Ted Posted April 6, 2005 Share Posted April 6, 2005 Will CMx2 use the accurate to hit/kill physics that CM is using? If I understand it right, in CM a shot hit is calculated by the gun type, (bore, muzzle velocity, etc) type of ammunition and distance to target. (Does wind effect a to hit?). If it is a hit it is then determined where the hit on a target is. How or at what accuracy is that calculated, within a certain amount of square inches or square feet? Then armor penetration is calculated given the angle of the strike, thickness and slope of armor? Will CMx2 be even more detailed? How will you create the physics for battling space lobsters? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted April 6, 2005 Share Posted April 6, 2005 Space lobsters battling, will include amongst other surface fighting on different planets. Yes fresh and sea water will be modeled. As for the physics modeling, I hope so. BFC has said that they wanted to make CMx2 much more realistic. So... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted April 6, 2005 Share Posted April 6, 2005 Originally posted by stikkypixie: Space lobsters battling, will include amongst other surface fighting on different planets. Yes fresh and sea water will be modeled. As for the physics modeling, I hope so. BFC has said that they wanted to make CMx2 much more realistic. So... OK, so tell us all how you propose to achieve a "much more realistic" representation of armour penetration mechanisms. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted April 6, 2005 Share Posted April 6, 2005 Each hit on a tank will be resolved against a millimetric accurate computer model of the tank, including randomised armour flaws, using a full hydro-dynamic simulation provided by Sentry Dynamics. It is expected to take approximately a week to process more armour-intensive* turns on high end machines. *i.e one involving more than one tank. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 6, 2005 Share Posted April 6, 2005 I think they will go for the "coin flip solution". It saves programming time which allows more time to hang out and drink beer while watching XXX-rated movies. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted April 6, 2005 Share Posted April 6, 2005 I just hope tank shells can now hit tanks other then they were shot at. And with the crew modeled individually it becomes more important as to where the round strikes. So I hope the round visually strikes the compartment of the crewmember it injures. That would be lots better then a shell hitting dead center every time and damage being randomly assigned. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted April 6, 2005 Share Posted April 6, 2005 For CMx2 there will be a new system that will have each shot calculation sent to me for review. I, and only I, will then determine if the shot misses or hits, and what level of penetration. I then will forward my determination to the player's computers to resolve the issue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted April 6, 2005 Share Posted April 6, 2005 Originally posted by John D Salt: OK, so tell us all how you propose to achieve a "much more realistic" representation of armour penetration mechanisms. All the best, John. Realism? How about this I would like to see the possibility of the 88mm round go in the front side of the Stuart and OUT the back side of the Stuart leaving entry and exit holes and then penetrate the tank behind the Stuart (in column formation) and brew it up. NOW there is some realism NOT possible in the current engine. How about something as simple as tanks blocking LOF so units can take cover in that tanks LOS/LOF shadow? How about bigger heavier tanks blocking LOF for thinner lighter vehicles behind them in their LOS/LOF shadow??? -tom w [ April 06, 2005, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 OK, so tell us all how you propose to achieve a "much more realistic" representation of armour penetration mechanisms. All the best, John. I don't have real complaints, but how about better hull-down? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
76mm Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 Isn't there also an issue about the size or width of turrets not being taken into account, leading to too many hits on thinly armored, but narrow turret fronts? Thought there was a thread on that some time ago... 76mm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denwad Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 too many situations where the ass end of a tank was sticking out, but I couldn't target the vehicle because you have to be able to shoot at the center. the 3d model in game really means nothing at all, it's just a representation of the way it's facing and that's about it. the tank ( in the engine's eyes ) is just a single point in the game, and if you can't see it you can't hit it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 Originally posted by 76mm: Isn't there also an issue about the size or width of turrets not being taken into account, leading to too many hits on thinly armored, but narrow turret fronts? Thought there was a thread on that some time ago... 76mm There have been concerns raised that since turret size relative to hull size is not considered (the whole vehicle is given a 'silhouette' value), tanks like the Panzer IV (with 50mm of turret armour on a very small turret frontage) are unfairly whipped. Personally, I'd also like to see the armour rating for the Sherman reassessed. 89/0 on a turret that is visibly curved cannot be right. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Pollock Posted April 7, 2005 Share Posted April 7, 2005 Originally posted by stikkypixie: Space lobsters battling, will include amongst other surface fighting on different planets. Yes fresh and sea water will be modeled.Fresh water too...so we get Space CrawFish - hurrah 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 Well, BFC's getting some added experience under their belt converting the Russian FPS game T72 over for English speakers. I believe the damage model (what breaks when a shell hits a certain area) for the tanks is pretty sophisticated. I haven't heard/read much on the penetration model of the rounds themselves, though. Trying to please armor grognards is like climbing up a down escallator. Whatever advances you make won't go far enough to satisfy them, and simply standing still is interpreted as going backwards! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Posted April 8, 2005 Author Share Posted April 8, 2005 Rats I was hoping to get Steve or Charles in here to discuss how to hit/kills would be achieved in the new game. After all I'm sure they have nothng better to do. I thought fer sure space lobsters would arouse a response. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Bolt Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: I think they will go for the "coin flip solution". It saves programming time which allows more time to hang out and drink beer while watching XXX-rated movies. Michael Programmers really get to do that? Damn, I shoulda been a computer programmer!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 Originally posted by MikeyD: Well, BFC's getting some added experience under their belt converting the Russian FPS game T72 over for English speakers.Erm, no, I don't think they do the translation, they just publish it. I bet Charles has no idea what the code of T-72 has eaten. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 Originally posted by 76mm: Isn't there also an issue about the size or width of turrets not being taken into account, leading to too many hits on thinly armored, but narrow turret fronts? Thought there was a thread on that some time ago...Yes. I also hope troops will be able to use vehicles as cover and concealment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew H. Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 76mm: Isn't there also an issue about the size or width of turrets not being taken into account, leading to too many hits on thinly armored, but narrow turret fronts? Thought there was a thread on that some time ago...Yes. I also hope troops will be able to use vehicles as cover and concealment. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 9, 2005 Share Posted April 9, 2005 Opportunities: </font>Armor angles other than vetical</font>turret size. It's a shame that this hasn't been solved with a simple "small turret" flag in CM1</font>Rounded armor side and rear. E.g. Tiger turret is completely round from side and rear but is rated as 0 degrees in CM1</font>randomized armor quality</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted April 9, 2005 Share Posted April 9, 2005 Originally posted by Lord Peter: IRL, infantry avoided being close to tanks as much as possible, due to (1) the fact that they attracted all kinds of fire; and (2) their propensity to change direction abruptly and run over friendly troops.Also, it's impossible for a whole squad to stand "safely" behind a tank, without exposing themselves to fire from sides. You'd probably still want to advance using fire and movement a few dozen metres behind the tank, hoping that it will block LOF from some of the enemies at least. Forcing the player to employ tanks in realistic formations is important, I agree. Although I wonder just how well the AI will cope with that..? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Posted April 9, 2005 Author Share Posted April 9, 2005 There should be some benefit from advancing behind an AFV. You see many scenes of combat footage where squads are moving up behind an AFV. I could see where in cities and towns moving down streets this would have a great advantage. Although I don't thinks being behind and AFV should not block the LOS/LOF it should be an improvement on moving in the open. In CMx2 can the LOS/LOF of the firer be traced through the silouette of an AFV? If so I'm sure that will have an effect on both the shooter and the targets fire results. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPK Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 "There should be some benefit from advancing behind an AFV. You see many scenes of combat footage where squads are moving up behind an AFV." Absolutely...many times I've wanted to use that tactic...or just needed the cover. In CM, infantry avoid being close to tanks because they are TRANSPARENT (or at least opaque)... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 "There should be some benefit from advancing behind an AFV. You see many scenes of combat footage where squads are moving up behind an AFV." Yes, this is certainly a valid and historically accurate tactic. I'm reading "Tigers in the Mud" right now and the author describes this being used several times by both the Russians and Germans. Originally posted by MPK: In CM, infantry avoid being close to tanks because they are TRANSPARENT (or at least opaque)... Arn't those opposites? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 12, 2005 Share Posted April 12, 2005 Originally posted by Pak40: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MPK: In CM, infantry avoid being close to tanks because they are TRANSPARENT (or at least opaque)... Arn't those opposites? </font> 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.