new realisim mod for SP15

[scottyd2506]

This little mod isn't a big deal for some of you, but those who like to drive the King Tiger, Panther, KV-1 2, IS-2 etc..

  Slight fixes for some of the heavy tanks that I thought were getting killed too easy by mediocre guns at long range..
                    let me know what you all think.. feedback is welcome!

Readme 1.2



Armor Thickness fix 1.2 for Steel Fury - Jan 09 2011
For Steel Panzer mod 1.5 only

Values for some slightly fixed.
nothing big changed
Exaple of stock SP-1.5 mod armor values:

increased the main Heavy tanks from 2000-2100 armor_str
as in SF1942 seems like those mosters are sometimes a little weak on long range hits from
mid grade weapons.
 Going for realisim not ballance or politics.




from : to

Russian

KV-1
armor_thick   =   90; to 100;
armor_qual   =   0.85; to 0.9;
armor_str   =   2000; to 2100

KV-2
armor_str   =   2000; to 2100

IS-2
armor_thick   =   88; to 100;
armor_qual   =   0.8; to 1.0;
armor_str   =   2000; to 2100;
 
Mk2
armor_str   =   2000; to 2100;


German

Pabther
armor_frail   =   0.3; to 0.5;
armor_str   =   2000; to 2100;

Tiger + TigerR
armor_str   =   2000; to 2100;

King Tiger (Tiger II) changes
armor_qual   =   0.7; to 1.0;
armor_frail   =   0.5; to 0.6
armor_str   =   1950; to 2100;



Summery
--------------------------------------------------
KV-1 1942 had crazy thick armor for the time, in early 1942 no tank on Earth was even close
 to it for armor protection, KV-1's in 1941 and 42 was practically invincible to German
tanks of the time. (although aircraft and some AT guns could take it out)

slightly ajusted values for the KV-1

-------------------------------------------------
(King)Tiger II
  No frontal armor has even been recorded to have been penetrated during WW2. At least not the upper
 front  slope 160mm plate, although there is a pic on a penetrating shot on the front turret of a King Tiger, the turret
 was a small area of 180mm, but not slopped. It was said a 17 pounder from close range did it.

 Another instance was a penetrating shot from 300-400 meters from a M26 Super Pershing on the lower belly plate.
 There was only 2 Super Pershings made, but only one did see combat.. a huge improved T15E1 90mm gun
 penetration was likle 8,5 inches (213mm) at 1000 meters, and 13 inches (320mm) at 100 meters
    Overall with the great optics, at long range over 1000 meters the King Tiger was almost invicible from
  damage to the front of it.
   
This does not mean the tank was totally invincible, there is an instance where on lone T-34, knocked
 off 3 Tiger II at close range with side hits. and also AT guns, aircraft.

Slightly modified values for ktiger

------------------------------------------------
IS-2

 The IS-2 another great WW2 weapon, the 122mm was slow to reloead, and not as good for penetration
 as the 100mm (SU-100), but the IS-2 had like 150mm frontal plate armor, thick turret armor all around
 and probably the best tank the Russian had to see combat in WWII.

moderately improved values

------------------------------------------------
instructions
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Drop folder " armor_thickness_fix11 " in your SF MODS folder, then install with JSGME. Use with Steel Panzer 1.5 mod only, install after SP15.



Scotty


http://www.4shared.com/file/-OHOKBeY/armor_fixes_12.html

[Kyth]

Hi Scotty!

Thanks for the effort, I think a lot of time went into the armour values for the mod. Now, as for my 2cents worth, not intending to raise any controversy here 

There was a previous thread here on the matter:

http://graviteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=880.15

The gist of it being, there are 2 'elements' to armour thickness as it's handled in Steel Fury:

• The 'armour_thick' parameters in the tech_cfg files
• The armour maps, in .tga format, for each vehicle which acts like a 'skin'

An example of an armour-map 'skin' (for the Panther tank); Lighter = thicker; Darker = thinner:


The 'armour_thick' value defines the maximum armour thickness for the vehicle (by the way, it can be any other value as well), which is modified by the RGB values in the related armour map tga.

For example, the 'armour_thick' of the Panzer IV being '50', and the side-armour area on the armour-map 'skin' having a RGB value of '60':

The derived side-armour thickness is : 50 x 60 /100 = 30mm

What are the other parameters : arm_fwd, arm_side, arm_back and arm_up?
They're for the AI to consider whether to take a shot at the vehicle.

I've observed that the AI (friendly and enemy) doesn't just blaze away at everything in sight, there's some calculation about whether their limited ammunition will actually inflict any damage. For instance, you won't see it spraying MG bullets at enemy tanks which are buttoned-up,

By the way, there are other factors such as quality / brittleness of the steel ... Not going to go there... It's endless

Thanks,

[Stig]

Note: I typed this while Kyth was posting an explanation that appears just above it. If this is the gospel, then I have my answer. But here's another possible way to look at it, and I wonder if it has any merit. For one thing, I don't quite understand why you'd need to use a color value on a texture, when you can create definitive values on the 3D part itself. Why the need to use two factors in this way? Anyway, read below, and comment on this or Kyth's post.

===============================================
I'd like to understand how armor values are applied in the files. Let me quote from the King Tiger cited above:

King Tiger (Tiger II)

armor_thick   =   100;  170
arm_fwd   =   95;   160
arm_side   =   65;  
arm_back   =   80;  
arm_up   =   30;

If I understand this armor system correctly (and I have no confidence that I do; hehehe, that's why I'm asking)...

The first value on an armor line is an actual thickness of the metal and the second is the thickness with sloping taken into account, at a straight-on penetration angle? Thus, in this example the forward armor is 160mm thick if hit at an angle perpendicular to the ground, due to the slope. The sides and back, and bottom, however don't slope and thus have just the one value.

One reason I'm not sure is why then there'd be a need for the (overall) armor_thick value, if there are separate lines for the front, top, sides and bottom.  Also, why are there no "turret" values? IIRC, the turrets usually had slopes, and thicker armor overall than the corresponding hull values.

We're going to have to know how to properly apply these values if we're going to build additional tanks from scratch. And we'll also need to know how to test it; is there any kind of way to put a vehicle on an in-game "proving ground" where we can lob some shells at it, get some log files that show the effects of hits with and without penetration....? And to test any new guns/ordnance we might put on a new vehicles?

[scottyd2506]

Hi Scotty!

Thanks for the effort, I think a lot of time went into the armour values for the mod. Now, as for my 2cents worth, not intending to raise any controversy here 

There was a previous thread here on the matter:

http://graviteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=880.15

The gist of it being, there are 2 'elements' to armour thickness as it's handled in Steel Fury:

• The 'armour_thick' parameters in the tech_cfg files
• The armour maps, in .tga format, for each vehicle which acts like a 'skin'

An example of an armour-map 'skin' (for the Panther tank); Lighter = thicker; Darker = thinner:


The 'armour_thick' value defines the maximum armour thickness for the vehicle (by the way, it can be any other value as well), which is modified by the RGB values in the related armour map tga.

For example, the 'armour_thick' of the Panzer IV being '50', and the side-armour area on the armour-map 'skin' having a RGB value of '60':

The derived side-armour thickness is : 50 x 60 /100 = 30mm

What are the other parameters : arm_fwd, arm_side, arm_back and arm_up?
They're for the AI to consider whether to take a shot at the vehicle.

I've observed that the AI (friendly and enemy) doesn't just blaze away at everything in sight, there's some calculation about whether their limited ammunition will actually inflict any damage. For instance, you won't see it spraying MG bullets at enemy tanks which are buttoned-up,

By the way, there are other factors such as quality / brittleness of the steel ... Not going to go there... It's endless

Thanks,

  thanks for the kind help kyth.. so I guess that I am not editing armor as a whole... and only part of it.
 usually the harder the more brittle to some extent, like titanium is harder than Tungsten, but is much more brittle --  there is a catch 22 there..  but darn, some of the Russian and allied steel was not much harder than lead or gold --- yeah, that is a whole other story...
   The idea is not to give something more to make it better, but to make it more real... opinions always vary on this subject of WW2 armor.. because of the slope, and quality of steel facts.
 So I understand after reading the threat, that slope is in effect in the game.. so I need to do some tweeking (less values) for the tanks..

  What I do not understand it the how the "Armor map.tga" has anything to do with the values of the armor, it is just a picture, maybe there is some kind of program I need to look into it more depth.
 How do you find this info?
..
feel free to voice opinions.. you have made great efforts to help... much thanks

[scottyd2506]

Note: I typed this while Kyth was posting an explanation that appears just above it. If this is the gospel, then I have my answer. But here's another possible way to look at it, and I wonder if it has any merit. For one thing, I don't quite understand why you'd need to use a color value on a texture, when you can create definitive values on the 3D part itself. Why the need to use two factors in this way? Anyway, read below, and comment on this or Kyth's post.

===============================================
I'd like to understand how armor values are applied in the files. Let me quote from the King Tiger cited above:

King Tiger (Tiger II)

armor_thick   =   100;  170
arm_fwd   =   95;   160
arm_side   =   65;  
arm_back   =   80;  
arm_up   =   30;

If I understand this armor system correctly (and I have no confidence that I do; hehehe, that's why I'm asking)...

The first value on an armor line is an actual thickness of the metal and the second is the thickness with sloping taken into account, at a straight-on penetration angle? Thus, in this example the forward armor is 160mm thick if hit at an angle perpendicular to the ground, due to the slope. The sides and back, and bottom, however don't slope and thus have just the one value.

One reason I'm not sure is why then there'd be a need for the (overall) armor_thick value, if there are separate lines for the front, top, sides and bottom.  Also, why are there no "turret" values? IIRC, the turrets usually had slopes, and thicker armor overall than the corresponding hull values.

We're going to have to know how to properly apply these values if we're going to build additional tanks from scratch. And we'll also need to know how to test it; is there any kind of way to put a vehicle on an in-game "proving ground" where we can lob some shells at it, get some log files that show the effects of hits with and without penetration....? And to test any new guns/ordnance we might put on a new vehicles?

   I too wonder why there are not turret calues, I remember in the Panzer Commander files the all tanks had Front, side, top, rear armor values, as well as top front side and rear turret values.
  I assume SF1942 just uses the front value for the front turret .. probably good enough.. I remember in Panzer Commander the patched Tiger II had the most at 195mm front corrected for slope and quality.. the front turret have 215mm.. pretty close..
  It seems most of the tanks values were does by many people and most agreed with the overall values..

 the values in Steel Fury do not seem to be in mm.. everything is slightly less.. but off
 there is much debate of who has what, esp when you add slope and steel quality..
 Germans had better steel, Russians probably not so much, but seems like Russians had more deg slope, so that has to factor in for overall value ..

I read those link about, seems I am not the only one who things some of the values are off.. a lot of people have made great strides in this sim..

  I know the 100mm values of a king tiger vs the t-34's 90mm is just way off..
 let me know guys kyth, frinik etc what I can change to make it more real.. I do not think the values for most units are off, but some could be fixed..    I am open to opinions,
  

[frinik]

Thanks Scotty for the good work!Sorry I could not email you my tech_cfg folders as promised but I am recovering from a bronchitis.

To add my 2 cents worth of salt to the debate:

The issue of armour values in always a touchy subject.I agree with Kyth that we have to be cautious when trying to ascribe some values and that not only the tech_cfg files but also the armour .tga (map) files have an impact on the realism and balance in the game.

As well I discovered numerous erros and inconsistencies which led me to made my own corrections.From one mod to the other I noted that the front thickness for the T34/85 for example varied from 75 to 90( without explanation given nor substantiated by any historical data I could find).Likewise there were fluctuations for some values for the Tiger I.Without throwing accusations of bias ( but v certainly a subconcious slant) I found thta for the same tank model the T34/76 the Soviet model was ascribed 55 mm of frontal thickness while the equivalent German-captured model was given only 47 mm??There's no evidence suggesting that the Germans in anyway would have decreased the armour thickness fo their captured T34s( unless they were masochists?).I also saw thta basically the T34/85  was given 90mm of front thickness and the TIger II 100mm. As well the armour frail values for the Tiger II is 0.7 ???Based on what?I'll bet you on the result of the Kubinka shooting trials conducted by the Soviets on a captured Tiger II which showed the amrour to be prone to spalling with poor quality welding and cracks. However these subjective results comments have been applied to all Tiger IIs without further research to determine whether the damage might have been the result of battle fatigue and the poor quality welding could have been the result of hastily made or improvised repairs on a battlefield.Thomas Jentz in his excellent and well researched books has argued that his meticulous analysis of German technical reports, internal memos has not demonstrated that the Tiger II production suffered from any decrease in either manufacturing quality or quality control. As for the issue of the declining quality of German armour due to the loss of special allows( wolfram,managnese, chromium) this took place only in August 1944 thus for example the Tiger I was not affected, nor were the Panthers produced from 1943 until that date.The Tiger started production in Dec 1943.Even then the quality of German armour was much better then its sSoviet-made counterpart.Thus I don't see how come the value for the quality of the TIger II armour is set at 1950 the same as for the T34./76 whose steel was of poor quality as acknowledged by the Soviet themselves in reports which I read.Likewise the overrated JS2 was plagued by porous armour and poor casting.Still it gets a 2000 rating in the quality of armour????I could  go on and on....MY oon inclination is to make selective chnages when obviously an error has been noted.I have noted many more ranging from undervalued side armour for the German tanks to fanciful shell loads( where did they get the 36, 5, 39 value for the Tiger I for example???The correct minimum value for that tank is 60 pzgr39 and 30 HE.The pzgr40( tungsten cored ) were discontinued after Dec 1943.Similarly there are glaring errors for the Panther whether G(they ascribed it 40 pzgranate 40and only 10 HE) or D and even for the TIger II the figures are wrong.

My inclination has been to correct errors whenever possible and redress the balance .I did it for my own games and if others wish to follow they are welcome and I can communicate my files .

The issue of the sloping effect of the armour is covered in the game engine ballistics and physics.I think we need to be careful not to over armour

I think the reason the turret is not included in the armour values is because as Kyth pointed out it is the armour.tga files that really set those values.Those in the tech_cfg folders are just for the AI or may be for the end of mission stats.

Cheers

[Kyth]

  What I do not understand it the how the "Armor map.tga" has anything to do with the values of the armor, it is just a picture, maybe there is some kind of program I need to look into it more depth.
 How do you find this info?

Hi Scotty,

Each armour map packs in a lot of information, potentially more information than just the overall values for front /side / rear armour.
For instance, 'applique' armour that only covers a portion of the underlying surface. This can be represented by shading the relevant area with the appropriate shade of grey...

You can use any picture editing program, like GIMP, to check out the RGB (red, green, blue) values for the armour maps.

I assume you have the Object Editor - To see the armour map applied to the 3-D model. Just copy the armour map to the texture folder, convert it to .dds format, and rename it as the 'skin' for the vehicle.  I hope I didn't make it sound too easy 

[scottyd2506]

Thanks Scotty for the good work!Sorry I could not email you my tech_cfg folders as promised but I am recovering from a bronchitis.

To add my 2 cents worth of salt to the debate:

The issue of armour values in always a touchy subject.I agree with Kyth that we have to be cautious when trying to ascribe some values and that not only the tech_cfg files but also the armour .tga (map) files have an impact on the realism and balance in the game.

As well I discovered numerous erros and inconsistencies which led me to made my own corrections.From one mod to the other I noted that the front thickness for the T34/85 for example varied from 75 to 90( without explanation given nor substantiated by any historical data I could find).Likewise there were fluctuations for some values for the Tiger I.Without throwing accusations of bias ( but v certainly a subconcious slant) I found thta for the same tank model the T34/76 the Soviet model was ascribed 55 mm of frontal thickness while the equivalent German-captured model was given only 47 mm??There's no evidence suggesting that the Germans in anyway would have decreased the armour thickness fo their captured T34s( unless they were masochists?).I also saw thta basically the T34/85  was given 90mm of front thickness and the TIger II 100mm. As well the armour frail values for the Tiger II is 0.7 ???Based on what?I'll bet you on the result of the Kubinka shooting trials conducted by the Soviets on a captured Tiger II which showed the amrour to be prone to spalling with poor quality welding and cracks. However these subjective results comments have been applied to all Tiger IIs without further research to determine whether the damage might have been the result of battle fatigue and the poor quality welding could have been the result of hastily made or improvised repairs on a battlefield.Thomas Jentz in his excellent and well researched books has argued that his meticulous analysis of German technical reports, internal memos has not demonstrated that the Tiger II production suffered from any decrease in either manufacturing quality or quality control. As for the issue of the declining quality of German armour due to the loss of special allows( wolfram,managnese, chromium) this took place only in August 1944 thus for example the Tiger I was not affected, nor were the Panthers produced from 1943 until that date.The Tiger started production in Dec 1943.Even then the quality of German armour was much better then its sSoviet-made counterpart.Thus I don't see how come the value for the quality of the TIger II armour is set at 1950 the same as for the T34./76 whose steel was of poor quality as acknowledged by the Soviet themselves in reports which I read.Likewise the overrated JS2 was plagued by porous armour and poor casting.Still it gets a 2000 rating in the quality of armour????I could  go on and on....MY oon inclination is to make selective chnages when obviously an error has been noted.I have noted many more ranging from undervalued side armour for the German tanks to fanciful shell loads( where did they get the 36, 5, 39 value for the Tiger I for example???The correct minimum value for that tank is 60 pzgr39 and 30 HE.The pzgr40( tungsten cored ) were discontinued after Dec 1943.Similarly there are glaring errors for the Panther whether G(they ascribed it 40 pzgranate 40and only 10 HE) or D and even for the TIger II the figures are wrong.

My inclination has been to correct errors whenever possible and redress the balance .I did it for my own games and if others wish to follow they are welcome and I can communicate my files .

The issue of the sloping effect of the armour is covered in the game engine ballistics and physics.I think we need to be careful not to over armour

I think the reason the turret is not included in the armour values is because as Kyth pointed out it is the armour.tga files that really set those values.Those in the tech_cfg folders are just for the AI or may be for the end of mission stats.

Cheers

   We are on the same page..one can not rely on Russian sources for info, exaggeration comes to play, many sim files from Russia over due Russian weapons, and diminish German stuff.
   Il-2 and Oleg was big into Russian Uber planes.

  Not trying to bash Russian equipment.
 I think the Russian had the best tank till mid 1942, I like a lot of Russian planes, Yak3, La5fn, La7.
 Mig-15 or Korean war etc.. Su27 , Alfa class subs etc
 But there is bias in sims made.

 We Americans do this too often.. although most Birtish and Americans will tell the hard truth that those Panthers, Tigers and King Tigers were the best tanks..  but when it comes to aircraft.. Americans favor the P51.. "it is the best" they say..  Personally I think it was a good plane, but sick of the bias,
 a Spitfire 14 could out run it, out turn it, out climb it, had cannons.. but could not range to escort the bombers. but on a 1 vs 1 fight, the P51 would be at a big disadvantage vs the Spit14.
 

 Love my country, but No American bias here on equipment, I think in WW2 the US never had the best of anything, on a pure 1vs1 basis - maybe heavy bombers.
      The M26 Pershing, Is-2 were great tanks, but it was the Russian and USA overall manufacturing mass quantities that overwhelmed Germany.
  20 x T34-85's or 20 x M4A3-76mm Sherman tanks surrounding  2 King Tiger's & 4 PZIV's is what won the allies a victory, not face to face engagements... The armor values for the sim or mod might be good for balance, but not realistic.

   the Russian 85's should not be able to penetrate a Panther front armor, maybe on a lower hul shot at close range 200m... but not on th norm-  an Is-2 could at 1000-1200m
  I have read that there is no accounts or proven facts that a front plate of a Tiger II has ever been documented to been penetrated during combat in WWII. Russian tests my show a 122mm can do it at 200-400m, I'm sure the Russian 100m gun (much better than 122) would also.
     Of course out of the 430 Tiger II's made, most were KO'd by aircraft, side or rear shots etc or disabled and left.    Not sure about armor thickens of the Tiger II, I hear 160mm and another say 100mm.


  I'm not trying to make it and others supertanks, just accurate.. Those tanks could be KO'ed with side and rear shots.... If I'm playing the sim and in a T-34-85 face to face with a King Tiger (in the SP-1.5 mod) and I take him out front shot ... it is not real.. might be good balance, but in real life it would not happen..
 Having to use tactics and wait in the brush for it or them to come by so I can take a side or flank shot in more in line for what actual tactics used.
 
   changing some of the armor values is the only answer
    looks like you may have beaten me to this, like to see your improved armor files sometime frinik

[Stig]

I'm certainly glad to hear people come down on the side of accuracy, independent of any political or nationalistic bias.

If we can all agree that we want things to be "accurate"... then we should move towards creating a set of documented changes to the stock files to create a level playing field. So, if we find that the developers created an "ueber" Russian tank, ok, fine, let's un-ueber it, and have a document stored here somewhere that tells you what tank, what file, what line, and what value to alter.

That way, we'll have a shot at having more accurate files across all our games, so that we're talking the same language, so to speak.

Debates, proof presentation, research, etc., can and should continue here, since there'll probably never be a "last word" on any one subject.

As to frinik's comments about the one month of lower-quality German armor due to a shortage of a key alloy....  I think it's great he can lay his hand on a document like that. However, let's not geek out on micro-details. My opinion is, we should strive for a "representative" version of any vehicle or weapon, get those figures right, and leave it at that. If there is a distinct need to have multiple versions of a vehicle or weapon (such as an early and late version), so be it, but in the earlier example, I don't see much gained by having a special "August 1944 low quality armor" version of every vehicle in the Wehrmacht inventory, only to be used by scenario designers creating historical scenarios in 1945. That's getting stoooopid.

I'll be happy if we can arrive at agreed-upon, bias-free standard models for all vehicles.

[lockie]

The easiest way is a coefficient "armor_str" correction to increase/decrease armor.
//armor strength
armor_str = 2000;
Approximately every hundred ~ 10mm armor.
It means if we have armor_str = 2100 it does that we'll get additional 10mm of armor.
And if armor_str = 1900 means we've lost 10mm of armor.

[Stig]

Are you saying, lockie, that we should

NOT make any changes to values in the vehicles various armor lines

but instead

Add a armor_str value line and change all the vehicles' values at once?


If so, what if some of the values in the front, top, side, bottom are correct, but maybe just ONE is "off"?

Perhaps we should use a mixture of these methods, depending on which will get the desired accuracy with the least amount of editing?

[scottyd2506]

Are you saying, lockie, that we should

NOT make any changes to values in the vehicles various armor lines

but instead

Add a armor_str value line and change all the vehicles' values at once?


If so, what if some of the values in the front, top, side, bottom are correct, but maybe just ONE is "off"?

Perhaps we should use a mixture of these methods, depending on which will get the desired accuracy with the least amount of editing?

   Most of the values do not seem to be too far off, esp the stock game, it is more the modded files...
 Say the T34-85. should be slightly less, the armor quality should be slightly less for Russian tanks than German, not the other was..
 
    I have been looking into the armor files, and going to renew the mod.. No 2 people are going to agree on what should be what, but I do not want to over mod.
  The files above are not work or going to work except the Armor thick.. but boosting that to make the frontal plate of a Panther correct would also boost the side armor too much, and make it less real...
  for the 6-7 tanks I plan on doing for now... I need to take all the info down from both files.

  I will post the results here, and ask for feedback on what you all think is correct or close to it.
 No one wants to be in a  Is-2 and be killed from a Pz4 from front at 1000 meters.. a Panther needed to be around 700 meters to penetrate the front armor of a Is-2, a Il-2 needed to be like 1200 meters to kill a Panther from the front top hull etc.. be nice to at least make sure it is kind of close by 25-30% in meters
   a T34 85 killing a King Tiger at 1500 meters is like WAY OFF and needs to be fixed.
     I've researched tank armor for 15 years, but I am no pro either... I'll get it close I hope, and bettr with you guy's help.

 see ya

[lockie]

Are you saying, lockie, that we should
NOT make any changes to values in the vehicles various armor lines
but instead
Add a armor_str value line and change all the vehicles' values at once?

Actually, NO. This coefficient is a constant, which depends on what type of armor is (homogeneous, face-hardened).
There is a formula: b = (V * P^0.5)/(K*d^0.5). As I remember by Jacob de Marre.
where K is armor_str
Aproximately K=(1800-2400).
But if we want just simply increased the armor thickness with purpose of realism/unrealism/comfort/... etc. We've a possibility simply playing vs coefficient and get a necessary result
For example, I've installed armor_str=2150 for IS-2 as myself convenience.

[scottyd2506]

I assume you have the Object Editor - To see the armour map applied to the 3-D model. Just copy the armour map to the texture folder, convert it to .dds format, and rename it as the 'skin' for the vehicle.  I hope I didn't make it sound too easy 

 Even if I convert the TGA to dds, it will not load in the object editor, only .go files, whatever they are.

 No matter, I looked through a bunch if the armor map.tga files, and it seems most everything is "close" to correct... I know how to change them and pack them back in, but I haven't seen much wrong, the CFG files are where they seem to mess up on like armor thick, quality.. need to work on them some. testing now

[Kyth]

 

The Object Editor is for viewing the .go files (the 3-D models).

For the example of the Panther Tank above, convert the armour map tga to dds and rename the file as 'techn_panther_c.dds', then save it to the following folder:

<game folder>\data\k42\loc_rus\textures\techn\tanks\heavy

(Make a backup copy of the original skin, before over-writing or replacing it).

Open the 'Panther.go' file to check out the results 

[scottyd2506]

The Object Editor is for viewing the .go files (the 3-D models).

For the example of the Panther Tank above, convert the armour map tga to dds and rename the file as 'techn_panther_c.dds', then save it to the following folder:

<game folder>\data\k42\loc_rus\textures\techn\tanks\heavy

(Make a backup copy of the original skin, before over-writing or replacing it).

Open the 'Panther.go' file to check out the results 

 Well I was close, I saved the file just as panther.dds in that same folder... have much to learn..

 thanks from a noob

[frinik]

Yup!That,s whatI did a while ago I tweaked the armour_str values as per  approximate historical data;

I have set the Tiger II and Panther at 2000, the Tiger I at 2100 to reflect it's high quality armour and welding and lowered the T34s to 1950. You can also play withthe armour_frail values adjusting the fail values for the Sov tank to 0.5 or 0.6 depending on the tank.I have left the JS2 untouched although the quality of its armour was questionable according to some Soviet reports which emphasized the sloppy workmanship, the porous and brittleness prone armour etc.The JS, while not a bad tank, was not the juggernaut that Soviet propaganda seem to have made it out to be.

Some values also need to be adjusted in the common res files as muzzle velocity values are in some cases underevaluated, the weight of some nshells is wrong etc.

Still it does not hurt to correct some of the armour side, rear, top or front values as they are erroneous in some cases and inconsistent in others.

[Stig]

Armor frail values???

Yikes...

I think what's needed here is a FULL, detailed explanation of what goes into a vehicle file, and what the values mean, and how to adjust them.... all in one place.

There's some really good info in this thread, but it's not encapsulated, so it's hard to ferret out.

Is anyone keeping track of it, or creating a complete vehicle file authoring tutorial?

[lockie]

Some values also need to be adjusted in the common res files as muzzle velocity values are in some cases underevaluated, the weight of some nshells is wrong etc.

Don't forget, that after shells parameters would have been re-adjusted(velocity, weight...), you should've to re-adjust a gunsight also

Armor frail values???
Yikes...

The parameter armor_frail is responsible for the quantity of debris(bits of armor) inside panzer. Means: bigger armor_frail - much quantity of debris. It's acceptable for the german panzer that armor_frail=0.3, for the soviet (0.6-0.9), imho.

[scottyd2506]

Yup!That,s whatI did a while ago I tweaked the armour_str values as per  approximate historical data;

I have set the Tiger II and Panther at 2000, the Tiger I at 2100 to reflect it's high quality armour and welding and lowered the T34s to 1950. You can also play withthe armour_frail values adjusting the fail values for the Sov tank to 0.5 or 0.6 depending on the tank.I have left the JS2 untouched although the quality of its armour was questionable according to some Soviet reports which emphasized the sloppy workmanship, the porous and brittleness prone armour etc.The JS, while not a bad tank, was not the juggernaut that Soviet propaganda seem to have made it out to be.

Some values also need to be adjusted in the common res files as muzzle velocity values are in some cases underevaluated, the weight of some nshells is wrong etc.

Still it does not hurt to correct some of the armour side, rear, top or front values as they are erroneous in some cases and inconsistent in others.

    Yeah, the plan is, to go through the CFG files and tweek those attributes you are talking about, the armor quality,
 here is the Is2.engcfg file for example

   //òîëùèíà áðîíè, ìì (ïðè óðîâíå 100)
   armor_thick   =   88;
   //áðîíÿ äëÿ ÈÈ
   arm_fwd      =   95;
   arm_side   =   70;
   arm_back   =   60;
   arm_up      =   20;

   //âèäèìîñòü
   vis_factor   =   2.5;

   //êàðòà áðîíèðîâàíèÿ
   armor_map   =   armor_maps\is2_armor.tga;
   //êà÷åñòâî áðîíèðîâàíèÿ
   armor_qual   =   0.8;
   //õðóïêîñòü áðîíè
   armor_frail   =   0.8;
   //êîýôôèöèýíò ñíàðÿäîñòîéêîñòè
   armor_str   =   2000;

  I'd like to know what armor frail does.. would lowering it make your tank more vulnerable or stronger??

  I make a test map, tank targets at out to 2000 meters and closer.. in my King Tiger, I had a few T-35-85 out at 1400-1700 meters...  I kept my front faced at them at all time... I took 10-14 hits at around 1500 meters, but managed to get damaged after awhile.. the Russian 85 was good, but even point blank I do not think it would go through 160mm of slopped high quality plate... I have much more testing to do, as I did have a Is-2 out there close to them.. the 122 should still not go through a King Tiger front plate or turret at over 1000 meters, maybe 400-500m.
  the Il-2 itself is a pretty good tank good front and turret armors all around.. going to face a panther in it to test..
Going to try it with a T-34 and see if I can blast through the front or side of a Tiger at ranged..
 



  the TGA file values looked pretty close... I looked though a bunch of them, and I'm not expert bu far, but they seemed to be pretty close.. using gray color from dark to light 0-255 that = mm and the sim is suppose to use this in Steel Fury Kharkov 1942 for calculating armor

 like the front plate on a Tiger 1 was 100 etc... the T34-85 was like 52 front plate

here are some examples

upper Front plate: Tiger II = 150, Panther = 85
lower front plate: Tiger II = 120, Panther = 65
Side armor plate: Tiger II = 80, Panther = 40
Rear upper+lower: Tiger II = 80, Panther= 40
Top plate armor: Tiger II = 40, Panther = 17

Turret mal front: Tiger II = 200, Panther = 105 (mallet is small thing supporting main gun on front turret)
Turret front Front: Tiger II = 180, Panther = 85
Turret side: Tiger II = 80, Panther 40
Turret rear: Tiger II = 80, Panther 40
Turret top: Tiger II = 40, Panther 17

 There is other graphics parts also, but you get the meaning

    None of them seem to be way off, maybe the IS-2 (or is it really an IS-1?) could use some beefing up in the graphics file.
   Some of those tank TGA files looked easy to read while others like the KV1 was scrambled up..

 Things mainly need to be tweeked in the CFG files.  just a little!