Ben Galanti Posted October 22, 1999 Share Posted October 22, 1999 Panzerfaust Page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted October 22, 1999 Share Posted October 22, 1999 Thanks Ben. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted October 22, 1999 Share Posted October 22, 1999 Bil - I never said that "the original weapon is not realistic because it doesn't behave like it does in CM". In fact, the PF in CM DOES have a trajectory (and already had in the AARs), BUT - from what I heard - it was not shown graphically (the reasons why go beyond my knowledge of coding). I merely mentioned that the pictures remind me more of the firing of a rifle grenade. That point has been cleared beyond any doubt and I learned something new - not all PFs were fired from the shoulder. Didn't know that. In this case, I am glad to be "smartassed" by somebody with much better knowledge about this topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted October 22, 1999 Share Posted October 22, 1999 BTW even modern n LAWs, AT4s, Carl Gustav, 90mm RR, have so0me "loft" or "arc" to them when fired at longer ranges. Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted October 22, 1999 Share Posted October 22, 1999 Moon, I think you got me mixed up with M.Hofbauer. No problem though. His knowledge of the subject appears second to none. Thanks for lumping me into the same catagory, even though I cannot lay such a claim! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted October 22, 1999 Share Posted October 22, 1999 I fired the German "Panzerfaust 3" at various ranges in the Army, but never realized that it had SUCH an high arc, even at longer ranges... maybe it has something to do with the point of view? Dunno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted October 22, 1999 Share Posted October 22, 1999 Whoops! Yeah, sorry about that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixman Posted October 22, 1999 Share Posted October 22, 1999 Just want to chime in my vote for NO SMOKE TRAIL on the PF. I think the fact that it is so devastating and doesn't leave a trail to its source (like a bazooka or schreck), makes it an even cooler and crueler weapon. Maybe another reason the Allies feared them so much. Reality first unless technical prevents it. Pixman ------------------ Fact is the enemy of truth. - Don Quixote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted October 22, 1999 Share Posted October 22, 1999 Moon, I think a comparison between a Panzerfaust 3 and a WWII Faust is misleading because of the systems are so radically different. Panzerfaust 3s have no backblast and launch the warhead/projectile with a counter weight (kinda like a PIAT) and then after that the round ignites it's own rocket motor. Having a rocket motor helps it keep a better, flatter trajectory since the round is being "pushed" the whole way to the target. And since the Panzerfaust 3 has a higher velocity the range is longer. The old panzerfaust had one charge that launched the round and it didn't get any more "push" after that so it had to be sort of lobbed at the target to get to maximum range. The bazooka and panzerschreck would be closer to the panzerfaust 3 and would have flatter trajectories as well. AT-4 and LAW also fall into this category. BTW, was it fun? Did you hit anything? I mean, hit anything you were supposed to hit? In the US Army firing the real deal is a rather rare experience. Not every soldier gets to experience it. When we did a company live fire, my platoon was allocated IIRC four AT-4s and the best junior soldiers were picked to fire them. Looking back I should have fired all four myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted October 22, 1999 Share Posted October 22, 1999 I'll chime in my 2 cents here. The panzerfaust smoke trails as the projectile tracks toward the target should not be in the game if they didn't really exist. Mike D aka Mikester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted October 22, 1999 Share Posted October 22, 1999 Well, the Bundeswehr had (and has I believe) the same problem and firing the real thing was not common. However, I had luck - we were scheduled to a live fire exercise with a few other companies, but (for whatever reason) only two showed up. The officers - thinking to cancel the whole thing - decided to go for it anyway and, most importantly, use up ALL the ammo that was assigned for the shootings so that the stock would not be cut for later exercises. Bottom line - I had about a dozen magazines for the G3, two (!) belts for the MG3, at least a couple dozen grenades and 3 or 4 PF rounds, all fired within two days. Fun? YEAH! The PF3 was relatively to handle (almost no backblast as you said) but I found hitting something not too easy. We were firing at wooden targets (tank size - two were moving I think), and especially the moving ones, forget it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted October 22, 1999 Share Posted October 22, 1999 Here's a compromise that should require minimal additional work from BTS. Remove the smoke trail from Panzerfaust and Panzerschrek rounds. To simulate the backblast, just put in a standard smoke round column for a few seconds. Then stick a german voice in right after the round fires, saying "Whoa... dude! That's some gnarly tube you got there..." ------------------ [This message has been edited by Herr Oberst (edited 10-22-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zackary Posted October 22, 1999 Share Posted October 22, 1999 For what it's worth: It seems to me that the real disconnect that Oscar was having with CM is that he didn't understand that the 3D graphics had nothing to do with the 3D engine. The PR problem that BTS will have (with grognards at least) is that they are presenting wonderful 3D eye candy that is often not reflective of the highly accurate and well-modeled 3D engine. Thus, BTS is asking customers to take on faith (because the customers cannot see and decipher the code (nor are most people likely qualified to judge its acccuracy)) that the 3D engine is accurate/well-modeled, EVEN THOUGH what the customer sees they KNOW to be inaccurate (based on their own independent research). Not sure if this makes sense so let me be a little more specific. According to the Panzerfaust experts, Panzerfausts (at least the 30 and 60?) had relatively high arcs, a big back blast, and no smoke trail. In CM, all large caliber direct fire projectiles are shown with a relatively (emphasis on relatively) flat trajectory with a smoke trail. Panzeraust backblast is not portrayed. (And I might add that if I recall correctly all such projectiles are shown with square warheads.) How are grogs, who thrive on detail (much of which BTS has already decided not to provide), supposed to accept that the game engine portrays accurate/well-modeled real-world ballistics when the graphically presented ballistics are inaccurate? I do not have a solution for this problem, but some of Mr. Hofbauer's concerns seem to reflect this difficulty. In the end, BTS' answer may simply be "inadequate time" or "inadequate CPU power" to make the graphic portrayal more realistic. Either of those answers is legitimate, but the issue needs to be squarely addressed, in my opinion. Man, oh, man, am I ready for the Beta! Looking forward to putting the demo through its paces. ------------------ Zackary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts