" It doesn`t [APOS] use the same calculations. Die rolls versus actual ballistic/penetration modelling. The tactical AI, especially for infantry, isn`t even comparable. . .so no, not at all the same."
I wasn`t aware that APOS used "die rolls" for ballistics. The quote above is in discussion as to ("not at all the same") why APOS runs better than the latest 3.0 engine that BF has released in upgrade for their present CM product under equivalent computer systems. Many upper end (comp) users are complaining on the dated engine (BF) and its present and future capabilities.
Think about it, how realistic hope for a realistic ballistics in the game in which even wheeled vehicles rotates around its center of gravity, and any laws of physics are completely absent
.
At second, after battle in GTOS you can see statistic with all hits and penetrations, and you can freely check it right or not. But in CM any way to check?
At third, you can try SABOW (tank simulator game that share engine and all features with GTOS) and shot manually use sights from tank, and check ballistics and armor penetration itself.
I always wondered how APOS calculated their ballistics. Did not realize it was resolved with a "dice roll." This then would explain the trade off versus GFX and Ballistic modelling inclusive of AI modelling--no?
It all has little to do with reality
.
Naturally in the GTOS no any "Dice roll" and has never been.
In simplest case (homogenous armor vs penetrator) in GTOS used somthing like this scheme to resolve armor penetation
except most upper and lower left parts of scheme (uncommon cases)
(vertical axis - shell velocity, horizontal axis - armor slope
curves - shell states after armor hit)
All this based on realistic ballistic computing based on weather conditions, include guided missiles, mortar mines, rockets, bombs, projectiles with remote detonation. Are running the model of all common types of shells and shrapnel fields.
I bet we have a simulation harder than in other wargames, except for future GTMF