JoePrivate Posted December 12, 2000 Share Posted December 12, 2000 From the 1.1 Readme: A bug that incorrectly identified (or failed to identify) vehicles as hull-down when the mouse was pointing at them has been fixed. I was playing a pbem game and noticed my HD TD(on a slope) reported it's target, a Sherman, as being HD also even though the Sherman was on flat open terrain about 900m away. Curious I loaded up the editor to check. The game still reports a target in the flat open as being HD, reciprocal to the HD firer, when clearly it shouldn't IMO. This is when the HD firer is on a slope, when the firer is behind a stone wall then it correctly reports the target's status. It would be easier if I had a picture to describe this but a minute with the editor will do it. I'm wondering if this is correct? Or am I missing something basic here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joeri Posted December 13, 2000 Share Posted December 13, 2000 Did you check if the vehicle targeting the one in the open had LOS to the area in front of the target. If that is so it should never report it as hull down. By the way I have seen several instances in v1.1 where there was non-reciprocal hull down (not involving walls) so something is fixed. Joeri [This message has been edited by Joeri (edited 12-13-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pritzl Posted December 13, 2000 Share Posted December 13, 2000 I just ran some tests and I think it's safe to say that the bug has been fixed. And, I was once again surprised at the level of detail in this game. Here's why. I set up a flat map with a single hill in the center that looked like this... 8 9 10 9 8 9 10 9 8 9 10 9 A perfect ramp for setting up a hull down shot. I placed a Pzkw IV just below the hill crest in a perfect hull down position. I then stated adjusting the placement of a sherman tank on the map in front of it. The mark IV had perfect LOS to the far end of the map, however, as you got closer to the hill the Panzer lost LOS. If put the Sherman further out, the panzer had LOS and was hulldown while the sherman was not hulldown, but if you moved the sherman closer and near the edge of where the mark IV lost LOS they both gained hulldown status even though the Sherman was on flat ground. This makes perfect sense. The Sherman was disappearing below the Panzer's LOS and or maximum gun depression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoePrivate Posted December 13, 2000 Author Share Posted December 13, 2000 Ok here's a couple images. The PzIVH can see 500m in front of the Sherman yet the Sherman is still reported as hull down? If the Sherman was on the edge of the LOS envelop of the PzIVH, in this case around 500m, then reporting it as hull down seems reasonable. Yet here the PzIV can clearly see the ground in front of the Sherman, why is it hull down also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted December 13, 2000 Share Posted December 13, 2000 THis one needs to be bumped. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banshee Posted December 13, 2000 Share Posted December 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pritzl: If put the Sherman further out, the panzer had LOS and was hulldown while the sherman was not hulldown, but if you moved the sherman closer and near the edge of where the mark IV lost LOS they both gained hulldown status even though the Sherman was on flat ground<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Technically (imho) this isnt hull down, since the trajectory of the shell would still allow it to hit the lower hull, where true hull down status the lower hull could not be hit. ------------------ Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoePrivate Posted December 13, 2000 Author Share Posted December 13, 2000 Another interesting observation, when I moved the PzIV a fraction further up the slope, it would correctly report the Sherman as being not hull down. A fraction further back and it would. I guess it is because of the way CM handles the LOS and LOF routines from an AFV, yet technically, as Banshee said, it shouldn't report the Sherman as being hulldown as shown in the first images. I see a major problem perhaps with this discovery. If a tank is 'Hunting' forward up a slope wouldn't it stop to engage when it first gets LOS to the target, resulting in the target being hulldown also as shown earlier in the first images. So maybe the solution in 1.1 isn't really a solution at all? [This message has been edited by JoePrivate (edited 12-13-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croda Posted December 13, 2000 Share Posted December 13, 2000 I'd have to guess that the calculation that determines Hull Down status was 'figuring' that they Mk IV could not depress it's gun low enough to get a lower hull shot over that ridge. ------------------ WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! - THIS SIG FILE BELONGS TO A COMPLETE FOO. MR T WOULDN'T BE SO KIND AS TO WRINKLE AN EYEBROW AT THIS UNFORTUNATE BEING. PLEASE OFFER HIS PARENTS AND COHABITANTS ALL SYMPATHY POSSIBLE. MAY BE CONTAGIOUS. CONTAINS ARTIFICIAL SWEETNER, INTELLIGENCE AND WIT. STAND WELL CLEAR AND LIGHT WICK. BY ORDER PETERNZ Damn Croda. That is one funny sig!!! must suck to be you - Hiram Sedai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted December 13, 2000 Share Posted December 13, 2000 AFAIK CM doesn't model min/max gun depression. ------------------ Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted December 14, 2000 Share Posted December 14, 2000 Hi Guys...Ill look into this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoePrivate Posted December 14, 2000 Author Share Posted December 14, 2000 Fair enough KwazyDog, thanks for looking into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted December 14, 2000 Share Posted December 14, 2000 There were some new changes to the Hull down issue even after 1.1. I cant replicate the pictures above though. Can you please just email me that file so I can test in the current beta i am testing? Thanks! Madmatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted December 15, 2000 Share Posted December 15, 2000 Just ran into the same problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted December 15, 2000 Share Posted December 15, 2000 It looks like you may have placed that PzIV in just the right spot so that the intervening hill actually does block the LOS to the Sherman's lower hull, but not its turret. This is such a close call that it's very rarely the case - but you found a tiny little spot where it is. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoePrivate Posted December 15, 2000 Author Share Posted December 15, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is such a close call that it's very rarely the case - but you found a tiny little spot where it is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree. I ran a few tests last night where I had the PzIVH hunt up the slope but it never stopped to engage at the point where both it and the Sherman were hulldown. I think the only reason I stumbled across it is because that right spot is my rule of thumb location for placing AFVs hulldown. I will have to adjust that in the future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted December 15, 2000 Share Posted December 15, 2000 JoePrivate, Please email me, I have something to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts