Stagler Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Against moving targets in combat situation, no chance for 100% accuracy. Usually comrade tree gets in the way in CMBS. It should however have higher base accuracy than a regular shell from the main gun. Nobody should ever disregard someone's knowledge over something like that though I think antares comes across better because he hasn't been in every thread to do with ai or other game improvements to have a pop at battlefront like I have. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Seems like every title from Normany to Italy to Russia has some complaint about spotting. I'm sure we'll see that same thing for the Buldge and every other title that comes out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) Just to be clear: I am in no way saying that there is a HUGE bias towards the US view of things, just that its normal and understandable from a sociological point of view if there is SOME bias favorable to the US or detrimental to the russians since BF is staffed by humans and that it is mostly an American company. That's it. The fact that the bias is so subtle as to be a debatable issue is a testament to their integrity and commitment to realism . Edited March 18, 2015 by antaress73 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I say this because of what was said to Vladimir about the accuracy of GLATGM on page one of this thread, if that isn't someone glossing over something and underestimating a piece of kit, then I don't know what is : He stated a weapons system literally did not miss because at 3-5 KM it was 100% accurate. If I'd claimed the same effects from a Javelin or M1 you'd be right there doubting I knew what I was talking about. I am in no way saying that there is a HUGE bias towards the US view of things, just that its normal and understandable from a sociological point of view if there is SOME bias favorable to the US or detrimental to the russians since BF is staffed by humans and that it is mostly an American company. That's it. The fact that the bias is so subtle as to be a debatable issue is a testament to their integrity and commitment to realism . I have to differ in that by and large that if we're really talking about bias, even if you're merely taking conservative estimates of what the Russians are capable of vs actual total bias, it could be so much worse. Both sides get some rosy estimate stuff. As the case is as actual testing vs "WAH MY T-90AM CANNOT KILL EVERYTHING " from the original post, the T-90AM's spotting ability appears certainly to be at least somewhat capable against a moving Abrams at range. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newplayer Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 i've had alot of problems with LOS ingame, it makes MG teams useless, i really want this to be fixed 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 I'm sure BFC will jump right on that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Panzer: like I said .. I have no complaints using russian tanks against US forces controlled by the A.I and i know what to expect. The gap is smaller than the Sherman or T-34-76 vs tiger one 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) MGs must be used from higher ground or an elevated position to achieve effective fire lanes or kill zones Edited March 19, 2015 by antaress73 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 I'm sure BFC will jump right on that. LOL brilliant, I'm going to use that quote in the future 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFF Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Go in tech support, I have two threads there, one with a save and one with a picture set on Imgur I dont play US. I like the Ukranians. In one of my threads in tech support it was a Ukrainian Su-24 that bugged out when its bombs apparently didnt drop. I havent used their older kit so I wouldnt judge it but for the modern stuff it seems to be working okay. I have had fun smashing up T-72 with the OPLOT. OPLOT is very good, as is BTR-4. You also have a strong tendency to say 'murica every time you don't like the way something Russian is modeled in the game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Since we're talking about what the Catherine FC can and can't do when it comes to Detection-Recognition-Target ID, I believe what I said to Vanir Ausf B in a different spotting thread is apposite. From my #111 there. The Catherine FC manufacturer's brochure with what I guess they call an infographic these days shows the various range numbers, against defined target types, one of which conviently is "tank"s the first word after the quote marks. Maybe someone can glean something useful from this info. "This is what Thales has to say about the Catherine. Inter alia, it's got a failrly detailed set of specs, with a valuable addition being a plot showing what Detection, Recognition and ID ranges (w/wo teleconverter) are vs a man, a tank, a helo and a jet fighter. The teleconverter extends the ID range vs tanks from ~2.5-3.5 km, a most worthwhile improvement, but are Russian AFVs so fitted? Here's the equivalent sheet for the TIM1500 (PDF via link on page). Unfortunately, it lacks the level of tech detail given on the Catherine FC. Obviously, it's possible to compare FOV and such, and it may be possible to get the respective MRTs, but I have no handle at all on what magnification buys the user, once a certain point is reached. 4000 meter range for target ID is plenty good, even 2500 will get the job done for most engagements, but I've read accounts from Russia in which 88s were firing on a Russian tank concentration from over 5000 meters out and killing so many tanks the Russians thought they'd hit a minefield. They couldn't imagine coming under direct fire from such a distance. Remarkably, the NVA tankers at Dong na thought the same thing when the ARVN tanks were hammering them from twice the effective range of the NVA cannon on the T-54s. Parts of the steppe are flat enough to allow 5000 meter engagements to occur. Fofanov lists the Refleks-M as having a 5000 meter range. KBP, who build it, says the same. Last I checked, and the Russians are as pragmatic as they come, weapons are designed to address specific military situations, and no one in his right mind designs for 5000 meters when 4000 will do because of LOS considerations. These CLGMs were originally designed to give the firing tanks the ability to take NATO tanks under fire before they could get close enough to conduct cannon engagements. Otherwise, NATO tanks would outrange the Russian ones because of the poorer quality main gun FCS and other issues. That the Russians first bought and ar enow license producing the Catherine FC says quite a bit about how the Russians view the FCS disparity." Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newplayer Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 MGs must be used from higher ground or an elevated position to achieve effective fire lanes or kill zones i use them on elevated positions, they still dont see anything 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 (edited) You also have a strong tendency to say 'murica every time you don't like the way something Russian is modeled in the game. Funnily enough I spotted another bug with the side plates on the T-72B3 and T-90A today. They are just counted as steel plates ingame and shaped charges explode on them without blowing them off and penetrate the tank, when in actuality they are filled with K5 blocks. I am getting my pictures together before I make the thread on tech support. Edited March 21, 2015 by Stagler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 murica 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerdwing Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 (edited) I dont see Stagler as biased. He used a meme like... twice. No need to form a lynch mob for crying out loud I'm in no position to judge either the T-90AM or the M1A2 as to equipment modelling accuracy (thermals, spot times etc), but having first hand accounts and information much more readily available on the US side from former crew and such I imagine inevitably leads not to BIAS, but a fleshing-out in a system's modelling levels that you wouldnt see if your only reference is a sale's brochure. Not intentional number-fudging, but maybe alot more fine-tuning and less "rounding-to the nearest whole number" for statistics and performance data on systems because you've the sources and testimony available. As long as it isnt something blatantly at-odds with the claims of the manufacturer, I imagine it allows a bit more lee-way. Edited March 22, 2015 by Nerdwing 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 He used twice more than anyone else. Take a look at my post a few pages ago and I wasn't even exhaustive. He was the initial one claiming bias. When in glass houses... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Funnily enough I spotted another bug with the side plates on the T-72B3 and T-90A today. They are just counted as steel plates ingame and shaped charges explode on them without blowing them off and penetrate the tank, when in actuality they are filled with K5 blocks. I am getting my pictures together before I make the thread on tech support. No need. It's already been fixed for the next patch. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 (edited) He used twice more than anyone else. Take a look at my post a few pages ago and I wasn't even exhaustive. He was the initial one claiming bias. When in glass houses... To be fair I have used it a lot. 'Murica! And Vanir, awesome. Cheers! Edited March 22, 2015 by Stagler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 I had an AT-4 hit those side plates (single warhead, no tandem) and it gave me a reactive armor hit. Tandem warheads will go through them easily. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 it doesnt get more american than this: MUUUURRRIIICAAAAA! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 I had an AT-4 hit those side plates (single warhead, no tandem) and it gave me a reactive armor hit. Tandem warheads will go through them easily. The plate maybe, but with the standoff of the plate from the actual hull side. Don't forget its attacked to the track guard, which is spaced the tracks width away from the hull. Glad to see its being fixed anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 (edited) Talking of spacing ... Those side turret ERA tiles on the Abrams.. .. Anyone got any penetrations with tandem warhead AT-13 on them ? They are single ERA so the AT-13 should defeat it but I dont know about the spacing effect. With RPG too, i dont know if the spacing can defeat them. They alway hit the damn side Hull with double ERA with the At-13 and its stopped. Edited March 22, 2015 by antaress73 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum15 Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 This needs to be addressed in 1.03, there can be no doubt about that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Am I missing something? Why would BFC wait for 1.03? I thought you wanted everything now? Vanir indicated the fix will appear in the next patch which I think will be called 1.02. Or is there yet another thing that you are demanding be fixed right away? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum15 Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Everything needs to be fixed in the next patch or already in 1.03 ! 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.