Graviteam
March 28, 2024, 07:02:07 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
  Print  
Author Topic: New Armour maps for Tiger I and Panther D by Natalia99  (Read 36104 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Kyth
Generalfeldmarschall
*****
Posts: 2044


« Reply #60 on: July 29, 2011, 04:51:48 AM »

 
Everybody cool down!

Frinik, I hope you compile the new maps and send them to me as soon as possible,
I'll post them up for anyone to try, and to see the actual thing in action, then we can have some informed discussion.

Less heat, and more light!

Logged

"What am I, chopped liver..?"

"Yes."
frinik
Generalfeldmarschall
*****
Posts: 3145


« Reply #61 on: July 29, 2011, 08:49:03 AM »

UHHHH Kyth I haven't lost my coolOr is it me imagining it?Huh? Cheesy

Yes as soon as I have the latest versions I will email them to you...
Logged
Mistwalker
Oberst
******
Posts: 266


« Reply #62 on: July 29, 2011, 09:38:30 AM »

I never made the tiger2's front armor thinner, I was referring to the tiger1. and I am not concerned with any details (unfounded) saying the tigfer2 has weak armor on the front? since it was NEVER reported to have been pierced in combat.

How about Tiger 2 front hull, pierced from 600 m by 122 mm in weld seam area in polygon testing?  Wink I even posted document scans here earlier. And there are photos too.

Quote
also according to jentz the mantlet increase I gave the tiger 1 is probably not as high as it should be. So you are saying the very thin gunners occula on original map is good? that was reinforced and not a hollow casting 

I'm saying - let's discuss it an make how it should be. Smiley I've posted schematics of the mantlet here and thickness numbers, and measured schematics later.
Quote
I have seen actual tankers from ww2 on vid (brittish) that told how at 100m they could not hurt tiger1 (shells bounced off) with a 76mm, yet were in turn as in one case were literally blown out of his tank after 1 shot from an 88, yet in this game as it is set my the designers I am left scratching my head and wondering Why all the fuss?

I always keep saying here: if you think that something is wrong - PLEASE POST SCREENSHOTS.  People on Sukhoi forum are doing just that. There are a lot of parameters in this game - you can't seriously think that  you can kill enemy tank by 88 just in every possible case. We'll know for sure that it should be fixed or it should be that way - it will be better for everyone.
Quote
also shells I have discovered are not correct, I have a shooting range (compliment of frinik) and have found that they are way overpowered at long range and have made a few adjustments of my own, now max penetration is very close to 100m and min is on at 2000m as per the charts I have.


Well - I've adjusted shells looking not only at charts but at real field tests with real tanks, which a way more accurate.  What shells do you think are overpowered?
Quote
And while I am at it small arms fire is not correct in some weapons, Mosin and Mauser98 cannot fire 30rpm. I have very personal experience with Mosin rifle and it is not possible unless you are just wasting the bullets to make a point and then you risk second bullet jumping retaining spring and jamming rifle. and no my rifle is not some junk refurb, it is totally original.


Maybe, I don't know much about WW2 rifles. I think rate of fire had that value in the original game.
Just keep in mind that it's technical ROF and it doesn't include aiming for AI, reloading.


All right Mist I'll keep going imagining things and you'll keep imagining that I am imagining so everybody's happpy in their own imagination

In these cases I can always post screenshots to prove my ground. Smiley
Quote
BTW I can report an 80 %( totally imaginary I am sure Wink decrease in gun damage since playing with her new armour maps for almost a month now!

Yes, according to some more shooting tests it seems that in case with hi-cal rounds gun damage specifically for panther (and maybe for tiger - didn't check it yet)  is really decreased. But it looks like the same result can be achieved by increasing barrel thickness just a little - 7-10 mm or so. Everything else is pretty much the same. 
« Last Edit: July 29, 2011, 09:53:32 AM by Mistwalker » Logged
natalia99a
Major
****
Posts: 65



« Reply #63 on: July 29, 2011, 03:59:22 PM »

Well the guns aren't totally overpowered on all cases (poor choice of words) but do not have proper falloff of energy and penetration. To do this accurately I adjusted the shells with a firing range of pillboxes set at 500m intervals and adjusted untill penetrations were correct at proper ranges alternating armor thicknesses on pillboxes as well during tests.

Also Su-122 theoretically could penetrate tiger2 armor witout thinning it at all (http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_vehicles_adv.php?op=getvehicles&vehiclesX=157) of course model in game uses a less powerful gun.

Here is the vid I mentioned () the whole series is interesting you may want to watch it all, apologies for not including this earlier.


Logged

We are each of us angels with only one wing, and we can only fly by embracing one another.

Luciano De Crescenzo
Mistwalker
Oberst
******
Posts: 266


« Reply #64 on: July 29, 2011, 04:55:19 PM »

Well the guns aren't totally overpowered on all cases (poor choice of words) but do not have proper falloff of energy and penetration.

I hear you.  Exactly what shells you think have that problem?  I want to check it out.
Quote
To do this accurately I adjusted the shells with a firing range of pillboxes set at 500m intervals and adjusted untill penetrations were correct

Did you test it both at 30 degree hit angle and 0 degree hit angle and zero course angle? I've adjusted many of the shells after testing them in both situations.
Quote
Also Su-122 theoretically could penetrate tiger2 armor witout thinning it at all

I mean 122-mm AP for JS-2. Try to pierce Tiger 2 hull armor from 600 m in game.  Smiley You won't be able to do it. But in reality it was done! Solution? - you've seen it.
As to SU-122 - no, it can't. In case it could - they'd put a HEAT shell in JS-2 and JSU-122 instead of AP. Really Soviet HEAT shells of WW2 era were able to penetrate armor approximately as thick as their caliber at 90 degree angle. And for SU-122 it will be about 120-140 mm. So read more serious sources. Like manual for 122-mm howitzer for example. Wink
« Last Edit: July 29, 2011, 04:59:01 PM by Mistwalker » Logged
natalia99a
Major
****
Posts: 65



« Reply #65 on: July 29, 2011, 06:18:06 PM »

One thing I still wonder, I am firing at targets that are 90 and the charts are for penetrations at 30 deg. since 30 deg doubles armor should I be doing this at 2x thickness on 90 deg targets then? I set tiger1's PzGr39 for 90 deg and at 500m could hole the Ktiger consistently. Frinik has a file with Su-122, SU-152, T34/76, IS2 that I sent him, maybe he can send it to you.

I will have to find it, but I read something that described a test that the soviets did on a captured panther vs IS2 at 1500m. It was reported to have pierced the front, passed through the engine and on out the back  Shocked  with this kind of damage in rl tests it does seem that maybe I should set them to 90 deg, I just did not want to make super guns so just to be safe stayed with the 30 deg settings.
Logged

We are each of us angels with only one wing, and we can only fly by embracing one another.

Luciano De Crescenzo
Mistwalker
Oberst
******
Posts: 266


« Reply #66 on: July 29, 2011, 09:06:45 PM »

since 30 deg doubles armor should I be doing this at 2x thickness on 90 deg targets then?
No, thickness isn't doubled. I don't know however how game engine calculates penetration, so if you want to set more or less accurate value, you have to test it for both angles, and also compare it to real field tests.

Quote
Frinik has a file with Su-122, SU-152, T34/76, IS2 that I sent him, maybe he can send it to you.
You think that IS-2 and SU-152 guns are overpowered at certain distance? Smiley

122 mm:


152 mm:


And I strongly do not recommend to lower 76-mm penetration falue any further too. It's barely able to show the real characteristics now.

Quote
I will have to find it, but I read something that described a test that the soviets did on a captured panther vs IS2 at 1500m. It was reported to have pierced the front, passed through the engine and on out the back
 

That's a well-known myth that mixed 3 real cases.  Grin

1. 122 mm shell made holes in front and back armor of Pz-IV from 1400 m.
2. Tiger I - 122 mm shell flew in the hole from 85-mm shell in the front and tore out the whole back armor plate (1500 m distance).
3. Panther - side turret armor was penetrated and 122 mm shel tore out armor plate from the other side of the turret (1400 m).
« Last Edit: July 29, 2011, 09:11:29 PM by Mistwalker » Logged
hemisent
Oberst
******
Posts: 293


« Reply #67 on: July 29, 2011, 10:57:41 PM »


Frinik, I hope you compile the new maps and send them to me as soon as possible,
I'll post them up for anyone to try, and to see the actual thing in action, then we can have some informed discussion.


  After following this thread from the beginning I would really welcome these as I'd love to see the difference Natalia's mod makes on gameplay.

  I realize that I'm a total noob at SF and can't pretend to speak intelligently on the subject at hand I do however have a considerable amount of experience playing, heavily modding and acting as part of the testing team for a number of the Silent Hunter mega mods. I spent more years than I want to think about with SH3 &4.

 One of the differences between SH and SF is that the Silent Hunter guys have literally hundreds of mods, tools and peripheral programs (such as SH3 Commander by JScones)to choose from. Most modders both there and here strive for "realism". They work long, stressful hours at their desks and after awhile they begin to take on a sort of "parental" view of their creation...and rightly so. There was always tension and very heated debate when someone would attempt to rework, modify or adjust their creation. If you folks can imagine a similar debate over a mod but with 20-30 very passionate and knowledgable people involved and encompassing perhaps 30-40 pages of replies. Those can be hellacious free for all's. And these went on and still do constantly.

 Mistwalker's work and dedication is invaluable and I look forward to anything he has to say. His expertise with this game is nothing short of priceless. Natalia's attempt to rework, modify, adjust ...(whatever you want to call it) the armor maps making the game more "realistic" should be applauded and all help and support possible be given to her.

  What I found out with SH was that just setting parameters and data to actual specs from historical records only went so far. We are after all playing out a simulation on a computer and sometimes, often times, adjustments have to be made to these specs for the sake of "realistic" gameplay. Just because the data says armor plate (whether it be a hull of a ship or the front of a Tiger 1) of a certain thickness "should" withstand a certain impact does not mean that in a computer it actually does. We learned to take into account the actual testimony of the U boat commanders and crew more than rely on data.

 This community is small but seems to be pretty tight and cooler heads need to prevail here.

Cheers All
H
Logged
natalia99a
Major
****
Posts: 65



« Reply #68 on: July 30, 2011, 12:57:08 AM »

I was going by this, that's why I figured 30deg doubled the effect of armor (http://www.panzerworld.net/armourcalculator) and it may not be too far off after looking at those metal pieces of swiss cheese in your pics. those look absolutely evil! however on some of the tests, could it be possible the tank wasn't quite up to it's full strength? I mean the germans had a bad habbit of blowing up or burning thier tanks which would certainly have to damage the tempering of the steel to some degree.

when I can take a break form these maps I will set 1 up on my test range for you to try set to 90 deg, I am just not sure on which way to go on that before I do too many for testing in a mission.

On the shells being overpowered issue there isn't any one shell that I am concerned with, main thing wrong is drop off with penetration at range (I am just being picky and want it exact) which is easy to do (but time consuming) and I can't really devote the time needed to that project atm but my goal was to match penetrations of the shells according to actual thicknesses since this game seems to take slopes into account very well unlike TvT that had to have damage scaled to simulate it. I do realize that actual field accounts didn't quite match the test firings due to so many other variables being added such as endless range and angle combos ammo type and qual etc.

I would like to add that this is just a little project (and a bit off topic for this page. HIJACKER!!!  Tongue<------)  I wanted to mess with and am in no way going to try and force it on anyone  Smiley

someone my find this interesting (http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/ww2pen3.pdf)

Hi Hemisent, Oh sh3.....my ears still ring from the depth charges, a very addictive sim indeed.  Smiley
« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 01:02:48 AM by natalia99a » Logged

We are each of us angels with only one wing, and we can only fly by embracing one another.

Luciano De Crescenzo
frinik
Generalfeldmarschall
*****
Posts: 3145


« Reply #69 on: July 30, 2011, 01:53:44 AM »


1. 122 mm shell made holes in front and back armor of Pz-IV from 1400 m.

No surprise there as Panzer IV even late models was not terribly armoured ,50 to 80 mm front armour and probably much less at the back.The 122 mm shells were very powerful with a good velocity close to 800 m/s and weight 25 kilos or so.In fact I found I upped the penetration value for the JS-2 to 1.15 for Ap shells from the original 0.97 adjusted later  to 1.05 adn then 1.09.I also increased the concussive value from 0.3 to 0.4 and the result is quite satisfying Panthers and Tiger Is are ignited at distances up to 1600 metres.Anyway the penetration chart that I have , taken from a Soviet ssource, shows that the BR-471 could penetrate 120 mm of armour at 90 degrees angle at 1000 metres and 120 mm at 1500 metres.

2. Tiger I - 122 mm shell flew in the hole from 85-mm shell in the front and tore out the whole back armor plate (1500 m distance).
This one I am not sure I understand do you mean after an 85 mm shell tore a hole through the front armour, a 122 shell fired managed, through sheer coincidence , to enter the armour through the hole left by the 85 mm one?Huh?


3. Panther - side turret armor was penetrated and 122 mm shel tore out armor plate from the other side of the turret (1400 m).
Again since the side turret armour of the Panther D is only 60 mm thick and the 122 mm could penetrate twice that nothing outlandish.

Re the Soviet tests at Kubinka; I don't discount them but what is not stated is in what condition were the tanks tested.As Natalia pointed out they could have been sabotaged by their crews or been abandoned after beign hit repeadtedly on the battlefield.Their armour may have been coinsiderably weakened...Also the Germans discovere dthat between penetration values on the testing ground and the battlefiled the effectiveness decreased noticeably.I remember reading resulst showing that while the kwk43 could penetrate with the Pzgr39/43 148 mm of armour at 90 degrees 64% of the time at 1500 metres , battlefield reports showed a much lower ratio of 46%...Stationary targets are one thing a moving tank is another.

« Last Edit: July 30, 2011, 01:57:39 AM by frinik » Logged
hemisent
Oberst
******
Posts: 293


« Reply #70 on: September 01, 2011, 01:08:19 PM »

Natalia
 Just wondering what's happening with your mod. Is it still in the works?

Cheers All
H
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!