• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Wonder if we will see tank footage.

And they spent years with the rest of the game.

No, really? Who would have though that the work required to complete one portion of one aspect of the game would take less time than it does to complete the entire game?

And if memory serves me correctly, the "3 months per tank" line was in reference to the time it takes to model an individual tank. Obviously, tanking in its entirety takes much longer than 3 months if you have any common sense.

The 3 months on the Panzer IV appears to have been very inadequate because the "extreme detail" of its interior (Ausf. A) does not correspond with its exterior (Ausf. F2) being depicted in game. A very basic error. In other words its a "mix and match versions" tank. For the T34/76 and other tanks who knows? As far as I know there has not been any walkaround pics of their interior or exterior.

How does a historical inaccuracy invalidate the quantity of work being put into the tank models? :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0
*cough*rivetcounting*cough* I guess full interior, hugely improved mechanics and much more.
Don't mean anything if a view port is not perfect :rolleyes:

We have seen that posted many times, for all you know they may have changed it since then.

Naw mate this isnt rivet counting, this is to the point of looking at the bolts and saying that one particular bolt should be turned a bit more because it looks loose..
 
Upvote 0
frostedfire said:
were you the guy who did the original thread here and at the darkest hour forums?
I dont think so. I dont have an account over there. Plus the western front is a bore imo.



catar said:
Last time I checked this game isn't Tank sim but FPS game
Then whats with all the boasting about fancy tank features...



Uhm, "Tank!", also in Battleground Europe the "Panzer IV G early model/F2" has the same vision port...it's so strange that both were wrong.
Battleground Europe? Is that the same as WW2OL? In that case WW2OL's Panzer IV G has this viewport:



Ar_de_pz4-g.jpg


test1za.jpg





There is no need to say that this above is simplistically wrong. In fact, this does not resemble any of the fahrersehklappes used on any Panzer IV. Where are the controls to shut the slit, the latches for the glass and so on? It looks like an old game with lack of details.



Also, the cupola should be correct, aren't they?
The exterior cupola on the RO2 Panzer IV F2 appears correct but its the interior that may be a problem just like the 'mix and match versions' drivers visor. Here is what the real one looks like on the inside:



test2id.jpg


test3md.jpg


test4g.jpg


test5u.jpg


test6jx.jpg


test7l.jpg


test8j.jpg





Assuming the claims are true that the RO2 devs used a Panzer IV D as internal reference, this would make the PIV F2 cupola interior incorrect by default. In other words F2 exterior cupola, D interior cupola. In fact RO1's Panzer IV F2 suffers from this very problem. Look here at RO1's PIV F2 and compare to the above pics:




test9b.jpg
 
Upvote 0
In RO1, the Panzer III L, which historically used an identical cupola, has the correct interior while the PIV F2 inexplicably does not. Look here at RO1's PIII L:




test10.jpg





So in conclusion in RO2 the IVF2 and (DLC) IIIJ cupola should both look like this:




test2id.jpg


test8j.jpg





Also, the MG mount should be correct, aren't they?
Ill start off by saying that the Panzer III J-N and Panzer IV F-H used the same Kugelblende 50 MG mount inside and out. Moving on, the exterior of the Kugelblende on the RO2 Panzer IV F2 appears correct but the interior appears to be incorrect
:




test11hp.jpg


test12s.jpg





The erroneous 'handle' circled in yellow that the player is grabbing with his left hand does not exist on a real Kugelblende 50. In addition the Kugelblende 50 is missing its optic support rod (green) and balance spring (red). Either that or TW confused it for the 'handle'. Here are some Kugelblende 50's:




test13m.jpg


test14z.jpg


test15l.jpg


test16.jpg
 
Upvote 0
test17.jpg


test18v.jpg





The Ausf G in game is an Ausf A that was upgraded in the field. There's your explanation.
Incorrect. The Ausf F2 in game has an interior identity crisis. If it were an A upgraded in the field it would have a stepped drivers front plate with additional bolted armor while retaining the A's kugelblende, cupola, one piece turret doors, internal mantlet, fahrersehklappe and so on. In other words an upgraded A would have this:




test19d.jpg





Not this:




test20j.jpg





I've never understood why people can get so **** about these details, it's not like we're gonna notice the differecnce between specific models.
If specific models or variants are indistinguishable from one another then RO2's tank guy must be doing something horribly wrong.



Wilsonam said:
the one at Bovington is actually a D hull, with an H turret
Incorrect. Like it was said before, its a D hull with a Fahrersehklappe 30 internally and externally, a Kugelblende 30 internally and externally, and the turret is a D turret inside and out with D features such as one piece turret doors, a D type cupola and so on, with an L/48 somehow stuffed in to it. There is no H about it.



As for counting rivets for all you rivet counters the Panzer IV F2 has a solid 50 mm plate so whats with the horizontal 30mm + 30mm add on applique armor bolts circled in red?:




test21au.jpg





The only bolts that should be in this vicinity are the vertical bolts that bolt the superstructure to the hull:




test22m.jpg








Let the rantings begin.....
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
As far as I can tell, Tank! never suggested that such changes be made at this point in development, as I'm sure he realizes that to do such a thing now (if the devs were inclined to) would be a waste of time and resources when the game is so close to release. He was simply demonstrating that such historical accuracies may exist. But his posts were nevertheless informative.

Although his opinion that the tanks in RO2 seem to be an afterthought is against all evidence to the contrary. Star Wars isn't historically accurate, but that doesn't make it an afterthough, rushed job.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RiccardoTheBeAst
Upvote 0
I have no problem with Tank! pointing out stuff like this, it can be interesting and informative.

Its the manner in which it is presented, as if to say "This is how it should be, you F*@%ed up on these tiny details and therefore tanking in ROHOS is going to suck." Now Tank! might not actually mean that, but that is how it sometimes comes across.
 
Upvote 0