TIGER SIGHT--SIMPLIFIED? Damage model--Bogus?

[nodlew]

I think I've got a pretty good handle on the sight usage of the Russian tanks and SPGs--and all of the German tanks as well. I understand the theory behind the Strich system for calculating range [L(in meters)/L(in Strich)X1000=Range(in meters)], and am beginning to get a technical grasp on how to lead target's using Strich "by the book". My research into the ballistic properties of various types of main gun ammunition have confirmed that the Devs did a very good job of simulating the real ballistic trajectories of different varieties of ammunition in most cases--haven't gotten to test the Old Grenade of the Sov side because I can't find any in stock on any tank to try it, and don't know how to make custom load outs. However, the Tiger I has me confused. I found a site dedicated to explaining the usage of the Turmzielfernrohr (TZF) 9b gun-sight (amongst other things). With regard to the mark on the Tiger's sights located at the #13 on the 8.8cm scale, the explanation follows:

QUOTE

Large black triangle at 12 O'clock is zero for both PzGR 39/43 and PzGr 40/43
Line at number 13 is zero for SprGr 43
So for SprGr, distance to target is calculated (as it is for all other ammo types using strich system), the range scale is then re-set to zero at the callibration mark, an then re-rotated to the value of the calculated distance from this point.
Clear as mud? Here is an Example:

A target is spotted
The gun-layer calculates the distance using the strich system, lets say he estimates it to be 1000 metres
Now, the target is a "soft" target which requires SprGr (High Explosive Incendiary Shrapnel).
The gun layer then rotates the range scale clockwise setting the 8.8cm range scale number zero (0) to the index mark, from here he then rotates the dial anti-clockwise until the number ten is now next to this index mark.
The main gun is then aimed and fired "bang"!
So why do the sights need a callibration mark for SPrGr?

This callibration mark simply raises the triangles to compensate for the higher trajectory of SprGr, this raising of the triangles equates to a callibration of -5 degreees.

END QUOTE

Entire discussion can be found at: http://pedg.yuku.com/topic/1728/t/Ranging-Turmzielfernrohr-TZF-9b-gun-sight-optics.html

These people look like they know what they are talking about, and if they are correct, then 1) the Tiger's sights in Steel Fury are of limited function (sight cannot be rotated Clockwise far enough (hangs at the PzGr zero), and cannot be rotated counter-clockwise far enough to place the 0 (zero) on the 8.8cm scale at the calibration mark for the SprGr. and 2) the ballistics of the SprGr have been cheated to be identical to the ballistics of the PzGr in order to circumvent the problem. Is this conclusion correct or am I mission something? If  not then is it done this way because the real function of the sights cannot be replicated using the game engine, or can it be made more realistic if someone bothered to do it? I know there was no player Tiger I in the original game, hence no Tiger I sight, so that may be the source of the problem. In any event, it's a shame, 'cause a lot of the fun in this simulation is learning to do things the way tankers them historically, and having to calibrate the sights differently for the HE SprGr rnds would add realism, intricacy, and fun to the game.

And, interestingly, the sight for the King Tiger has individual range scales for all of its different types of ammo, and the SprGr ballistics are very different from the PzGr. The SprGr has a much higher ballistic arc (lower velocity) which seems to mirror reality accurately. HE/Frag shells were typically of lower velocity than AP shells, because the higher the velocity of the shell, the thicker the walls of the shell had to be to withstand the enormous pressure of its acceleration in the gun tube. But the thicker the walls of the shell, the less High Explosive it could contain, making it less destructive to soft targets like infantry, light armored vehicles, bunkers, etc. That's why AT barrels are long for high velocity and infantry support barrels are short with much lower velocity, and the best HE barrel of all, is actually a Mortar--very low velocity lobbing a shell which is very thin skinned containing a very high quantity of explosive.

While I'm on the subject of High Explosives in the game (assuming anyone has read this far), how can an unarmored truck sustain a direct hit from a T-34's HE round, spin around, and then drive off like nothing happened? And how can a lightly armored German half-track sustain two, three, four hits from High Explosive rounds, and continue to operate When they should have been knocked out on the first hit and after three hits, they should be blasted to shreds? Damage modeling in this game can only be described (with great kindness) as HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE. A less kind, but more accurate evaluation would be: BOGUS.

[frinik]

  You are right.There qre mqny flaws with the game but keep in mind that the modders using their own free, spare time introduced lots of new tanks, vehicles, missions, mods and other improvements to the game and allowed all of us SF to use them FREE OF CHARGE. That their work is not flwaless and perfect no question about it but let,s not forget that thye put in a mlot of hard work for everybody,s benefit qnd for this we should be grateful because they are the ones who hqve kept this sim afloat and interesting.

That being said there are things you can do to address some of the problmems.You can tweak and tinker with the tech_cfg files and increase or reduce armour thickness or frail coefficient to make a particular vehicle stronger or weaker or the  gun shoot faster , increase or change the ammo composition etc.

I'll check the specs for the APCS to see if the armour frail factor is appropriate and the thickness correct. I hqve modified many aspects of thre tanks specs in my games to abise more with reality and I am satisfied with the results.What's important is how easy the files are in SF and can be chnaged with a minimum of efforts

Cheers

[nodlew]

Thanks for your reply Frinik--tech cfg files huh? Ok, another area of the game I'll have to dig into. Definitely gotta fix the half-tracks. Those things are ridiculously tough. They require AP ammo to destroy.

[frinik]

  Yes they contain the tehcnical data and specs for each tank, APC and gun in the gameYou can access them by clicking on data/K42/loc_rus/levels:LEVELS then you ll find then at the bottom of a lis of folders.You can open each using notepad and bingo you have all the srmour, engine, ammo, specs etc.Likewise in the common definition folder you hqve the specs for each of the tank or AT:artillery gun used in the game , muzzle velocity etc which you can also tweak as you like.Just make chnages and sav and bingo.If you have Vista you ll have to make a copy of the folder to make the changes and then paste that folder to replace the existing one otherwise Vista in the C drive just wont let you do it.

[nodlew]

Vista doesn't give me any arguments since I turned UAC off. And I never install games to Program Files anymore. I've been shooting up half-tracks and trucks, making changes to the cfg files, watching the results, making comparisons between different vehicles, google searching, etc. I Google translated a page from the Sukhoi forums (the only page on all of the web that has any reference to the config files) and learned that the armor frail value relates to the "brittleness" of armor. So a high Frail value means that the armor, even if not penetrated, will throw off shards that may wound or kill the crew. The armor thickness of the half-tracks is exactly what Wikipedia says it should be all around, so I will not mess with that. Nor do I want to make the armor so brittle that bumping into a tree will cause the crew to die because of armor spalling. The value for the half-tracks is already 1, which I think is pretty high. The problem is not the brittleness of the armor, the problem is that the way the vehicles are modeled, they don't seem to take damage from the BLAST of an HE round. Visible damage to vehicles is limited to little shell holes, maybe the odd rip indicating damage from fragments. An HE round should crush and tear armor and parts of the frame of a light vehicle like a half-track or a truck. A round that hits between two tires on a truck should blow the tires off, and bend the frame and axles of the vehicle. Not possible in the game, so vehicles take no damage and continue to function when they should not. I've literally seen trucks hit,  knocked twenty meters away and spun around twice by an HE hit that just continued on their way. I've shot a truck dead in its radiator five times with HE shells and didn't even kill the driver. The whole front end of the vehicle should have been disintegrated. I've also placed HE rounds dead in the middle of throngs of infantry with no more effect than causing them to fall prone. I have to hit right beside a soldier to kill him. If I fuse the shell to delay at 1,2, or 3 (manual says meters (?)) then skip it off of the ground to explode in the air amidst the infantry, that seems to have a better effect. Still, I think HE shells are Very weak in their effect. I will research further, try to find out the effective blast/frag radii of the shells.

Also, machine guns--even light machine guns--should be able to riddle trucks and cars. The bullets have no effect on they at all from my tests. I think I will try changing the armor values of trucks, motorcycles, and cars to be NOTHING--which is essentially the case, and try that. I live on a farm and junk cars used to be one of our favorite rifle targets. Just about any rifle bullet punches through the body of a car or truck and enters the compartment. Pistol bullets do as well. High powered rifle bullets, if they don't contact the frame or the engine, will punch clean through, end to end. A machine gun with armor piercing rounds should turn a truck into a bullet-riddled wreck in a matter of seconds.

edit: I left all the values the same, but reduced the armor strength values for the half-tracks and trucks. I reduced the half-track armor strength by 300 and now it remains impervious to light mgs, but doesn't do so well when hit by any kind of main gun round. The trucks, I reduced their armor strength by 800. Bullets hitting at an angle might occasionally deflect, but bullets hitting at a square angle punch right through, like they should. You can even occasionally set a truck on fire by hitting the gas tank with the mg. Shrapnel rounds and HE frag rounds that hit close to trucks now kill the drivers, and troops mounted on trucks are now very vulnerable to fragmentation from artillery and tank rounds. So, I guess I'm happy with it. Thanks for the tip, Frinik.

Where by the way do I find a config file to tweak the explosive power of shells, radius of fragmentation effects, etc?

[lockie]

...that the armor frail value relates to the "brittleness" of armor. So a high Frail value means that the armor, even if not penetrated, will throw off shards that may wound or kill the crew.

Yep, but don't forget that a "100%" of armor depends on RGB light. Means what exactly the armor value u'll install in the config file.

Where by the way do I find a config file to tweak the explosive power of shells, radius of fragmentation effects, etc?

It's easy if u've a russian lang
OK. I'll try to help, but don't abuse me for my translation 
Shell D25Т(IS-2), file common_res.engcfg
OF471,0x01,%SHELL_HE%,D25T,781,49,0.45,0.3,0,1,1,0,25,3.6,0.2,9,0.5,0.5,0.2,0,1,1,1,expl_gndm*,expl_techh*,expl_buildm*,expl_water*,expl_human*,fly1,0,1500,1,txt_shell_of471,he_expl_pat,rico_pat,piece_pat,0x1,1,1,1,1,0xffff4040,3,1,2,SHELL_HI,SHELLC_HI;

1 Shell name
2 0x01 - flag (flag 0х01 – takes a fire tracer, flag 0х10 – takes an ordinary spot)
3 %SHELL_HE% - type
4 D25T  - gun name
5 781 - start speed , m/s
6 49 - gun long, means "caliber", which shell start speed is adopted
7 0.45 - HE influence 
8 0.3 - a vector normal, where ricochet has a start
9 0 -  cumulative effect (diameter for the core SHELL_HC, hollow-charge?)
10 1 - explosive effect
11 1 - fragment effect
12 0 - fire effect
13 25 - shell mass, kg
14 3.6 - explosive material mass, kg
15 0.2 - air resistance, k1
16 9 - gravity influence, m/s^2
17 standard deviation (КВО) at "х"
18 standard deviation (КВО) at "у"
19  destruction tendency
20 engine time working (gas generator), s
21 wind effect
22 air resistance k2
23 air resistance k3
24 ground hit sound
26 armor hit sound
27 build hit sound
28 water hit sound
29 human hit sound
30 fly1 - shell fly sound
31 0 -  AI types aim
32 1500 - valid range , m
33 shoot penalty for AI
34 text name
35 explosive pattern
36 ricochet pattern
37 fragment pattern
38 0х1 - shell mode working (0 - no explosive, 0х1 - strike, 0х2 - delay, 0х4 - input range)
39 1 - explosive time, ms
40 1 - minimum delay time, ms
41 1 - maximum delay time, ms
42 1 - step number
43 0xffff4040 - tracer color 
44 3 - tracer firing time, s
45 1 - shell reliability action(HE penetration)
46 2 - shell sprite number for interface
47 SHELL_HI - shell object name
48 SHELLC_HI - shell case name

[nodlew]

Thank you very much for taking the time to detail that information for me. I don't know where else I could have found that information, and now it is recorded here for anyone to consult. Wow. That's a lot of detail going into every single shot in the game. Amazing the game runs so well on my Core2 Duo.

Yep, but don't forget that a "100%" of armor depends on RGB light. Means what exactly the armor value u'll install in the config file.

I'm not sure I follow you here. In fact, I am sure that I don't follow you. Explain further please?

[tigershuffle]

Nodlew....is there any chance you could post a link to the changes you made so we could copy and paste em.

Id like to have the light vehicles and trucks etc more vulnerable too.


Has anyone ever modded the infantrys 'morale' so you will have some that stand and fight and not run....more likely just to occupy another trench and fight on.?

[Kyth]

Hi lockie,

Thanks for the information 

Thank you very much for taking the time to detail that information for me. I don't know where else I could have found that information, and now it is recorded here for anyone to consult. Wow. That's a lot of detail going into every single shot in the game. Amazing the game runs so well on my Core2 Duo.

Yep, but don't forget that a "100%" of armor depends on RGB light. Means what exactly the armor value u'll install in the config file.

I'm not sure I follow you here. In fact, I am sure that I don't follow you. Explain further please?

[Stig]

  Yes they contain the technical data and specs for each tank, APC and gun in the game. You can access them by navigating to data/K42/loc_rus/levels/LEVELS/ then you'll find then at the bottom of a list of folders.You can open each using notepad and bingo you have all the armour, engine, ammo, specs etc. Likewise in the common definition folder you have the specs for each of the tank or AT artillery gun used in the game, muzzle velocity etc which you can also tweak as you like. Just make changes and save and bingo. If you have Vista you ll have to make a copy of the folder to make the changes and then paste that folder to replace the existing one otherwise Vista in the C drive just wont let you do it.

It seems that this should be something that we as a community put our heads together on, and communicate closely on. It would be great if we could "fix" the values that are broken or suffer from bias, discuss (and hopefully agree upon!) the merits of such changes, and decide on which values we, as a group, think produce the most realistic results. And then, we can perhaps make available a set of the altered files for all who want them.

The goal, as I see it, is accuracy, fairness and consistency for all players, so that we can have a common experience and a common challenge with this sim. I'm happy to say this group, so far, doesn't strike me as the type that would tweak files for the purpose of making things easier (or even overly tough) on themselves.

[nodlew]

Nodlew....is there any chance you could post a link to the changes you made so we could copy and paste em.

Sure. What I'll do is make a small mod that you can enable with the JSGME. It will have all of the files that I have made changes to so you can examine those changes, make changes yourself, etc. So far I have only  made the following changes. The Sdkfz's--all models have had their armor strength reduced to 1500. A little more might actually be desirable, but not much more, or they start getting destroyed by light machine guns. All the cars, trucks and motorcycles have had thier armor strength reduced to 1000. Seems to work about right. Small arms fire can penetrate the body of all these vehicles to kill drivers and passengers, also small arms fire can eventually set the vehicles on fire by hitting the gas-tank or engine. Shooting at the front of a vehicle, the engine will deflect small arms fire, protecting the driver and passengers.

I have changed the mass of some of the vehicles. I increased the mass of the trucks (Opel and Zis5) from around 1800 (1.8 tons) to 2000 (2 tons). I noticed that when hit in the gas tank, or hit in the engine with AP rounds, trucks had the tendency to bounce around like super-balls. Increasing the mass, they will still roll, and even flip if there is a big explosion or a catastrophic hit, but not so much as before. The increase in mass does not seem to have effected their mobility. I have reduced the mass of the BMW R12 Motorcycle from 1.8 tons (way too much) to about half a ton, which is about correct. This is all based on my understanding that mass in the game is expressed as thousandths of a ton. The mass of the Tiger I, for example, is 56900. The Tiger I was actually 56.9 tons. So by this logic, one ton is expressed in the game cfg files as 1000. So, if a BMW R12 with its sidecar was historically 940 lbs, then that is about half a ton, which in game would be expressed as 500. It occurs to me that there may be a difference at work between Metric and Imperial Tons. Although, Wikipedia lists the Tiger I as 56.9 tons, and I assume this is in Imperial measurements, I.E.-- 1 ton=2000 lbs.

Anyway, I'll put the mod together and post a link to it here.

[nodlew]

ADVISORY--I don't know if it is related or not, it could be something else screwed up, but since I installed this (my own mod) I am having a problem with my tanks shedding both of their tracks for no apparent reason. Need to figure this out.

Edit: Uninstalled and reinstalled all my mods--haven't noticed the problem. I don't think it was caused by the LtVehTweaks mod--don't see how it could have been.

Have a new version of the mod--think it works a little better. Armor strength value is left at 1800 for the Half-Tracks, but armor Quality is reduced from 0.9 to 0.5. So far, they resist machine gun bullets, but are knocked out rapidly by main gun rounds. Link to new version below.

2cnd Version:
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?kpapbanz5dx9pjz

1st Version:
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?dz0badqhp5eawi4

Here is the link to the mod I made to tweak the light vehicles. To install the mod, place it in your MODS folder and enable it with JSGME. This mod will only work with SPM 1.5 Beta and should be enabled subsequent to (after) SPM 1.5 Beta and after all Patches and Fixes for that mod--there should be no problems, but if there are please alert me and I will try correct them. Also, your comments and a reactions to the changes I have made are very welcome, and any advice as to other values which can be altered to improve the realism and playability of the game is very much welcome as well.

Edit: after playing a bit, I think the German Half-Tracks are still too tough. Dammit, a half-track should not take a direct hit from a HE round to the engine and keep going, gotta fix it...

The goal, as I see it, is accuracy, fairness and consistency for all players, so that we can have a common experience and a common challenge with this sim. I'm happy to say this group, so far, doesn't strike me as the type that would tweak files for the purpose of making things easier (or even overly tough) on themselves.

   Yeah, I think that for at least the lion's share of us, the over-riding goal of making changes to the status-quo is to increase realism, whether that makes the game harder, easier, or whatever. You could say that my tweaks to the light vehicles makes the game easier, since now you can engage trucks more effectively with the machine gun. All I can say is, Real Life is in this case easier than the game was. Look on YouTube at American troops engaging technicals (militarized commercial vehicles). They just blast 'em with machine guns, never main gun rounds. Heavy machine guns (M2), light machine guns (M240), assault rifles, sniper rifles, whatever. A .45 or a 9 mm is a viable weapon against a truck, car, or motorcycle.
   Anyone who wants to is free to make the game as easy as they like--just make your tank invulnerable, or give it infinite ammo, but I don't think they will find many (if any) like-minded people playing the game. Who would take the time to slog through the twisted verbiage of the manual to learn the difference between OF350 and F350 and then turn the game into an arcade experience? So those of us who "master the game" are very likely to have identical wants in terms of realism.
   From my initial delving into the cfg files, it appears to me that there are likely NUMEROUS errors in the details of the vehicles. In many cases, values seem to have been grafted on to them out of sheer laziness. Why did the motorcycle weigh almost two tons? Because it was classified as a car, and that is the value that was being pasted in for cars and trucks. No matter that it made a motorcycle hit by a heavy shell behave like a truck. Perhaps we were not expected to notice. I do wonder about Engine Power values. I have not looked closely. Now, after a brief check, I see that motorcycles have an engine power rating of 75 and trucks have an engine power rating of 40. (?) That explains how a motorcycle that weighs 1.8 tons could move, and move faster than a truck. This will probably require some experiment and tweaking as well. As we come to understand how these values relate to the trucks, etc, perhaps some refinement can be made to the tanks as well to correct some of the strange behavior. I would very much like to find out where the value for setting turret rotation speed is. The Tiger I and the KV-2 are prime examples of tanks that suped-up turret rotation which has a very negative effect on the tactical realism possible in the game.

[frinik]

Happy that i was able to help Nodlew,

BTW you gave me good ideas too and I am going to tweak the armour quality( which I was going to suggest to you when I started reading your post until I saw that you got to playing with it!) for the APCs based on your own experience and using the same numbers.BTW without having modified the armour strength for the truck I am able to set them ablaze simply by machine gunning their engine in front or the driver's cab.Hitting them near where the fuel tank is does not seem to work.I'll try reducing their armour strength by 800 based on your experience.

Re the shells as I mentioned in that same post to you you have to go to the common folder which you'll find after clicking on the second LEVELS( data/k42/loc_rus/levels/LEVELS/common/common resolutions) .In the common resolution folder you'll find the weapons file containing all the shells, guns and type of bullets, hand weapons, grenades used in the game.You can adjust muzzle velocity, weight of the different shells ect. Unfortunately the values are not explained for all the other fractions of numbers that appear for each item thus I am unable to tell you which one corresponds to the explosive value of a given shell.However you could post your question here on the thread dedicated to technical questions about the game.

Here's an  example of that common resolution file( just an excerpt it's actually much much longer and exhaustive) from my Panther-Hetzer mod:1for the PZGR40 for example 1050 is the muzzle velocity( metres/second), 46 is likely the length of the shell, 10, 1  is, I am fairly sure, the weight of the shell however the meaning of the subsequent numbers is unknown to me.

PZGR40_20FL,0x09,%SHELL_APSC%,FLAKVIERLING38,1050,46,0.55,0.5,10,1,1,0,0.1,0,1.3,8,10.2,10.2,0.1,0,1,1,1,expl_gndl*,expl_techl*,expl_buildl*,expl_water*,expl_human*,fly1,0,2200,1,txt_shell_pzgr40_20,ap_expl_pat,rico_pat,piece_pat,0,1,1,1,1,0xffff4040,2,0.7,-1,SHELL_LOW,SHELLC_LOW;

SPRGR_20FL,0x10,%SHELL_HE%,FLAKVIERLING38,900,46,0.2,0.1,0,1,1,0,0.12,0.03,0.35,8,10.5,10.5,0.1,0,1,1,1,expl_gndl*,expl_techl*,expl_buildl*,expl_water*,expl_human*,fly1,0,2200,1,txt_shell_sprgr_20,he_expl_pat,rico_pat,piece_pat,0,1,1,1,1,0x60000000,0,0.7,-1,SHELL_LOW,SHELLC_LOW;

IGR38_75,0x10,%SHELL_HC%,LEIG,260,20,1,0.1,70,1,1,0,2.85,0.508,0.12,8,2,2,0.1,0,1,1,1,expl_gndm*,expl_techm*,expl_buildm*,expl_water*,expl_human*,fly1,0,1500,1,txt_shell_igr38_75,he_expl_pat,rico_pat,piece_pat,0,1,1,1,1,0x60000000,0,0.5,9,SHELL_MED,SHELLC_MED;

PZGR402_50,0x01,%SHELL_APSC%,KWK38,1130,40.4,0.7,0.5,23,1,1,0,0.9,0,0.5,8,0.5,0.5,0.1,0,1,1,1,expl_gndl*,expl_techl*,expl_buildl*,expl_water*,expl_human*,fly1,0,500,1,txt_shell_pzgr402_50,apsc_expl_pat,rico_pat,piece_pat,0,1,1,1,1,0xffff4040,3,0.7,-1,SHELL_MED,SHELLC_MED;

BR365,0x01,%SHELL_AP%,C53,800,54.6,0.8,0.1,0,1,1,0,9.2,0.164,0.1,6,1.2,1.2,0.6,0,1,1,1,expl_gndl*,expl_techl*,expl_buildl*,expl_water*,expl_human*,fly1,0,1500,1,txt_shell_br365,ap_expl_pat,rico_pat,piece_pat,0x1,1,1,1,1,0xffff4040,3,1,2,SHELL_BR365,SHELLC_T34;

BR365K,0x01,%SHELL_APSC%,C53,800,54.6,0.8,0.1,40,1,1,0,9.34,0.048,0.1,6,1.2,1.2,0.5,0,1,1,1,expl_gndl*,expl_techl*,expl_buildl*,expl_water*,expl_human*,fly1,0,1500,1,txt_shell_br365k,apsc_expl_pat,rico_pat,piece_pat,0x1,1,1,1,1,0xffff4040,3,1,3,SHELL_BR365K,SHELLC_T34;

O365K,0x10,%SHELL_HE%,C53,800,54.6,0.2,0.1,0,1,1,0,9.54,0.646,0.1,6,1.2,1.2,0.1,0,1,1,1,expl_gndm*,expl_techm*,expl_buildm*,expl_water*,expl_human*,fly1,0,1500,1,txt_shell_o365k,he_expl_pat,rico_pat,piece_pat,0x3,1,2,100,3,0x60000000,0,1,1,SHELL_O365K,SHELLC_T34;

//Hetzer+Panther

PZGR39_75L48,0x01,%SHELL_AP%,PAK39,770,43,1,0.3,0,1,1,0,6.8,0.2,0.1,7,1,1,0.1,0,1,1,1,expl_gndl*,expl_techl*,expl_buildl*,expl_water*,expl_human*,fly1,0,1500,1,txt_shell_pzgr39_75,ap_expl_pat,rico_pat,piece_pat,0x1,1,1,1,1,0xffff4040,3,1,17,SHELL_PZGR39,SHELLC_MATSPG;

SPRGR37_75L48,0x10,%SHELL_HE%,PAK39,475,43,0.3,0.1,0,1,1,0,5.75,0.68,0.09,4.8,1,1,0.1,0,1,1,1,expl_gndm*,expl_techm*,expl_buildm*,expl_water*,expl_human*,fly1,0,1500,1,txt_shell_sprgr38_75,he_expl_pat,rico_pat,piece_pat,0x3,1,2,100,3,0x60000000,0,1,20,SHELL_SPRGR37,SHELLC_MATSPG;

PZGR39_75L70,0x01,%SHELL_AP%,KWK42,925,70,1,0.3,0,1,1,0,7.2,0.2,0.1,7,1,1,0.1,0,1,1,1,expl_gndl*,expl_techl*,expl_buildl*,expl_water*,expl_human*,fly1,0,1500,1,txt_shell_pzgr39_75,ap_expl_pat,rico_pat,piece_pat,0x1,1,1,1,1,0xffff4040,3,1,17,SHELL_PZGR39,SHELLC_HEAVY;

PZGR40_75L70,0x01,%SHELL_APSC%,KWK42,1120,70,1.1,0.5,32,1,1,0,4.75,0,0.22,9,1,1,0.1,0,1,1,1,expl_gndl*,expl_techl*,expl_buildl*,expl_water*,expl_human*,fly1,0,1000,1,txt_shell_pzgr40_75,apsc_expl_pat,rico_pat,piece_pat,0,0,0,0,1,0xffff4040,3,0.7,18,SHELL_PZGR40,SHELLC_HEAVY;

SPRGR38_75L70,0x10,%SHELL_HE%,KWK42,700,70,0.3,0.1,0,1,1,0,5.75,0.68,0.09,4.8,1,1,0.1,0,1,1,1,expl_gndm*,expl_techm*,expl_buildm*,expl_water*,expl_human*,fly1,0,1500,1,txt_shell_sprgr38_75,he_expl_pat,rico_pat,piece_pat,0x3,1,2,100,3,0x60000000,0,1,20,SHELL_SPRGR38,SHELLC_HEAVY;

}

addins()

{


I think part of the problem with the HE shells is not so much that are ineffective because of wrong specs but rather the fact that the shrapnel/fragmentation effect has not been properly factored in. The the conflagration or concussion effects are not rightly done thus troops which should at least be pushed to the ground or blown off simply by the sheer force of a nearby blast appear to be unharmed.While you see pieces of rock, chunks of ground and shell shards being projected by the explosion of a shell it seems that have not been programmed to harm the infantry.


Likewise if you can machine gun infantry hiding behind barbwire or small obstacles like posts or fences without any effect even though you see the bullets impacting on your target.This is again a flaw that was not detected early on or has not been corrected.

Anyway thanks also for the tips and have fun with the common res files.

Cheers
 
Frinik

[Stig]

Frinik & nodlew:

Thanks to both of you for your dogged determination on this!

I look forward to perhaps seeing MG fire brew up a truck now. I tried out the gunnery range this weekend, and after getting numerous hits on one vehicle and getting no smoke or flame, I was perplexed; even more so when I checked my results after the ammo was expended. And then, another vehicle was overturned by a direct hit, which really confused me....

Anyway... I'm hoping (and predicting) that between the two of you, you'll get a lot of this sorted out. You seem to have that ability to get into the code and figure out what the numbers refer to. That, of course, is KEY to being able to tweak and fix things. Also, you guys seem to have the ability to also ferret out the design errors (like 2-ton motorcycles) that may or may not be hardcoded in. That's a valuable bit of skill, one I certainly lack.

My goal... once I actually get enough time with the sim to actually feel comfortable with it... is to be able to expand the list of crewable (and target) vehicles, and create some new maps. It seems that the Afrika Korps mod should be able to be "recreated" so that it will work with 1.5 or any future versions of the sim*.  And, we should be able to create 3D buildings, trees and other objects that will open up totally different theatres for mods in the future.


============================
* Offhand, does anyone understand the core code concepts relative to why the Desert Mod is limited to 1.4? Is it something in the file structure? More important, is it something that can be addressed by creating newer, 1.5-compatible versions of some of the files in it, or recreating the terrain, or.....

[lockie]

I'm not sure I follow you here. In fact, I am sure that I don't follow you. Explain further please?

There's a parameter "armor_thick" in the vehicle config file. Sometimes it's equal to "100", sometimes less. It does that if "armor_thick=80" it will correspond to the brightness color as a 100% of armor strength.

[Kyth]

Frinik & nodlew:

Thanks to both of you for your dogged determination on this!

I look forward to perhaps seeing MG fire brew up a truck now. I tried out the gunnery range this weekend, and after getting numerous hits on one vehicle and getting no smoke or flame, I was perplexed; even more so when I checked my results after the ammo was expended. And then, another vehicle was overturned by a direct hit, which really confused me....

Anyway... I'm hoping (and predicting) that between the two of you, you'll get a lot of this sorted out. You seem to have that ability to get into the code and figure out what the numbers refer to. That, of course, is KEY to being able to tweak and fix things. Also, you guys seem to have the ability to also ferret out the design errors (like 2-ton motorcycles) that may or may not be hardcoded in. That's a valuable bit of skill, one I certainly lack.

My goal... once I actually get enough time with the sim to actually feel comfortable with it... is to be able to expand the list of crewable (and target) vehicles, and create some new maps. It seems that the Afrika Korps mod should be able to be "recreated" so that it will work with 1.5 or any future versions of the sim*.  And, we should be able to create 3D buildings, trees and other objects that will open up totally different theatres for mods in the future.


============================
* Offhand, does anyone understand the core code concepts relative to why the Desert Mod is limited to 1.4? Is it something in the file structure? More important, is it something that can be addressed by creating newer, 1.5-compatible versions of some of the files in it, or recreating the terrain, or.....

Hi Stig,

A bit of good news about the Desert Mod. I've tried it myself, and it's compatible with 1.4 and 1.5. (either / or / both)
Just a change of skins for some vehicles, a new map and a new mission. No changes to common config files, unit files or anything like that.
There's more details in the thread below, how to get it going.

[nodlew]

I tried out the gunnery range this weekend, and after getting numerous hits on one vehicle and getting no smoke or flame, I was perplexed; even more so when I checked my results after the ammo was expended.

The gunnery range--mine, anywa--is pretty long range fire--so it's difficult unless you drive close to be accurate with the machine gun. Using my LtVehTweaks mod (either the first or second one), though, concentrated machine gun fire on the engine compartment should set the truck on fire--does for me. Direct hits by HE shells to the trucks should tend to set them on fire as well, although it doesn't always happen. But several direct hits should pretty surely set the truck on fire. I think you have to damage the engine. I have seen trucks set afire by fragmentation--shell hits nearby, truck stops, crew bails, truck begins to burn after a short time.

And then, another vehicle was overturned by a direct hit

That should still happen, especially on a hit to the gas tank, or on an AP hit to the engine. I altered the mass so they don't flip around quite as dramatically--which struck me as unrealistic. But they should flip or spin to some degree under certain circumstances.

Frinik, you are right, I was wrong about the mgs and the gas tank (believe the tank is behind the Driver's seat). Does not cause a fire. But an HE round there can cause a big explosion--gas tank blowing I think, which will flip the truck around, and then the truck will usually burn. Weirdly, you can blow the gas tank over and over again.

Thanks for the Data. I haven't gotten into messing with any Gun values, or Shell values yet. In fact, I took a break from mission building, modding, etc. and have spent some time just playing the game. I've been playing the KV1 South Campaign and it has not been easy. I completed the first mission on the first try--all I had to do was survive and destroy almost all of the enemy. But the second mission was beating me every time, and I couldn't seem to find any way to win. I would position my tanks in the center of the defensive line in a good hull-down spot with a clear view so I could engage as many targets as possible across a broad front, but even if I destroyed four tanks and several APCs and Trucks and loads of infantry, without taking much damage myself, I would still fail the mission. Finally I had to open the mission in the editor and look at the victory/failure triggers. It turned out that all I had to do was maintain force superiority in a contour behind my main defensive line, destroy the enemy, and I win. I played again and won easily. I'm on the third mission now, and have failed it four times. The first time, I wiped out the first German attack and moved across the river to hunt down any stragglers, but a captured German t-34 hiding in a ravine shot me from the side and disabled my tank. The second time I made sure I got both German tanks in the the first attack then moved across the river, and was engaged by a second German attacking force of PzIV's and Stugs. I got all but one Stug, who got me. The next time, I stayed in my defensive position on the far side of the river and waited for the second attack wave. I got hit by a Stug I couldn't locate and my gun was knocked out. Last time, I destroyed the first attack wave, waited in my defensive position, and was engaging the second wave and was only hit once during the entire mission--but that one hit by a Stug killed everybody in my tank. Ya win some, ya lose some.

lockie--thanks for that clarification. I was confused as to what "color" should have to do with "armor thickness". Still am a little bit, but experimentation should straighten me out.

[frinik]

Hi Stig,

A bit of good news about the Desert Mod. I've tried it myself, and it's compatible with 1.4 and 1.5.
Just a change of skins for some vehicles, a new map and a new mission. No changes to common config files, unit files or anything like that.
There's more details in the thread below, how to get it going.
 
I confirm that.I modified all 3 desert missions in both 1.5 unofficial and Beta 1.5.On the other hand some user-made missions made with 1.4 are not compatible or crash with Beta 1.5.No idea why exactly although I suspect that some files have changed between mod versions and are not compatible anymore.I also have map 206 loaded into my ME so I can user it for my own missions. 
 
 

 From my initial delving into the cfg files, it appears to me that there are likely NUMEROUS errors in the details of the vehicles. In many cases, values seem to have been grafted on to them out of sheer laziness. Why did the motorcycle weigh almost two tons? Because it was classified as a car, and that is the value that was being pasted in for cars and trucks. No matter that it made a motorcycle
 
 
I'll post my own tech-cfg files for the Tiger I,II,Panther D and T34/85 with my own corrections to armour frail, armour strength, ammo load etc based on reading( not Wikipedia) but Thomas Jentz, Achtung Panzer, the Axis Discussion forum,  and other sites dedicated to technical issues.
 
That being said I wouldn't want to accuse the modders or developers of laziness.Steel Fury was made on a shoe-string budget and from what I read form the CEO of Graviteam the game was not as good as what they would have wanted but considering their financial constraints they had no choice but to go with it. As well the modders who have greatly enhanced that game have been generous enough to share for free their labour and difficult work it is to create and model new vehicles, make new mission and then enter all the technical data into the game , test it and make sure it works well.Just count how many tanks, guns and vehicles the original SF had and how many now????All you have to do is look into the Mission Editor of the original SF and look at the choice of units available and look at the ME of Beta 1.5!!!!.That there are errors and inaccuracies in SF no question about it.We certainly can do our share to report them , address or redress them whatever the case may be. Games are so complex nowadays and fans so demanding that it really takes a lot of compute power to satisfy the craving for realism.My hope is that by pointing out the flaws and errors in the game to Graviteam( some of SF developers are administrators on this forum) that their next tank sims both Steel Armour Blaze and the other about the Battle for Kharkov in August 1943 will incorporate our suggestions and findings and they'll be perfect.But let's stay respectful and not bash the game or its creators as no matter what we all love it and this is still the best WWII tank sim on the market( even though I love ZeeWolf's work and bought into his TvsT Kursk Mod I still think SF is the best WWII sim so far) and a worthy successor to Panzer Elite. I am very grateful to both Graviteam and to modders like Stone2009, WHYN, Tanx, Hemul, EgroGor- etc for their selfless work.
 
OK I have said my piece about that so I'll turn to another topic.The Ferdinand/Elefant; I wasa bit puzzled by how easily they get whacked in the game considering that they were with 200 mm of frontal armour considered to be irtually indestructible - head-on - except through heavy artillery or air strikes.
 
I checked the tech_cfg and found that front armour thickness is given as 100mm.All reports that I read agree to say that they actually had 200mm of superstructure front armour while the hull front lower plate armour is given as 100 mm + an additional 100 mm against shots comign from an angle of 35  degrees due to a sloping of the armour. Because unfortunately the tech_cfg files do not provide or cover enough details( probably because it would be too complex and work-intensive) the armour thickness figueres are only partial and do not vcover all aspects of a tank( the mantlet, hull, upper versus lower front, sides and rear,and the sloping effect etc).I can understand the modders dilemma when they had to enter the data into the file?What measure to keep and which one to leave out( upper versus lower part of the tank)?They decided ( perhaps unwisely ) to be conservatibve and just keep the lower thickness.
 
The question is how do we address the problem as this likely affects all tanks and armoured vehicles in teh game as the armour thickness varies depending on its location on a given tank.I don't think it can be as simple as adding new lines in the tech_cfg file with armour thickness front_upper and another one with _lower and inputing the correct values.There's got to be coding involved so ti is reflected in the game.This si beyond my competence as I am not at all a programmer. Another way would be to do what I did with the T34/85 as it's front armour thickness value was too high; given at 90 mm when in fact it's real thickness was 45 mm but effectively doubled with the sloping effect.However I felt that not all shots would strike at a favourable angle thus I lowerd the thickness to 67 (90 +45 + 135  divided by 2 = 67(.5)).Not a fully satisfactory solution but in the absence of any other I felt that ti would give the T34/85 a 50% armour thickness bonus ( reflecting the sloping factor ) while decresing the 100% bonus value given by the modders which I felt was slanting the game too much in favour of the Russian T34 while they did not do the same for German tanks with sloping armour( the armour thickness values for the Tiger II and Panther were left at the nominal value not the effective one.This I corrected by giving them each the 50% bonus which I had applied to the T34/85 otherwise they would have been understated. I know it's not a perfect solution but it's not a perfect world and I felt that at least it re-balances the game while making it a bit more accurate.
 
I believe the real solution lies in asking Graviteam's administrators to explain why didn't they add more details in the armour thickness part of the tech_cfg files to cover all the angles so-to-speak adn how can this problem be addressed. I also want to understand the meaning of the real armour thickness value given for each for each tank( ex. 100 mm for the Ferdinand, the Panther and the Tiger II who in fact had different armour thickness values...)How did they come to those figures?Hopwfully they can shed some light and help us perhaps redesign those tech_cfg files more adequately.
 
As for the Elefant I am torn between giving it 200 mm front armour or splitting the value in half between 200mm upper front and 100mm lower front although the sloping effect actually added another 100 mm effective????May be I'll settle for 175 mm...Not an easy choice but one that need to be made or keep the status quo which does not reflect reality.Likewise the values for side armour given at 60 mm does not reflect reality which gives 80 mm for the upper side superstructure and 60 mm for the lower side superstructure.Thus I'll ascribe 70 mm as a median value.For the rear armour there are 4 different values; 80 mm for rear hull, 90 mm for the top of the rear armour at 90 degrees, the hull upper rear is 80 mm at 40 degrees angle and  the upper rear is 80 mm at 0 degrees.?I think I'll settle for a mere 80 mm at it seems to make sense.
 
Cheers


frinik

[nodlew]

   Don't get me wrong, I am not knocking the game. I like the game very much. Obviously the game has many facets that I appreciate, or I wouldn't have gone gonzo over it from the moment I began to play it. And in no way do I mean to denigrate the work of the modders who have expanded the game so much and improved it so vastly. None of my criticism is aimed at the modders anyway. I do not expect the people who have provided me with a playable Panther tank to correct all the errors in the cfg files, not even that everything about the Panther be perfect. However, when people produce a simulation that attracts the attention of people who like to play realistic war games they can expect that if the game should be glaringly unrealistic in certain important respects that that will get the attention of said "detail nuts" as well. The same traits that cause me to smile when things work the way they should cause me to frown when they don't. I am glad that many of these problems are correctable, and regret the ones that may be uncorrectable.
   If my use of the term "laziness" seems disrespectful, all I can say is, "Huh?" It is not my intention to be disrespectful to anyone personally. So, here I am in another conversation with someone who feels it necessary to defend someone else (the modders, graviteam, Gotham City) from mean old me and my grammatical Weapons of Mass Destruction. I confess, I am tired of this kind of exchange, just not up for it anymore. Whatever.

[frinik]

Hey Nodlew!Simmer down Man no need to get highstrung.Nobody is accusing you of being mean old yourself.I was just saying, noy only to you but thta goes ofr me or anybody else for that matter, to avoid using words like laziness as they can be misconstrued, misinterpreted or taken personally.I prefer to engage in dialogue rather than using words which can lead to misunderstandings. I didn't say or even imply that you were disrespectful( unless it's written in code ).Blunt certainly or perhaps harsh that's all!

Don't forget that the errors contained in the tech_cfg files are the result of new models( from SP 1.1 onwards) introduced by the modders - it may be that their sources were incorrect - because the values for the original SF tanks and APCs are essentially correct.

As for defending yes I am in a way but simply because as a noob I respect the achievements of those who can do things I cannot even contemplate doing but it does not mean that I ain't attacking you in any way.I guess I like balance in everything.So pull your fangs in my Friend you 're not under attack . |I am pragmatic for me what counts is how to achieve result that will satisfy all of us tank freaks!

So let's keep talking and exchnage as I believe it's good for the game and for all of us.

Cheers