Jim Boggs Posted March 11, 2003 Share Posted March 11, 2003 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: To put this in perspective, my M29C Weasel has a PSI rating of a little over 1.2 unloaded. This is less PSI than a human wearing boots. And guess what? I got myself "bogged" in Scattered Trees in the middle of a very dry summer. Steve Uh Steve, For the sake of BTS and BFC, PLEASE let someone else drive your car. The thought of you getting BOGGED is not something I want on my conscience. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laxx Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 doan mess with da man who owns his own military vehicle, armored or otherwise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJungnitsch Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Does this make some vehicles slightly more or less prone to bogging (on average) than they perhaps should be? Yes, but we do not think wildly so. This is a very difficult aspect to simulate fairly without an exhaustive study of each and every vehicle with data that is unlikely available for even the most common vehicles, not to mention rare ones.Have to admit I'm a little disappointed with that statement, Steve. Going by MMP some vehicles are very different in actual bogging comparisons than their psi ratings indicate, the formula for it is simple and the measurements needed are relatively straightforward. With all the effort made to get the armour penetration modeling etc accurate, why write off accurate modeling of mobility, at least for future versions of CM? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mies Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 This could prove to turn out as a very interresting discussion when BFC visits the African Dessert in an upcoming game somewhere. Flat sand plains with only small hills on there should be the ideal place to drive a tank through.... but wait, even the Dessert Fox had some difficulties to keep his tank a drift. No tracks that fell of, no quicksand for bogging, only sand in the radiator, sand in the air filters, probably even sand in the fuel. Seeing pictures of operations in the east lead me to think that there was a lot of fine dust flying all over the place (in summer) that could clog a big piece of machinery easily. Just a thought Mies 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 I recall an old coworker of mine who after 4 straight years of jungle fighting in the Pacific in WWII decided he wanted to live to see the war's end. So he got a job repairing the company's Stuart light tanks. Whenever it was time to pick people for a recon patrol he would wander over to the light tank, start it up and drive it to a small hill, then simply pulled a sharp left turn on the incline. Guaranteed to throw the track every time (And the Stuart had a pretty reliable track system!). "Ooops! Looks like I'm going to have to stay behind and fix the tracks." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Paul, Have to admit I'm a little disappointed with that statement, Steve. Well, it is nothing new. This has been the case with vehicle bogging for three years now. Going by MMP some vehicles are very different in actual bogging comparisons than their psi ratings indicate, the formula for it is simple and the measurements needed are relatively straightforward.Wasn't it you that posted a bunch of stuff about this a while back? Charles went back to look for it a few weeks ago (on someone else's site) and it was gone. No email address to contact the fellow either. Send me an email if you have the stuff. We are interested in it. With all the effort made to get the armour penetration modeling etc accurate, why write off accurate modeling of mobility, Because we simply can not simualte EVERYTHING as well as it can be in theory. Either because we lack the time or the CPU lacks the horsepower. Often both. Think about all the things that are in CMBO/CMBB now. Think about how long it took us to make the game what it is. Now think about how much stuff isn't in there to the nth degree. Pretty friggin huge pile, trust me So like any project of impractical size, we have to take shortcuts whenever possible. For CMBO we took a shortcut on optics because it was possible to do, but with CMBB it wasn't possible so we had to invest more time/resources to do that. We do not feel that bogging is THAT far off, so it remained abstracted. BTW, if you want to find out the MMP of each and every vehicle in CMBB, be my guest It won't be usable for a while, but we would be happy to put it into the next Eastern Front version (sometime in the future). I'm still not sure how you would account for unevenly distributed weight if you don't know how much the componant pieces weigh. ...at least for future versions of CM? It is something we would like to do better, along with all sorts of things. Oh, like Relative Spotting, Multi-Multi Player, SOPs, better AI, more flexible victory conditions, higher resolution terrain, full character animiation, full simulation of dust/smoke, mechanical reliability, more detailed damage modeling (for all units, not just vehicles), etc., etc., etc.. My point here is that the list of things we could, and should, improve is massive. It is impossible to do it all. That means lots of people with a pet issues will have cause for "disapointment". It is unavoidable. Having said that, we want to, and plan to, improve the modeling of bogging and x-country performance (gun stability, spotting, etc). If you have the data that I mentioned, please send it along to me so we can have it on hand for the engine rewrite. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJungnitsch Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Hey Steve No offense meant. I'd sent the Rowland papers that deal with MMP to Matt back in November (11th or 12th? I think) and I had assumed you all had had time to look at them by now. They were up on my website for quite some time for others to download. When I get a minute (papers are due!) I'll upload them again but they should be on Matts computer somewhere. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Originally posted by Paul Jungnitsch: ... They were up on my website for quite some time for others to download ... And I did. Good stuff - thanks for putting them up and pointing them out Paul. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Paul, Thanks. If you sent them to Matt, I am sure he still has them. I'll ask about them in a few minutes. I didn't download them myself because I am still on a 28.8 connection and those scans were rather large Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Paul, Thanks. If you sent them to Matt, I am sure he still has them. I'll ask about them in a few minutes. I didn't download them myself because I am still on a 28.8 connection and those scans were rather large Steve Gee, Steve! I TOLD YOU not to spend all that money in one place. It's kind of depressing to think that one of the main developers of this game can't afford an Internet connection decent enough to play TCP/IP... what next, you're using a Mac? 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.