit.

Stationary units should be easier to spot ? or harder to spot but easier to hit?

Just throwing ideas around lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been standard in CM from CM1 to now that it is harder to spot in a moving vehicle than in a stationary vehicle.  It also easier for a stationary vehicle to see a moving vehicle.  It has been shown time and time again in real life that the human eye picks up movement very quickly.  That is reflected in almost any game.  What you are suggesting goes against common sense and most people's real life experiences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thewood, absolutely we should do that.

 

I just rerun the test again quickly on iron 5 times and the Bradley is definitely spotting the BMP around 12 seconds into the turn on average, that is a huge difference to what you are seeing which seems more in the 40+ seconds range.

 

I think we might actually be onto something here, but I`m not sure what! Is it possible there are bad builds of the program???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my perspective it makes sense.  Spotting is not cut and dried.  There has always been and will most likely continue to be big variability in spotting times from unit to unit and scenario to scenario.  Go run tests in CMBN and you will the same thing.  My real point is that people coming in whipping around complaints and accusations of bias without actually thinking about it are just a distraction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, here is two saves in a zip.  I'll have to switch to dropbox for the rest because of file size limits.

 

FIle 1 is named BMP 10s.  That means the BMP spotted the M2 after 10 seconds.

 

File 2 is the same turn from the US side and the M2 spots the BMP after 21s...hence the name.

 

I can tell you that in the next set I'll post, it is 15s for the BMP and over 60s for the M2.

BMP spotting test.zip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you've got me wrong, I stated very clearly that I`m not trying to knock the game, what I've brought up here is not a complaint but what I see as a potential bug. I don't think given what I'm seeing my end, that has been unreasonable.

 

You obviously, like me, feel strongly about this game and I would hope you can appreciate how difficult it can be to bring up potential issues without running the risk of appearing overtly critical and perhaps even pedantic...

 

Anyway, have a look at this file, it`s your test on iron settings and the Bradley scored a KIA in 8 seconds!

 

 

 

 

BMP spotting test NUZRAK - 001.zip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you've got me wrong, I stated very clearly that I`m not trying to knock the game, what I've brought up here is not a complaint but what I see as a potential bug. I don't think given what I'm seeing my end, that has been unreasonable.

 

You obviously, like me, feel strongly about this game and I would hope you can appreciate how difficult it can be to bring up potential issues without running the risk of appearing overtly critical and perhaps even pedantic...

 

Anyway, have a look at this file, it`s your test on iron settings and the Bradley scored a KIA in 8 seconds!

 

You changed the facings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I did, because that`s how I have been running my tests since the beginning, Bradley`s and BMP`s don`t approach side on and I have never been testing the way any vehicle spots from its side arcs. So running tests with AFV`s side on is not going to prove anything relevant to the original inquiry, just potentially cloud the issue further. 

 

That said, I have never tried to test static v static AFV`s until this test either, although as Vanir pointed out I may have done so unwittingly, and I actually don`t have an issue with the way that seems to be working.

 

My argument has been from the very start that Russian AFV`s are performing worse than I would expect when facing an oncoming AFV that seems to spot them and KIA them routinely before they ever see what`s hitting them.

 

What Thewood is seeing with the AFV`s side on test is not uninteresting though and makes me too wonder if the fact that the BMP performs considerably better when side on if the misaligned gunner bug has again reared its ugly head?

 

But as I keep stating, I don`t know if there is an actual issue or not, because I don't know if my expectations of what I expect to see are even realistic. Only BFC know that for sure. All I want is for someone who has a actual understanding of the game data and code to confirm either

 

1) Yes, that is how it is meant to work, the US AFV`s are that superior and the results you`re getting are within the margins we would expect...

 

or

 

2) The numbers you are seeing for the Kill ratio for the US AFV`s when approaching Russian AFV`s forward facing arcs does indeed seem a little high, we`ll look into it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also not sure why vehicles performing a hunt move don't count as moving? The Bradley of course stopped as soon as it spotted the BMP but it made the spot while moving in the hunt command not after it stopped, whereas the static BMP in almost all instances failed to spot the Bradley as it moved up and even after it began firing.

 

Apologies if I misunderstood. It sounded to me like you were driving the vehicles until they were barely in LOS and then stopping them immediately.

 

Anyways, I grew weary of deciphering other people's tests and did my own. BMP-3M vs Stryker M1126. Both have 2 man crews, both have a thermal imager on the gunner's sight. The moving vehicles top a rise 800m in front of the stationary ones. Quick and dirty; no spotting times, just who spots who first. 50 iterations each way.

 

BMPs moving

Stryker spots first: 45

BMP spots first: 5

 

Stryker moving

Stryker spots first 19

BMP spots first: 30

1 draw

 

Bottom line is that Black Sea assumes US sights to be more capable than Russian, and I have yet to see any convincing evidence to suggest that is incorrect. The degree to which they are better is debatable and I am not going to claim that this early version of Black Sea has it nailed at the outset. This sort of thing is difficult to quantify and usually boils down to people's gut feelings. Tweaks may be made.

 

But I also think we should put to rest the charge that stationary Russian units are routinely spotted first by moving US units, at least in cases of both having similar types of sighting devices. But if it's an older Russian vehicle that doesn't have a thermal imager and it's raining or foggy it may be :( time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for doing that Vanir, I really appreciate you taking the time to look it over. Feel like I owe you a beer  :P

 

I totally agree, the numbers are not convincing me either that there is an actual issue, I also ran another 30 odd tests and although the numbers still favor the US vehicles I still can't honestly say that it's in anyway definitive and given that we know there is the commander fix coming for the BMP it makes it even harder to justify pursuing this any further. 

 

So agreed, let's put this one to rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK...there is definitely something wrong on one of our computers.

 

35 test runs.

 

BMP averages 35 seconds to spot M2.

 

M2 takes at least 10 seconds longer on average.

 

20 times BMP kills M2, 15 times M2 kills BMP.

 

I run it on iron and with hotseat.

 

Someone else should run this because once of us isn't doing it right.  Or else there is something deeper wrong in the CM2 engine.

 

Turned them facing each other (elite, hotseat)

 

M2 spotted first every time 

 

seconds it take M2 to spot BMP

 

11, 4, 10, 2, 5, 23, 4

 

BMP had ?spot 3 times after it was fired before getting destroyed.

 

 

 

EDIT

started game again to get 10 results

 

3 runs

 

M2 spot first once (6s)

BMP spots 2 times first 3 & 14 , M2 release smoke and proceeds to destroy BMP. Both times BMP gets even another spot when M2 drives out of smoke cloud.

 

In all of these 10 times BMP never fired a shot.

Edited by tiefelt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My test was to see if the 3rd person spotting with a 360 sight makes a difference.  Not just testing the gunner's sight.  That is why they are facing 90 deg off.  The point being made that got lost is if you have an issue, post a save or a test.  Instead of just coming in and swing a bat around.  It goes back to some of the earlier posters who have suddenly become scarce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tiefelt,

 

Welcome aboard,

 

It isn't everyday, more like never, we get a new member whose first post presents test results! We can always use another brave soul who dares enter the endless forbidding wastes of the...Testing Zone. Where something is always wrong with premise, test setup, methodology, analysis or interpretation. Alone or in combination. And that's without considering that history may rear its ugly head at the hardware level, as seen here, further confounding efforts to definitively understand in-game behavior. 

 

Vanir Ausf B,

 

I've previously recounted the story of how, decades ago in cold rain and fog in daylight, at a range well under a klick, the M48A5 I was in, while in unobscured LOS, completely vanished from the TOW Night Sight (AN/TAS-4) display. Any idea, and I know there's no winter in CMBS, how well current thermal sights handle such a situation? Also, then running these spotting tests, what, exactly, constitutes detection? Hot blob on colder background? Vehicular blob? Full target ID? The Russians are the kings of the 80% solution, so aren't interested in counting rivets, as it were. Are the Russians in the game perhaps prevented from spotting because the criterion for spotting is too demanding, thus delaying spotting from occurring until it's often too late? I recall seeing comments on several vids in which people commented on the relatively poor quality of FLIR displayed in such AFVs as Krizantema. The Russians don't seem to care, since that and a bunch of other AFVs and SAMs, which now sport thermals rather than CCTV for backup firing mode, all passed their state trials and entered service. In absolute terms, having thermals at all is for them a huge boost in force effectiveness, particularly against the likely foes. The neighbors. Except possibly the Chinese, whose EO gear I know very little regarding. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies if I misunderstood. It sounded to me like you were driving the vehicles until they were barely in LOS and then stopping them immediately.

 

Anyways, I grew weary of deciphering other people's tests and did my own. BMP-3M vs Stryker M1126. Both have 2 man crews, both have a thermal imager on the gunner's sight. The moving vehicles top a rise 800m in front of the stationary ones. Quick and dirty; no spotting times, just who spots who first. 50 iterations each way.

 

BMPs moving

Stryker spots first: 45

BMP spots first: 5

 

Stryker moving

Stryker spots first 19

BMP spots first: 30

1 draw

 

Bottom line is that Black Sea assumes US sights to be more capable than Russian, and I have yet to see any convincing evidence to suggest that is incorrect. The degree to which they are better is debatable and I am not going to claim that this early version of Black Sea has it nailed at the outset. This sort of thing is difficult to quantify and usually boils down to people's gut feelings. Tweaks may be made.

 

The TIM5000 thermal camera on the Stryker should be less capable than the the Catherine FC used in the Russian tanks and IFVs (BMP-3M for sure, probably also BMP-2M gunner's sight).  TIM5000 is uncooled and lower resolution.  It might be worth checking to make sure that the thermal cameras in Russian vehicles do in fact have superior capabilities to this device, even if they still fall short of the Gen III devices in Abrams and Bradley.

But again, we don't know if the Stryker driver's thermal sight is affecting outcomes.  Although this is more of a poor visibility driving aid and probably only helps with spotting at closer range, the way CM accounts for multiple vision devices in use by multiple crew members may give an across the board boost.

 

Catherine FC

TIM5000

AN/VAS-5 Driver's Vision Enhancer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

akd,

 

The PDF for the Catherine FC indicates that, for the kinds of ranges possible in CMBS, its capabilities are more than adequate. The TIM5000 seems to be a very nice piece of kit, but barely exists when compared vs the thermals on the Abrams and Bradley. The AN/VAS-5, per the manufacturer's own materials, can't detect a static vehicle past 1200 meters. Therefore, it probably should figure in for closer engagements, where the 30 deg FOV would hugely help,  But not the 2000 meter and up sort. Very much appreciate the info.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...