Jump to content
Asheara

Tanks - Damage improvements

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

Uhh? what? Leopard 2 certainly has blow out panels and the only leo 2s destroyed in combat are turkish ones that were not equipped with the system the BW and literally everyone else uses, a wet ammo rack will significantly delay and mitigate cookoff off the ammunition.
It's not at all a deathtrap, in fact it's one of the most protected and crew-safe tanks currently in service.

The new T-14 still has part of the ammo stored in the hull just like all other previous russian MBTs, yeah they do have blow out panels now but there's still a significant chance the ammo in the hull (not in wet ammo racks) will cookoff and cause an explosion.

You can find pictures of pretty much any MBT completely destroyed, plenty of abrams that burned out due to catching fire or getting penetrated through the floor and setting the tank on fire.

That's different than actual ammo cookoffs.

 

The Challenger 2, Leclerc, and Black Eagle tank (or T-100 Varsuk rather) also have blow-out panels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

Uhh? what? Leopard 2 certainly has blow out panels and the only leo 2s destroyed in combat are turkish ones that were not equipped with the system the BW and literally everyone else uses, a wet ammo rack will significantly delay and mitigate cookoff off the ammunition.
It's not at all a deathtrap, in fact it's one of the most protected and crew-safe tanks currently in service.

The new T-14 still has part of the ammo stored in the hull just like all other previous russian MBTs, yeah they do have blow out panels now but there's still a significant chance the ammo in the hull (not in wet ammo racks) will cookoff and cause an explosion.

You can find pictures of pretty much any MBT completely destroyed, plenty of abrams that burned out due to catching fire or getting penetrated through the floor and setting the tank on fire.

That's different than actual ammo cookoffs.

 

Do you even sit inside a Leopard 2? I was inside many tanks, including M1A2SEPv2, Leopard 2A4, Leopard 2A5 just to name a few. Leopard 2 series, all of them, have blow off panels only for 15 rounds stored inside the turret bustle. While 27 rounds are also stored exposed in the hull in the crew compartment.

 

9G03d9F.jpg

This is hull ammo rack of the Leopard 2A5/A6, I do not see any isolation here in form of armored bulkhead or armored sliding doors, it's just plain and simple ammo rack.

 

The T-14 have it's ammo in the hull yes, and it does not matter, you seems to not understand how the ammunition storage works kid. It does not matter if it's in the hull, turret, elsewhere. What matters is:

 

1: Is the ammunition isolated from the crew and rest of vehicle by armored bulkheads and armored sliding doors.

2: Do ammunition storage have blow off panels to vent away dangerous fire, pressure and gases outside vehicle.

 

And you want to see these "allmighty" Leopard 2's? Here, an actuall ammo cook offs with dead crew, because how this overrated junk was never designed with survivbaility in mind, contrary to tanks like M1 and T-14.

 

I will be nice enough to share some photos from my personal archives. ;)

 

R0WSuuk.jpg

 

Two Leopard 2A4's after ammo cook off lost their turrets, one got it's hull nearly completely destroyed where the hull ammo rack is placed.

 

bvxxeM4.jpg

qExBZEh.jpg

zQkOUgG.jpg

 

Here is another one completely oblitarated when directly hit in hull ammo rack by ATGM, there is even a video.

 

 

Now how the isolated ammo storage with blow off panels work, the best example are videos from tests of the M1 series.

 

 

 

So when you see in combat M1 being hit and burning, it's just blow off panels venting the fire from the ammo storage. After that the crew can get out or even if the vehicle have capability to move, drive away to safety. I even have screenshots made from manuals about this.

 

3Fx4NoW.jpg
DkGer6M.jpg
297WS9w.jpg
These manuals shows the M1's main gun ammo storage and procedures concerning it.

 

So I want to ask you, you really want to further argue with what I said? Also remember, I work as a proffesional military journalist and I am former soldier, so I know this stuff through and through. ;)

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Night515 said:

 

The Challenger 2, Leclerc, and Black Eagle tank (or T-100 Varsuk rather) also have blow-out panels.

Yup they do, Challenger 2 is quite noteworthy because the first one didn't have it and that's the biggest reason they upgraded so soon instead of doing the US thing of constant upgrades.
despues-de-capturados-21.jpg?w=605
this is how the turks are misusing the tanks:

 atgm-6.jpg

They're misused severly, it's not at all comparable to modern leopard 2s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

The new T-14 still has part of the ammo stored in the hull just like all other previous russian MBTs, yeah they do have blow out panels now but there's still a significant chance the ammo in the hull (not in wet ammo racks) will cookoff and cause an explosion.

In the T-14, the crew compartment is isolated from the tank tower.

9 minutes ago, Night515 said:

The Challenger 2, Leclerc, and Black Eagle tank (or T-100 Varsuk rather) also have blow-out panels.

It is there that high-explosive shells are stored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Night515 said:

 

The Challenger 2, Leclerc, and Black Eagle tank (or T-100 Varsuk rather) also have blow-out panels.


No the don't, Challenger 2 have entire ammo storage inside crew compartment. Leclerc have 18 rounds in crew compartment. Object 640 (there was never such thing as Black Eagle) have only 22 rounds in siolated autoloader module at the turret rear, more rounds could be stored inside hull and crew compartment altough, it never even reached prototype phase, only two technology demonstrators were made, that were only partially functional.

 

mOFLkMG.jpg
Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 ammo storage looks like this.

 

bDske3G.jpg

Challenger 2 after ammunition cook off event.

 

LvYHC7X.jpg

Leclerc ammo rack (drum) seen in the hull crew compartment.

 

One more extra, here is a photo of a Challenger 2 after fire accident in the UK, crew was lucky there was no ammo cook off event, andthey were able to bail out. However some of the projectiles stored inside can be seen.

 

6bemxHH.jpg

All propelant charges are stored in the hull, if fire would reach them, they would cook off.

 

One note, Challenger 2 do not have wet armored bins for propelant charges, wet bins were used only in Chieftain tanks and some Challenger 1's, after tests it was discovered wet bins do not add any protection, and thus were replaced by dry bins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, first you say the Leopard 2 doesn't have blow out panels, and now you  do?
That first picture clearly shows even the front hull ammorack has blow out panels and should be shut if the crew is even remotely competent.

hydrdoor.jpg.4fd0b2a3ad66cd7fecd477ea80b

Both ammo racks if closed should keep the crew completely safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

So, first you say the Leopard 2 doesn't have blow out panels, and now you  do?
That first picture clearly shows even the front hull ammorack has blow out panels and should be shut if the crew is even remotely competent.

hydrdoor.jpg.4fd0b2a3ad66cd7fecd477ea80b

Both ammo racks if closed should keep the crew completely safe.

 

No kid, only turret bustle ammo rack is isolated and have blow off panels, there are only 15 rounds there.

 

Listen I was inside Leopard 2's, two series production variants, the A4 and A5, and one prototype. The hull rack for 27 rounds is non isolated and do not have blow off panels.

 

Do you understand this simple thing? Or I really need to explain it further till your fantasy will finally fade away?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Damian90 said:

 

No kid, only turret bustle ammo rack is isolated and have blow off panels, there are only 15 rounds there.

 

Listen I was inside Leopard 2's, two series production variants, the A4 and A5, and one prototype. The hull rack for 27 rounds is non isolated and do not have blow off panels.

 

Do you understand this simple thing? Or I really need to explain it further till your fantasy will finally fade away?

I'm talking to two ex-leopard 2 tankers right now, they served on the tanks you didn't. Don't patronize me, I'll trust the people that actually know what they're talking about for this kinda stuff, this discussion is pointless and seems to be just so you can boast about M1s....

That blue thing at the back is the entire ammo rack.
char-leclerc.png?w=625
Regardless, arma 3 should draw from reality but should still have creators freedom.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a tank, high explosive charges are dangerous. They are stored in isolated compartments. Most likely, all cases of an explosion of the tank tower from penetration occur at the time when:
- an isolated compartment is opened, to extract the charge
- there is a process of charging the barrel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

I'm talking to two ex-leopard 2 tankers right now, they served on the tanks you didn't. Don't patronize me, I'll trust the people that actually know what they're talking about for this kinda stuff, this discussion is pointless and seems to be just so you can boast about M1s....

That blue thing at the back is the entire ammo rack.
char-leclerc.png?w=625
Regardless, arma 3 should draw from reality but should still have creators freedom.

 

I will patronize you because you listen to some liers and you are a kid. I even have photos of the Leopard 2 ammo storage.


9G03d9F.jpg

i8Nx4xX.jpg

 

This is hull ammo rack, it's non isolated as we can see, and there are no blow off panels.

 

So who you believe more, some random people in the internet claiming they served, or a photos of the actuall damn thing?

 

BTW I was inside Leopard 2's, the A4 and A5 models, here are photos of tanks I was inside several times during various events.

DATwSrJ.jpg
ZRxn2sW.jpg

I was also inside many other vehicles, like I said, among them M1A2SEPv2, M2A3/M7A3, M1126, Patria AMV variants, T-72 variants, MT-LB's, and many many more. As a proof I have photos of few of these vehicles.

 

14053760_1067039070040808_69136661889184
14053729_1067039080040807_71480086657384
13975314_1067039060040809_42565073087565
13958173_1067054233372625_20719930881800

13937968_1067055206705861_82251628697849

 

So I am honest with you, Leopard 2 is the same deathtrap as a T-72, I can guarantee you this with my own life.

 

PS. The image you posted is the Leclerc MBT, and the image do not show ammunition placement, but placement of some new components considered to be added under the Scorpion upgrade program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Damian90 said:

 

Attacking me personally isn't furthering your case, nor are those pictures.

The people I talk to have proved they served on the leopard 2 and worked on them, you can see on my photo and even yours that there is in fact an armoured bulkhead, or fittings for it.

These are supposed to be closed at all times unless used for reloading (which the leopard 2 doesn't do from its hull rack in combat).

If the Turks had M1s they'd have modified the blast doors the exact same and you'd see even more pictures of Abrams knocked out. By ammo cookoff or fires.

 

You're detailing a thread simply for the purpose of "muh Abrams best tank, leo 2 bad tank".

 

So can you please stop this pointless assault and actually focus on the topic?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, scavenjer said:

Attacking me personally isn't furthering your case, nor are those pictures.

The people I talk to have proved they served on the leopard 2 and worked on them, you can see on my photo and even yours that there is in fact an armoured bulkhead, or fittings for it.

These are supposed to be closed at all times unless used for reloading (which the leopard 2 doesn't do from its hull rack in combat).

If the Turks had M1s they'd have modified the blast doors the exact same and you'd see even more pictures of Abrams knocked out. By ammo cookoff or fires.

 

You're detailing a thread simply for the purpose of "muh Abrams best tank, leo 2 bad tank".

 

So can you please stop this pointless assault and actually focus on the topic?

 

I see you still do not understand.

 

So please let me explain.

 

Leopard 2 have isolated ammo storage with blow off panels for only 15 rounds in the turret bustle. In the hull the ammo rack for 27 rounds is not isolated and do not have blow off panels. This is because Leopard 2 was never designed with crew survivability in mind, in fact it was not even designed with composite armor in the first place, and received it only very short time before its trails were finished, after Germany received access to the Burlington/Starflower research and development program for special armor done by the UK and US.

 

On the other hand the M1 tanks have it's entire ammo storage in the isolated ammo compartments with blow off panels. For the M1 and M1IP this was 44 rounds in turret bustle, 8 rounds in hull ammo storage between turret and engine compartment + an armored box for optional 3 rounds on the turret floor. In M1A1 and M1A2 it's 34 or 36 rounds in turret bustle depending if it's using older or newer generation ammo racks and 6 rounds in the hull ammo storage between turret and engine compartments.

 

In fact all European MBT's, never had true safe ammo storage, Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 stores entire ammo in crew compartment, C1 Ariete the same, Leclerc have 22 rounds in isolated turret bustle with blow off panels, but 18 rounds stored in crew compartment.

 

The only tank that have comparable crew safety and survivability to the M1, is the newest Russian T-14.

 

And this is the point. Furthermore, Turkish Army made no modifications to their Leopard 2A4's, these are tanks in their original standard configuration, because all Leopard 2 variants, in their standard configuration, store 27 120mm rounds in the crew compartment, exposed.

 

And contrary to your claims I provide an actual evidence.

 

 

 

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is simple. Blow out panels vent gasses and fire out of the tank to avoid A. Dead crew

B. Further detonation 

 

I've spent a fair amount of time reseaching this as well, and quite frankly the M1 is the only tank I can actually say seems to be safe in terms of ammo rack cookoffs, because all the ammo is seperated from the crew.

 

None of the other patents really work in modern times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Strike_NOR said:

This is simple. Blow out panels vent gasses and fire out of the tank to avoid A. Dead crew

B. Further detonation 

 

I've spent a fair amount of time reseaching this as well, and quite frankly the M1 is the only tank I can actually say seems to be safe in terms of ammo rack cookoffs, because all the ammo is seperated from the crew.

 

None of the other patents really work in modern times.

 

This is also because today all modern tank guns uses caseless ammo where case is made from a material similiar to cardboard and is consumed during firing sequence. This means there is no way such ammo case will even delay propelant charge ignition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HI all.

I have some armor and AP round quetion in Arma 3.

In this game, 40mm canon could kill tank from front by many hit.

Can we kill tank by even not penetration round?

and is it because of indirecthit?

I think 3th MBT can be not penetrated by 40mm even many hit. Is it realistic?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, fallschirmjgergewehr said:

HI all.

I have some armor and AP round quetion in Arma 3.

In this game, 40mm canon could kill tank from front by many hit.

Can we kill tank by even not penetration round?

and is it because of indirecthit?

I think 3th MBT can be not penetrated by 40mm even many hit. Is it realistic?

 

 

40mm APFSDS round in the real world should not to be able to perforate (penetration technically is a different thing) front armor of any MBT, and also would not be able to perforate side armor if it have increased protection (composite armor modules, ERA modules, side skirts etc.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However his question is directed at whats going on in Arma. And yes, as of now some shells deal full damage even if they fail to perfor/penetrate the armor.

 

I am campaigning towards fixing this issue and I approve of this message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thx for reply

"as of now some shells deal full damage even if thet fail to perfor/penetrate the armor"

is it "indirecthit"? I think so.

I want DLC to delete this value from anti tank weapone.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, fallschirmjgergewehr said:

 

I want DLC to delete this value from anti tank weapone.

 

 

If you read some few posts back, there are several of us @lex__1, @x3kj, @scavenjer, @dragon01 and more that are advocating change in this direction.

 

I am trying to get through to the devs, but allthough many ideas we have are fantastically thought out, it may not be feasible due to hardcoded game mechanics which we don't have full insight to. After all, noone knows the game better than the devs.

 

But fear not, there are ways to prevent indirecthit from reaching parts of the vehicle that would damage it, but it's more of a workaround.

 

I think the devs are at a very critical point right now, because they are about to lock features for internal beta testing. Also, they are working on multiple new systems and weapons that interact with the damage simulation, so changing the damage mechanics will affect all the other systems that interact with it.

 

I hope they at least experiment with our suggestions, and I'd be open to test the heck out of it before release to ensure quality and consistency across the platform.

 

The goal has to be to make it so, that the mechanics work differently on the micro scale (i.e penetration mechanics), while the end result is as equal as possible (tanks are still disabled, albeit not destroyed - yet makes all scenarios and missions play the same). Backwards compatibility with missions and community addons must not be completely destroyed.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Strike_NORI wholeheartedly agree.

I think that with this new armour component system you could use it for the wheels of APCs as well, currently the Gorgon almost instantly gets immobolised by small arms fire such as 556 and 762.

They should really have some form of armour so small arms don't destroy the wheels (flatruns maybe?) as fast.

Explosives and bigger weaponry (50 cal and up) should still destroy the wheels ofcourse.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my, what a dedication! Lot to read and reply to on Monday, sorry for the delay and apologies is advance if I overlook anything :) I'm happy you all are so interested!

 

On 2/23/2018 at 11:32 AM, Strike_NOR said:

@Asheara

 

Hi, thanks for continuing to clarify and work with our feedback.

I'm basically trying to make out what potential this component based system has for the community.

I have read through the old guide, and tried to apply the knowledge there to the component system and I have a really simple setup to ask about.

Consider the following setup:

hitpoint_guide_components.png
image hosting

 

Am I correct to understand:

  • Modders can now create as many new component and ammo types as they wish, and define how they interact?
  • These new armor components can be stacked and placed freely as in the above image?
  • Thickness of components are disregarded, but since speed and hit values are influenced this heavily influences the projectiles ability to penetrate the firegeometry?
  • Vehicles can be set up so that penetrating fire-geometry does not damage global health, but an internal "hithull" firegeometry/hitpoint combo can simulate "ammo rack" (or other critical part) leading to instant destruction?

 

I hope I made myself clear in the above points :)

 

1) Yes, they can create as many components types and ammo types and define their interaction

2) Yes, they can be stacked and placed freely as in image above. Just adding some more hitpoints, as armorComponent is a hitzone parameter. You can even expand on the existing hitzone we provide. Define specific component type for say... engine and add it.

3) The FireGeometry and materials are still working as they were previously. However, the damage which would be dealt upon penetrating this component will be 'multiplied' by the number in hit parameter, should work the same way with speed :)

4) HitHull can sort of simulate the ammo rack, however the instant destruction might be bit overrated. It's more complicated - if the HitHull is > 0.9, the explosion will occur, in case parameter hullDamageCauseExplosion is set to true. The time, in which the explosion will occur, however, is randomized, so it doesn't lead to instant destruction. It seems the explosion will be delayed by time between 2 and 20 seconds.

 

On 2/23/2018 at 2:35 PM, Night515 said:

@Asheara I suppose it's safe to ask this, are there any plans to give the existing tanks different ammo such as HEAT?

 

Nothing I know of. I don't think anything like that will happen.

 

On 2/23/2018 at 2:40 PM, HaseDesTodes said:

 

@Asheara

i am currently doing some damage testing and i noticed some thing

getAllHitPointsDamage for a T100 (didn't test anything else yet) gives me

there is a ' "" ' where a 'hit_trackr_point' is probably supposed to be

 

Thank you very much! There was a typo in the named selection. Fixed now.

 

On 2/24/2018 at 12:15 AM, x3kj said:

Too much talking, not enough doing :P

 

I started my own extended damage system (dealing with critical post penetration effects) starting at end of 2016. Featurelist is almost complete, only few things missing and multiplayer validation needs to be done (folks from IF3 team helped with initial testing and MP compatibility). But we were holding off for a long time, waiting for tank dlc. Seems it will have to be reactivated all now. It only works for purpose build vehicles and configs (requires model adjustement), can't just plug and play. Plus ammo damage and vehicle armor needs to be totally rebalanced because of the annoying "damage spilling through armor" from high hit values. I'm not sure if the latter can be avoided now with the component system. Rebalancing is not an issue for me because i have "total freedom" with my total conversion, but for others trying to integrate vanilla and 3rd party stuff it's problematic and mostly impossible. Maybe the rebalancing can be avoided with components now, but i need answers to the very specific questions i posted to be able to determine the effect and implications of new changes on this system @Asheara .


https://pastebin.com/TgivV5qg

 

You can see some of the "critical" effects like fire and ammo explosion in this old video (it's a bit biased towards instant-effects, because i know where the weak points are and the guns dont have dispersion)

Unnecessarily expensive because there is a better way to create penetrating jets, or because HEAT damage is intented to be caused differently? I would prefer a simulated jet over a bunch of radius calculations and hit values ...

Talking expensive - can you give a ballpark figure how much more expensive submunition is compared to a regular projectile (assuming a carrier projectile that spawns a single submunition projectile)?

 

 

Great work on the damage system! What are those custom parameters, something read by a script?
I'll gladly answer your questions if I can, though... do I understand it well those are the two under the video, or I overlooked something? Could you reformulate the first question, not sure I understand it.

And as for expensive submunition - I'd love to give you an answer, but I don't know it myself. However, I'll try to get the answer for you, hopefully programmers might point me somewhere. If there are any specific questions, shoot!

If I overlooked someone, please tag me again, will sift through the posts once more, but I can tell I've made a mistake by not looking for two whole days :P

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chinese tank Biathlon in Russia demonstrated that the loss of the rink, does not affect the speed. Probably, in that place, with overcoming of obstacles there will be a problem.

25 minutes ago, Asheara said:

If I overlooked someone, please tag me again, will sift through the posts once more, but I can tell I've made a mistake by not looking for two whole days :P

Are there any ideas to limit the penetration, which in the current version have no limitations?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Asheara said:

but I can tell I've made a mistake by not looking for two whole days :P

Not at all. It's your weekend. Although poor @oukej was trying to hold the fort after midnight a couple of times (bedside browsing on the phone maybe? Huge mistake! :D )

 

As you can probably tell, the interest is humongous. It's really bringing forth many interesting solutions to improvimg the current/old system as well as sparking interest in the new component system.

 

10 minutes ago, Asheara said:

It's more complicated - if the HitHull is > 0.9, the explosion will occur, in case parameter hullDamageCauseExplosion is set to true. The time, in which the explosion will occur, however, is randomized, so it doesn't lead to instant destruction. It seems the explosion will be delayed by time between 2 and 20 seconds

 

Perhaps..... it would be an idea to create a fire/brewup effect that occurs when this random destruction timer is initiated. Not only realistic - but a good indication to abandon vehicle, or if you are the opponent, stop shooting the dying tank.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Strike_NOR said:

Perhaps..... it would be an idea to create a fire/brewup effect that occurs when this random destruction timer is initiated. Not only realistic - but a good indication to abandon vehicle, or if you are the opponent, stop shooting the dying tank.

It's a good idea to stop watching the goal, which can not stop a big fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2018 at 2:42 AM, lex__1 said:

Tell me, is it possible to model the destruction of APFSDS when it penetrates obstacles? Create probability of penetration into obstacles for APFSDS depending on:
- Obstacles
- Distance
- Speed APFSDS
- Power APFSDS
Or is it difficult and will not be realized?

 

 

Wow, what the hell! :eh:

That is something... which shouldn't have happened. I'm not sure whether we can do something about it, I believe significantly changing the penetration at this point would be too risky and expensive, but I'll forward it to programming to investigate. We'll be definitely looking into those ricocheting projectiles, so while we're at it... might ask about this as well, but no promises. If you could send me this repro mission to try it for us, I'd be grateful.

 

On 2/25/2018 at 12:07 PM, pr9inichek said:

@Asheara and Dev Team thx for this Update.

 

Please check suggestions and issues below:

 

1) Rename some hitpoints

era_l_t_1_point = *hit_era_top_left_1_point

era_l_t_2_point = *hit_era_top_left_2_point

era_r_t_1_point = *hit_era_top_right_1_point

era_r_t_2_point = *hit_era_top_right_2_point

era_f_point = *hit_era_front_point

era_l_1_point = *hit_era_left_1_point

era_l_2_point = *hit_era_left_2_point

era_r_1_point = *hit_era_right_1_point

era_r_2_point = *hit_era_right_2_point

 

2) Destroy any hit = Destroy visual of Hull in vehicle

Example: Fuel is down = Visual Hull is too

  Hide contents

 

3) Destroing Commander Gun haven't visual effect...

  Reveal hidden contents

 

4) Destroing Main Gun haven't block shot from it...

  Reveal hidden contents

 

5) Destroing ENG haven't block the ability to move

  Reveal hidden contents

 

6) AI can proper Damaged Gun

  Reveal hidden contents

 

7) Very bad render for Fire ball :(

  Reveal hidden contents

 

8) Crew automatic get out when Hull is down

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

Thanks a lot for the feedback! It's exactly what we need!

1) sure, it's a valid suggestion, but this is only naming of selection in hitpoint LOD, not the hitpoint itself, therefore it doesn't have the priority. Sure, I'm with you on this page, the naming is better and makes sense,  but we'll be having our hands full with other fixes. I'm afraid we won't get to it, but I'll see if it can be done while working on fixes written below.

2) Thanks for bringing it to my attention! I really need to sift through all hitpoints. This is caused by one of the things I've written in documentation under the "quality of life" updates. In other words, visual = "" vs. visual = "-". And didn't update it everywhere yet.

3) Same as above. We'll get working on it.

4) I believe HitGun never actually blocked the firing from the cannon. I know, it's logical, but this wasn't intended. We don't have the engine soolution for this and it wasn't planned either. HitTurret and HitGun hitpoints are intended to affect the turret rotations and elevations. So yes, even with destroyed hitpoints, you'll be able to fire - but not control well where to fire. If you still can move the turret freely in all directions with destroyed hitpoint, THEN it's a bug :)

5) Well, as far as I can see, you sure are unable to start up and move in any direction. But I see that it's still able to turn on the place, which is logical that it shouldn't. But I'm not certain if this is intended or not. I can ask around, but fixing this might get bit more extensive as... we would have to think thoroughly about the consequences it might cause :) More people and decisions would be involved, whether we would actually want to fix it and how will it affect sandbox. At this point, it's unlikely to happen, as it's certainly not trivial.

6) I see it as, with damaged gun it should lower down as it was. I'm surprised it happened as late as in the point of changing seats, but I didn't see any further elevation. Yes, it moved a little here or there, but in general it appeared that the gun didn't elevate, so i might fail to see the problem.

7) Won't fix, I'm afraid. Many more pressing problems, even visual, to be taken care of earlier. This would require a thorough investigation of the magical particle config and so on.

8) Not a bug, they better, they know what's about to happen! :D Would you want to stay in the vehicle about to explode?

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×