Jump to content

Steel Beasts vs Combat Mission t-72 visibility test


Recommended Posts

Steel Beasts is a tank simulator that is used in several countries to train military personnel. 

Combat Mission Cold War and Steal Beasts have a lot of things in common, so it would be interesting to compare how two games simulate combat. 

In order to do that and to make as precise experiment as possible I put t72A (m1) tank that is featured in both games against M60 TTS tank that is also present in both of them. 

To keep experiment clean I used default "flat map" and the same weather and time conditions - clean weather, the time is June the 1st, 12:00. 

In CMCW I had to use additional "formation" units of observers, but I put them behind tall walls, so they didn't interfere in the process. In CMCW skill level of both of the tanks was put on "regular". Steel Beasts doesn't have skill level feature. 

Under created conditions t-72A looks directly at M60's side. It is oriented from South to North, M60 - from West to East. The distance between them is 2 km. The conditions are the same in Steel Beasts and Combat Mission Cold War. 

That how it looks like in Steel Beasts: 

T72-Steel-Beasts-Vision1.png

How it looks like in CMCW:

CMCW-Test-Start.png

What T72 gunner sees from his position from the very start:

T72-Steel-Beasts-Vision2.png

As you can easily notice, M60 is immediately and perfectly visible from gunners sight.

The same with T72's Commander's sight:

T72-Steel-Beasts-Vision3-Comm.png

The results:

In Steel Beasts t72's AI spotted M60 almost immediately, which is not surprising, taking into account that it has perfect view on the target. It took t72 about 2 seconds to spot the opponent and about 18 sec to hit and destroy it. 

In CMCW something opposite happened. I ran several tests and t72 couldn't spot m60 once.  Its optics was not enough to spot the tanks directly ahead of it at the distance of 2 km during clean daylight.

In fact, every time M60 spotted t72 first and killed it. It took about 2-3 rounds and from 1,5 min to 5 min to kill t72.  t72 didn't see the opponent despite m60 was firing at him. 

How it ends in Steel Beasts:

Steel-Beats-TEST-END.png

How it ends in CMCW:

CMCW-Test-End.png

The CMCW test scenario is attached.

You can make your own conclusions. 

 

 

T72VISION TEST.btt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Between Two Farbahns scenario has the opponents start 2000m apart. T72 Ural vs M60A2 on a rainy morning. Playing the American side you're as likely to get a hit from an unseen enemy as get off the first shot unspotted. Results have varied wildly as I tested-out different tank types in the scenarios. When the Russians get laser rangefinders and missiles their first round hit probability jumps significantly. M60A3 TTS is approaching ubertank status, except for  its relative inability to take a hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would never claim there is no room for improvement in CMCW spotting or any other CM spotting but pitting thermal sights (M60 TTS) against normal daylight sights is apples to oranges. I just ran a M60A3 test vs T-72A and got the following spotting times at 2000 meters:

M60 spotting T-72 (in seconds)

  • 8
  • 52
  • 61
  • 84
  • 139
  • 148
  • 169
  • 223
  • 259

T-72 spotting M60 (in seconds)

  • 9
  • 30
  • 32
  • 46
  • 115
  • 146
  • 230
  • 252
  • 390
  • 443

This is far too small a sample size to draw any specific conclusions given the huge variability, but clearly the T-72A is actually capable of spotting stuff at 2000m and does not appear to be massively worse at it than US tanks with comparable tech level.

Spotting M60A3 vs T72A 001.bts

Edited by Vanir Ausf B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

Results have varied wildly as I tested-out different tank types in the scenarios.

 

20 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

I would never claim there is no room for improvement in CMCW spotting or any other CM spotting but pitting thermal sights (M60 TTS) against normal daylight sights is apples to oranges

I would like to ask directly:

Why in  CMCW t72 can't spot target under perfect conditions that is precisely in his gunner sight? 

Edited by dbsapp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

 

I would like to ask directly:

Why in  CMCW t72 can't spot target under perfect conditions that is precisely in his gunner sight? 

In my test all 10 T72s spotted all 10 targets in the times listed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

In my test all 10 T72s spotted all 10 targets in the times listed.

Ok, let's pretend that my test doesn't exist.

Let's substitute it with a suitable test that allegedly provides results that is in line with requested opinion.

Don't forget that my test provides comparison and control variable, e.g.Steel Beasts.

That's how science work: if one experiment refutes theory, the theory is considered to be refuted, even if other tests allegedly prove it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

Ok, let's pretend that my test doesn't exist.

Let's substitute it with a suitable test that allegedly provides results that is in line with requested opinion.

Don't forget that my test provides comparison and control variable, e.g.Steel Beasts.

That's how science work: if one experiment refutes theory, the theory is considered to be refuted, even if other tests allegedly prove it.

 

I'm sure there is a language barrier at work here. It's also not entirely clear how you did your test since you posted the scenario file rather than the save game. But from your description it sounds like you tested which tank spotted which first, at which point the spotting tank destroys the spotted tank. You ask me why the T-72 "can't spot the target". But it can. You're test didn't show otherwise.

Your test is really more of a comparison between how spotting works in Steel Beasts and how it works in CM. I can't speak to that as i am not familiar with Steel Beasts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, something to keep in mind. In your Steel Beasts pics one reason the M60 is so easy to see is because it is skylined. I have no idea what factors Steel Beast's spotting model takes into account but CM does not factor skylining. It does not specifically factor shade from overhead cover nor background "clutter" from nearby trees/buildings/objects.  Rather, it's spotting model assumes the possibility of those factors in a more generic way. So if your point is that T-72s in CMCW should routinely spot enemy tanks in "about 2 seconds" because that happened once in another game that uses a different spotting model I don't think there is any chance of CM being changed to match that.

Edited by Vanir Ausf B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Also, something to keep in mind. In your Steel Beasts pics one reason the M60 is so easy to see is because it is skylined. I have no idea what factors Steel Beast's spotting model takes into account but CM does not factor skylining. It does not specifically factor shade from overhead cover nor background "clutter" from nearby trees/buildings/objects.  Rather, it's spotting model assumes the possibility of those factors. So if your point is that T-72s should routinely spot enemy tanks in "about 2 seconds" because that happened once in another game that uses a different spotting model I don't think there is any chance of CM being changed to match that.

At 2000m in good conditions it shuld never take more than a few seconds to spot a tank. Background clutter and nearby buildings etc shouldnt matter.

To give you a rl reference for how much time it should take: for german gunner qualification you have 15s from targets popping up to hitting them otherwise its counted as a miss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, holoween said:

At 2000m in good conditions it shuld never take more than a few seconds to spot a tank. Background clutter and nearby buildings etc shouldnt matter.

To give you a rl reference for how much time it should take: for german gunner qualification you have 15s from targets popping up to hitting them otherwise its counted as a miss.

Is this German gunner qualification on a thermal sight with the target glowing like a volcano? Because if you're talking about regular day sights I would be skeptical of that. For one thing, even with thermal sights you are looking through a soda straw. It's just not possible to see everywhere at once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Is this German gunner qualification on a thermal sight with the target glowing like a volcano? Because if you're talking about regular day sights I would be skeptical of that. For one thing, even with thermal sights you are looking through a soda straw. It's just not possible to see everywhere at once.

On a range it doesnt make a difference (and the scenario discussed above is basically a range scenario) but even in open country there is no distincton between thermals and primary sight.

The absolute longest you can take is while shooting under emergency conditions using the backup turret drives (which are very slow), the backup sight and manual ranging and then you have a max of 30s. And do note that isnt shooting at full sizd tanks but targets that only represent the internal volume.

And the looking through a soda straw effect really doesnt matter at 2000m. For the primary daysight with the highest magnification it stopps being a noticable hindrance at 3-400m and lower magnification backup sights or the thermal low magnification push that way down. Yes youre never able to see everything at once but scanning is a thing.

Edited by holoween
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, holoween said:

On a range it doesnt make a difference (and the scenario discussed above is basically a range scenario) but even in open country there is no distincton between thermals and primary sight.

The thing of it is, the game doesn't know the target is on a range.

Are you a tanker in real life? If so and you think all tanks should routinely spot each other within a few seconds of moving into LOS in combat even at several km ranges I could ask BFC to reduce the spotting variance for tanks to near zero. That's such a radical change I kinda doubt they would do it after all these years but you never know. 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

The thing of it is, the game doesn't know the target is on a range.

Are you a tanker in real life? If so and you think all tanks should routinely spot each other within a few seconds of moving into LOS in combat even at several km ranges I could ask BFC to reduce the spotting variance for tanks to near zero. That's such a radical change I kinda doubt they would do it after all these years but you never know. 😉

I am a tanker.

In general id say tanks are spotted far too easily in hulldown positions and when los is broken up like shooting through trees etc.

They are also far too hard to spot in the open or when moving across the field of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, holoween said:

They are also far too hard to spot in the open or when moving across the field of view.

I agree in general. I will say it has been improved leaps and bounds from what it used to be. It’s seems now that vehicles in cover (tree line etc) are much harder to spot than they once were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, holoween said:

n general id say tanks are spotted far too easily in hulldown positions

Scenario Seelow Heights the Soviet infantry spots the German armor which are hull down distance 1100 meters distance under hazy conditions. He also identifies Tigers from Panthers. This is about on par with Elite British FO's in Edge of darkness SF2. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't require any additional evidence to understand that optics of Soviet tanks in late Cold war period could easily detect targets at 2 km distance during daylight under perfect weather conditions. 

In fact everybody can spot tank at 2 km in the open field using cheapest binoculars, not to mention tank optics that costs dozens or hundreds thousands in USD.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, this is not even close to "scientific" and the fact that some might actually think that is 1) a poor reflection on the modern education system and 2) frightening based on what we have been living through for the last 18 months.

Based on this "study" SB could be just as inaccurate as CMCW is claimed to be as none of this is linked back to RL data.  It is linked backed to a lot of assumptions, which are again not linked backed to any real world data.  The main assumption/bias is "it should be easy to see another tank at 2000m because I can do it in SB therefore CMCW is broken."  The OP is in effect using one simulation (SB) to try and prove that another simulation (CMCW) is not working properly without ever establishing that the first simulation (SB) is accurate in the first place (beyond a vague "Steel Beasts is a tank simulator that is used in several countries to train military personnel", but then so is CM, huh?)

How easy is it to actually see an armored vehicle at 2000m? Having spent time in AFVs and tanks..."not easy" was my experience as 2km is a very long way away.  But I never tried it on a flat open field nor in either an M60 or T72.

Just because you point the tanks at each other does not mean the modeling behavior is anywhere near the same.  First off there is TACAI in CM where SB has a human brain that not only set up the test (so knows there is a tank out there) but is specifically pointed at where it knows there is a tank.  Take SB, create a 360 field and then don't tell the human subject where the threat is, or that there is a threat at all...now time how long it takes for that human to see a threat at 2km?  Still likely be faster because it is a human brain in a totally different simulation.

The issue here is actually "simulated individual buttoned up spotting".  (Take the same test and open up the T72, you will see spotting increase dramatically because you now have TACAI scanning the horizon with binos as opposed through a sight.  Now do a whole tank platoon and you will see spotting happen even faster because the tanks are talking to each other).

So the questions being asked is "which individual tank has better buttoned up spotting: the M60A3 or T72? and "Does CMCW model this correctly?" and (apparently) "Does SB model RL behavior better?"  So if you want to be "scientific" you would first have to build a real-world framework of how these tanks have (or should) behave based on sound data, then test each tank, in each game system under identical conditions (which is nearly impossible...human brain) to try and deduce which game is modelling RL better.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

The thing of it is, the game doesn't know the target is on a range.

Are you a tanker in real life? If so and you think all tanks should routinely spot each other within a few seconds of moving into LOS in combat even at several km ranges I could ask BFC to reduce the spotting variance for tanks to near zero. That's such a radical change I kinda doubt they would do it after all these years but you never know. 😉

+Thrice...The Game doesn't know it's on a Firing Range (different parameters), compared to Combat conditions. 

Please, and NOOOooo to telling BF to reduce the Spotting to near Zero 🤨...I think all the near averages work out good enough.

Edited by JoMac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JoMac said:

+Thrice...The Game doesn't know it's on a Firing Range (different parameters), compared to Combat conditions. 

Quadrupled. I haven't commented on this thread yet because I am trying to track down a post by Steve (at least I think it was Steve) where he explains why putting two tanks on a flat map is a bad test of both the capabilities of vehicles optics and the spotting system in CM.

As others have stated, CM is not simulating tanks on a gunnery range, where the gunners know they are scanning for a specific type of target that can only appear in a general area of land (the range). It takes into account a multitude of factors. Part of the system is that the TacAi will know that an object exists, but has not identified that object as a tank, and not a hostile one. That takes time. However, better optics allow for objects to be identified faster. 

All of this is taken into account by the spotting system in CM. Putting a T-72 on a field in front of an M60, and comparing 1 result to 1 result in Steel Beasts is not a conclusive test. The testing itself is flawed, and is not making a point about anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Ok, this is not even close to "scientific" and the fact that some might actually think that is 1) a poor reflection on the modern education system and 2) frightening based on what we have been living through for the last 18 months.

There is no need to make it personal. 

19 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Based on this "study" SB could be just as inaccurate as CMCW is claimed to be as none of this is linked back to RL data. 

Can we look at the "RL data" that was used to make spotting system in CMCW the way that it is now? The thing is we don't know how spotting actually works in CMCW (beyond some vaguely phrased description). Nor we have any kind of real life data to support that your understanding is accurate. 

23 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

The OP is in effect using one simulation (SB) to try and prove that another simulation (CMCW)

Well, @Haplessdid Youtube video recently using Steel Beasts to show how hard is to spot things from AFV. This video was highly acclaimed and received good reviews, it was even used to show me that I don't understand how tank spotting works. But apparently now it is wrong to compare CM and Steel Beasts.

But Steel Beasts and CM do have something in common. Both of them claim to be not just games, but simulators, e.g. they portray reality as close as they can. As you rightly said they both are used in military training. I don't compare Tetris to Diablo 2. I compare two AFV and ground troops tactics simulator. They both have common reference point - reality. 

30 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

First off there is TACAI in CM where SB has a human brain that not only set up the test (so knows there is a tank out there) but is specifically pointed at where it knows there is a tank.  Take SB, create a 360 field and then don't tell the human subject where the threat is, or that there is a threat at all...now time how long it takes for that human to see a threat at 2km?  Still likely be faster because it is a human brain in a totally different simulation.

What you are saying, I'm afraid, shows that you absolutely have no idea how Steel Beasts works. Vehicles in SB also have AI and spotting mechanics. As I said, 2 games have a lot in common, with Steel Beasts having tactical and personal - simulating crew members - layer that is lacking in CM.

34 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

The issue here is actually "simulated individual buttoned up spotting". 

The issue here is quite obvious. 

Both mission are created with ideal conditions - flat earth, daylight, the target is directly ahead. 

In Steel Beasts tank behaves very natural. It is pointed in the direction of the target from the very start, so it takes crew only 2 second to see tank in the clear daylight in front of them. Basically, it's the only thing that is there, nothing attracts their attention except of it. 

What happens in CMCW is absolutely counterintuitive and unexplainable. The tank also pointed in the direction of the target, it's flat earth, no obstacles, no smoke, nothing distracts the crew... But minute after minute goes by and nothing is happening. Why? How can you explain it? Are they sleeping? Are they arguing with each other? Why don't they look at their optics and see the first thing that is right in front of them - the enemy tank. 

I would like to hear your explanation of this particular situation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Give the T-72 a narrow Target Armour Arc, centred on the M-60 and you might be getting a bit closer to a representative model of a firing range scenario.....I suspect the spotting times will plummet.

They already stated that cover arcs do not change spotting in any way except it makes the unit face in a certain direction.  In other words if you give a facing order you achieve the same thing.

Edited by Bufo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bufo said:

They already stated that cover arc do not change spotting in any way except it makes the unit face in a certain direction.

Where?  It was always my impression that more spotting attempts were made within the covered arc.

8 minutes ago, Bufo said:

In other words if you give a facing order you achieve the same thing.

That's categorically not the case as it restricts the arc of fire.....I get your point, but it's clearly not 'the same'.

PS - Too many threads talking about spotting.....It's making my head spin!  :blink:

 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
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
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...