Tank's are unrealistic.

  • 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/
  • Weve updated the Tripwire Privacy Notice under our Policies to be clearer about our use of customer information to come in line with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules that come into force today (25th May 2018). The following are highlights of our changes:


    We've incorporated the relevant concepts from the GDPR including joining the EU and Swiss Privacy Shield framework. We've added explanations for why and how Tripwire processes customer data and the types of data that we process, as well as information about your data protection rights.



    For more information about our privacy practices, please review the new Privacy Policy found here: https://tripwireinteractive.com/#/privacy-notice

Nugetti23

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 30, 2006
158
0
0
I don't play tank maps usually cous tank battles are too unrealistic and now TW is adding new tank maps.
Reason why tanks are unrealistic is that the ammos accurate is like laser and tanks are too lasting. It is unrealistic when you shoot at like 4 kilometer and the ammo goes like laser without any spread, I allways hit. And then tank dmg is horrible like when im shooting on the tank engine and hit, it's like nothing happened. So fix the tank first and put tank maps then!


Sry about my english.
 

Richard_B.

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 7, 2005
437
21
0
Germany
Reason why tanks are unrealistic is that the ammos accurate is like laser and tanks are too lasting. It is unrealistic when you shoot at like 4 kilometer and the ammo goes like laser without any spread, I allways hit.
You know - this is the SENSE of tanks. Hitting targets with their guns.
And those guns are relativly accurate, very accurate, as I would even say.
There is no such thing like spread in realitiy - a bullet always gets straight out of the gun and goes straight into the target. Only forces that can change the speed and direction of a bullet are gravity, wind and solid objects.
And what do you mean with "too lasting"? Aren't they destroyed fast enough for your flavour?
Not every tank just blows up when you hit the engine, the drivers seat, the cupola or what-the-hell-else. Theoretically, most tanks just get disabled during war, not destroyed. So, "too lastings" tanks in RO are realistic - or, better saya: More realistic than Hit-BOOM-tanks.
 

Nimsky

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
4,191
945
0
Elitist Prick Nude Beach
Here we go again....

It's already been discussed. About 4,1378 times.

So you never miss a tank that is 4 kilometers away? Woah, you must be very good. Especially because there hasn't been a map with a 4 Km viewdistance yet.

Tanks are too lasting? Funny, most people think that they get destroyed too easily.

Be honest here, RO's tanks beat the hell out of most games with tanks. Sure maybe it's not sim-level tank combat, but who cares? RO has never had sim-level realism so why should it now? It's realistic enough. And be grateful that they give us a new great tank map. Which does have 4 Km view distance.
 

Basil

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 7, 2007
171
0
0
Finland
There is no such thing like spread in realitiy - a bullet always gets straight out of the gun and goes straight into the target. Only forces that can change the speed and direction of a bullet are gravity, wind and solid objects.

What the heck are you talking about, is that supposed to be a joke? There are tons of factors that cause spread, like temperature of the barrel, round and propellant, weight difference between rounds, difference in quality and amount of propellant, wearing of the barrel, looseness in several mechanisms etc.
 

Oldih

Glorious IS-2 Comrade
Nov 22, 2005
3,418
412
0
Finland
Long story short:

Same old problem.

Same old discussion.

Same old suggestion.

Same old bull****.

Result: All quiet on the western front.
 

Grobut

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 1, 2006
3,623
1,310
0
Denmark
There is no such thing like spread in realitiy - a bullet always gets straight out of the gun and goes straight into the target. Only forces that can change the speed and direction of a bullet are gravity, wind and solid objects.

Actually, thats not quite true, there are 3 main factors that keep a projectile on its course:

1) pure velocity, get it going fast enough, and it is likely to smash through outside influences like windage and gravity, for a time atleast, obviously it will slow down as it travels, and accuracy will decay.

2) weight, its basic cinetics, a heavy object set in motion will require a lot of energy to change its course, but this ties in with velocity, it really works best at speed, and speed is dropping increasingly.

3) gyroscopic stabilisation, put a spin on your projectile and this will greatly aid accuracy, however, the spin will slow down as the projectile travels, thus the effect will gradually wear off, and ofcourse, many tank guns dont have a rifled barrel but rely on pure velocity and weight instead.


So you are only partly right, any decent projectile will be very accurate indeed just as it leaves the barrel, but it will decay from there at an increasing rate, however, the bigger and faster it goes, the longer it will take to decay (well assuming the projectile was made properly, a Musket ball is not exactly the same as a modern missile shaped projectile), thats why Sniper rifles today are big calibers, like .300 Win-mag, its not really because they need the extra range, a normal 7.62x51mm has a very long range, but because you have that extra weight and speed, you get better accuracy.

But tank guns are massive things fiering massive projectiles, so rifled barrel or not, they get very good accuracy indeed, an object that big, traveling that fast just wont budge from its path unless alot of outside force is applied to it, and since modelling true ballistic decay would require so much code it would lag out even the biggest and baddest server, what we have now will do just nicely ;)
 

Richard_B.

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 7, 2005
437
21
0
Germany
Of course, there are much more factors that can have an effect on a bullet traveling through the air(and even before it does).
But I wanted to simplify it a bit. Most games just show the effect af gravity(and some even not that!), some are calculating the wind into the way of the bullet. And every games shows the consequences of a hit on a solid surface.
So, this was more about games than the reality - my fault, should have made it clear.
But even in realisty, with all that little circumstances having an neffect, I personnaly think that are gravity and wind the most important factors.
Normally tank guns are very accurtate in reality - so, it just wouldn't make sense to make something different in RO.
 

[TW]Wilsonam

VP, Tripwire Int.
Oct 17, 2005
4,061
2,618
0
61
Roswell, GA
www.tripwireinteractive.com
Actually, being pedantic (who, me?), tank guns aren't quite as accurate as some people think... we didn't build in any of the weird factors, as we didn't originally envisage engagement ranges of over 2Km! These include:

Drift - the spin on the round actually causes a small element of drift. Check your angular momentum and all that good old math!

Round variability - in the wartime, there was variation between individual rounds, causing very slight differences in muzzle velocity; note that temperature difference does this too.

Barrel wear - as a gun barrel wears, the rifling wears and the gun becomes less accurate.
 

PUTZ

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
4,564
634
0
Baltimore, MD, USA
Playability wins over Realism for sure.

But for the record, if you try to engage a Tiger on Krivoi Rog at 3000m you will lose. End of story. (unless you are Yoshi...). After months of trying to do so, it's almost a unanimous decision by the testers and devs that the only way to kill the Tiger with relative ease, is to ambush it at close range...where the T34 is far superior.
 

Reise

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 1, 2006
2,690
851
0
Maine, US
Or you could do what I do and just drive circles around the Tiger, taking advantage of it's slow traverse speed. It's funny hearing people whine about that in-game.
 

Peter.Steele

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 6, 2006
2,128
779
0
Chambers of the Grand Council
Or you could do what I do and just drive circles around the Tiger, taking advantage of it's slow traverse speed. It's funny hearing people whine about that in-game.



hahah

the other day on Arad 24/7 I did that. I ran around it in a BA64 until it bumped into me and knocked me over, then I ran around it on foot until one of my teammates finally killed it with another tank. I kept trying to line up for a PTRD shot on the rear end, but the driver didn't hold still long enough!
 

[16ID]Malcolm

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 30, 2007
62
3
0
46
16thinfantrydiv.eamped.com
Here we go again....

It's already been discussed. About 4,1378 times.

So you never miss a tank that is 4 kilometers away? Woah, you must be very good. Especially because there hasn't been a map with a 4 Km viewdistance yet.

Tanks are too lasting? Funny, most people think that they get destroyed too easily.

Be honest here, RO's tanks beat the hell out of most games with tanks. Sure maybe it's not sim-level tank combat, but who cares? RO has never had sim-level realism so why should it now? It's realistic enough. And be grateful that they give us a new great tank map. Which does have 4 Km view distance.

This game is realistic enough in my opinion.Tanks are too lasting? now that is actually funny, since most people do actually think that they get destroyed too easily.I be honest here, RO's tanks beat the hell out of most games like bf1942 or bf2.All i have to say about that is be grateful that RO is so exlent and above all one of the most realistic games out there.

anyway like Oldih is saying

same olde story,
same old suggestion.
Same old bull****.
 

Obr.Lt.Scheisskopf

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 24, 2006
232
0
0
This may be unrelated but given that someone mentioned the BF1942/2 tanks I just have to say this. Tanks aren't fun in RO, for for me anyways. The BF42/2 arrow key/mouse movement/turret setup is a lot more fun in my view, and gives tanks a fear factor and an infantry support role. I remember seeing in FH and BF42 people diving for cover because of tanks, because of the arrow key/mouse setup they are a lot more potent. It's a very tedious task of constantly switching between driver and commander whereas we can just pretend we are two or three people. In Ro, the response times are just way too slow. A lot more fun and don't give me that 'undermines realism' crap because FH did a very good job of the arrow keys/mouse setup while still keeping very realistic (of course, on the RO forums we complain that shells don't do simulation level damage or do enough of it, etc. etc.). Also as a bonus, the mouse wheel could toggle through viewpoints of crew members that you are simultaneously controlling (one player per tank max, crew members can't be replaced by real people, save hull gunner who can't be played by commander, we can multitask to a certain degree, but we can't do that).

Back on the topic, the Armoured Beasts had done a good job of making the tanks stronger (or making them stronger only to fausts, I don't hop in tanks often these days).
 

Funker42

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 4, 2005
175
0
0
There is no such thing like spread in realitiy - a bullet always gets straight out of the gun and goes straight into the target. Only forces that can change the speed and direction of a bullet are gravity,

What? That makes no sense.

Gravity, wind speed, and recoil are bullet spread.

Guns never fire in an exact laser line but in an arc. They can come close at short distances but never 100% straight.

Secondly, guns in WWII were not 100% accurate because many have manufacturing defects, bad ammo, or worn rifle groves in the barrel.

If the bullet is no longer spinning as fast as it used to because the groves have worn down because of repeated use, it won't go as straight as it did before.
 

Peter.Steele

FNG / Fresh Meat
Sep 6, 2006
2,128
779
0
Chambers of the Grand Council
Secondly, guns in WWII were not 100% accurate because many have manufacturing defects, bad ammo, or worn rifle groves in the barrel.


WWII rifles are inaccurate, huh?

Those boxes are 1" square. So, that's a sub-MOA rifle.

I'd say that worn rifling would have been less of a problem with an almost-new rifle than with one that's, say, 63 years old now, and it still works quite well today. All my other Mosins (1929, 1943, 1945) are almost as good, so are my Mausers (1945, 1948).