The Perfect World

mOBIUS

Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
650
Reaction score
4
Location
Kalifornia
Steve claims that Panther tanks should be rightfully spotted first over shermans because [drumroll] "They are bigger". This is just a laughably stupid remark.
Well now you are barking up the right tree. The whole argument going on about sighting is stupid. It came down to number of eyeballs and what Zaloga said on one side against what US tankers and Generals said plus sizes and actual light transmission on the other.

See my web page on optics.
http://www.panzer-war.com/page37.html
 
Last edited:

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
37
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
It has been discussed in the past there and obviously, much has been forgotten. But they say "Stupid is what Stupid does". Which, to me, means that stupid people hang onto their stupid ideas even when corrected. An example right in that thread is where the sherman tanker even says that using the periscope does not help in spotting (which was claimed by that noodnick MikeyD) and Steve just continues to say it does. I have looked through cupolas and armored glass. You aren't spotting a AFV at 1200 meters even if someone points it out to you.

Tank commanders or other AFV crew that are unbuttoned are the ones that can quickly spot enemy. When coming onto new terrain that offers a panoramic view of the battlefield, you quickly ascertain the field. Much like viewing a chessboard, you discount many areas (open terrain forward slopes, etc.) and concentrate on possible near threat areas before scanning further distance threat areas. Learning to quickly use direct eyeballs to switch to binocs and back to eyes is key. SOP's, like StuGs not wanting enemy threats within 600 m (for instance), means scanning close threat areas assessed first. Depending on the terrain buildup, this might take 5-10 seconds.

The gunner is probably the next best 'spotter' but he is directed by the TC to concentrate on the assessed threat areas. The TC commands the gunner to point the turret, and therefore the magnified sight, and he scans for targets. Believe me, he isn't looking at anything but that sight picture. The loader and driver are mostly proving local security through periscopes and would not catch much unless the enemy is close and moving. The German radio operator, using the MG sight, could add some forward spotting within the close threat zone.

But how does the game do all this? It's under the hood and don't hold your breath to find out.



Spotting/Identification/range-estimation/shot-observation/etc. God knows what really is happening in that program.
 

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
37
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
Well now you are barking up the right tree. The whole argument going on about sighting is stupid. It came down to number of eyeballs and what Zaloga said on one side against what US tankers and Generals said plus sizes and actual light transmission on the other.

See my web page on optics.
http://www.panzer-war.com/page37.html
Good info. But you should expand for binocs and scissor-scopes. There are some good websites on those.

The scissor scopes gave excellent 10X magnification and certainly improved long range spotting and identification. Spotting is great, but like spotting what to what, y'know? Huh?

Who's up for a game of hungry-hungry-hippos?
 
Last edited:

mOBIUS

Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
650
Reaction score
4
Location
Kalifornia
Good info. But you should expand for binocs and scissor-scopes. There are some good websites on those.
The scissor scopes gave excellent 10X magnification and certainly improved long range spotting and identification. Spotting is great, but like spotting what to what, y'know? Huh?
I'm not sure how those should be handled. I didn't design the PCO sighting system, a Boeing engineer did.
Also there are a number scientific report pdfs on sighting and detection the key words would be "Johnson criteria" and "NVESD ACQUIRE". But I wouldn't know to use any of that in a game. but it may help in a debate. :)
 
Last edited:

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
43
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
The spotting thread is outrageous wrt what Steve says, but we here all know that this has no resemblance to what Charles might or might not do about it.

I have no problem with repainting and reusing things if it speeds up the EF game. Heck, as far as I am concerned they could release a first EF game with no new features at all (no tank riders etc). Just 3D and texturing work and then the free labor in the betas does the rest.

Actually - I rather want that. I want Charles on bugfixes such as the spotting and not on new features.
 

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
37
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
According to the BF business model, that would be a 'module'...not a 'Family Starter'. And since EF is also a 'Rev', or CM3.0, so it has to bring something to the table. And if we believe the buzz, it is well on it's way since it was developed in parallel with other product. I don't think it will be out till late Spring. For $55, I expect something better than a rehash.

Picking Bagration helps with the models/formations and also the weather and terrain. Fleshing out all the Soviet vehicles and formations (or the one's included in the Family starter) will, likewise, help with the next '1943 Family' product and so on. Since the development is actually going back in time, there are bound to be some more conflicts like the much ballyhooed "CW units vs. MG units" drama.

Picking the later war Soviets also bypasses any need to model extremely poor command&control&communications. BF is leveraging the present version of their product and Leto might just die from all that fatty food they eat up there before the early war gets released.
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
43
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
Don't care. They can charge me 55 bucks for a T-34 and some soviet uniforms.

Do you always have to mix every technical post with a personal insult?
 

[hirr]Leto

Varmint Croonie
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
13
Location
Saskatoon
Country
llCanada
No, Leto, you're still damn funny!

ksbearski
Well my undergrad classes don't get a lot of my humour... but I bust the gut of quite a few of them in the graduate courses. You can't teach economics unless you are funny... and even then...

Cheers!

Leto
 

[hirr]Leto

Varmint Croonie
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
13
Location
Saskatoon
Country
llCanada
I hate to admit it, but calling out people's stupidity is just so much damn fun. I know, Mom used to say "Be Nice", eh, but what's that ever get ya? anyway...
Spoken like a true Democrat! er.. Republican... aw crap, I can't tell the difference..

Cheers!

Leto
 

[hirr]Leto

Varmint Croonie
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
13
Location
Saskatoon
Country
llCanada
Well now you are barking up the right tree. The whole argument going on about sighting is stupid. It came down to number of eyeballs and what Zaloga said on one side against what US tankers and Generals said plus sizes and actual light transmission on the other.

See my web page on optics.
http://www.panzer-war.com/page37.html
Maybe this thread over at BFC is worth a frozen paintball drive by shooting... it's not what your looking at, but what you're looking at something THROUGH! Saturn is much bigger than the moon... you feelin it homey slice?

Cheers!

Leto
 

[hirr]Leto

Varmint Croonie
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
13
Location
Saskatoon
Country
llCanada
In a "perfect world" there would be no facebook... only fartbook.

And I would DEFINITELY use fartbook. A lot. I mean, excessively. I would be (butt) plugged in like you would not believe. Today's Tom Sawyer shizzle... you know?

Cheers!

Leto
 

mOBIUS

Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
650
Reaction score
4
Location
Kalifornia
[hirr]Leto;1657132 said:
Maybe this thread over at BFC is worth a frozen paintball drive by shooting... it's not what your looking at, but what you're looking at something THROUGH!
In a way you are right. Seeing is done by the brain. The eye and any aid to the eye is a tool.
 

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
37
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
Well, yes the eyes and brain form a system. But the eyes and the use binocs/sights+eyes are different input sensors for the brain. 'Just Eyes' has certain advantages for detecting objects in the peripheral and speed of use, etc.

Here is the military stuff also...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/17-12-8/ch3.htm

But the game probably just does a 'nearest to the farthest' search-routine. I would think that it only does the routine for objects that are in LOS, just to save clock cycles.
 

mOBIUS

Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
650
Reaction score
4
Location
Kalifornia

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
37
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
All well and good for the drill side of the equation. But that has to be joined with data to quantify it.

I'm not sure if this test scales up but it does have ranges.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a068043.pdf

FM 17-21-1 Tank Combat Tables M-1 which has some rough sighting ranges in table 3-1.
That test seems to be concerned with identification of already 'spotted' targets. Or actually, 1/87th scaled models. Interesting and it certainly shows that identification, even under these ideal tests, is not a given. The test is just eyes also. I would want CM to model this...that is, when AFV are 'spotted', the identification is not certain and even wrong depending on conditions.

And yes, the game should model from drills.


With the upcoming larger maps, and combat at greater ranges, these issues will certainly come to a head. Most WWII CM stuff has been short and medium range so far. I recently read about the 'Desert Rats' experience in Normandy. They were shocked in regards to the short ranges. In the desert, infantry were too close if they 600 meters or closer. Other weapon systems were too close at further ranges. In Normandy hedgerow fighting EVERYTHING was under 600 meters or less. No standing on the turret in shorts with binoculars. I suppose the Brits didn't like the open ground near Caen when facing Panthers and 88mm either.

I was testing this stuff and other things seem to pop up. I especially do not like that buttoned up AFV, taking hits and not spotting anything, just sit there. The 'SOP' should be to reverse or pop smoke. I suppose I am expected to play Realtime and do that for them?
 
Last edited:

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
37
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
The spotting thread is outrageous wrt what Steve says, but we here all know that this has no resemblance to what Charles might or might not do about it.

I have no problem with repainting and reusing things if it speeds up the EF game. Heck, as far as I am concerned they could release a first EF game with no new features at all (no tank riders etc). Just 3D and texturing work and then the free labor in the betas does the rest.

Actually - I rather want that. I want Charles on bugfixes such as the spotting and not on new features.
Well, you got your wish. It seems that BuGs are case sensitive (see Steve's insane posts) and Chas. is working on them. It really is beyond belief what Steve is saying in regards to these spotting bugs. He seems to be blowing smoke to cover up his asinine behavior. I chuckle when he makes assertions about using scientific principles. The guy is a math-numb-tard that wouldn't be considered a technician let alone a scientific person. Of course, he likes to crack on engineers...or people that uncover long embedded bugs within his product.
 

mOBIUS

Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
650
Reaction score
4
Location
Kalifornia
Hey, I complained for years that the hulldown wasn't working right in PCO but no one would look at it. Finally right before the release they got to it. (Still not perfect as ground deflected hits on hulldown tanks will make it button up.)
No different than most devs. They will go for the low hanging fruit or do flashy things rather than go back and do the hard work of uncovering deep bugs. For me hull down protection and sighting is more important than decals or grass or knockdown trees.
 
Last edited:

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
37
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
Hey, I complained for years that the hulldown wasn't working right in PCO but no one would look at it. Finally right before the release they got to it. (Still not perfect as ground deflected hits on hulldown tanks will make it button up.)
No different than most devs. They will go for the low hanging fruit or do flashy things rather than go back and do the hard work of uncovering deep bugs. For me hull down protection and sighting is more important than decals or grass or knockdown trees.
Hulldown will be another issue with CM once the EF is released. Since gun depression is not modeled, the real issues of being hulldown, and actually using the main weapon, will crop up. It is a not a new issue either.

Hulldown, on a reverse slope, can result in having a FOV of the enemy territory, yet the main weapon does not have a field of fire. There are cases where it can not shoot down the forward slope. It may be able to hit targets at further ranges with higher elevations though. It all depends on the gun depression (and elevation).

Turret-Down on a reverse slope can result in a FOV and the enemy can not target your turret. The game does not model this I believe.

Hulldown, when a AFV is on a reverse slope, does not depend on the AFV size. This has been stated as being a condition by Steve that effects getting hulldown and they are tweaking things to fix spotting etc. It might be applicable to a AFV that are on flat terrain and trying to hide behind something, or in a ravine, but a big AFV with considerable gun depression can get hulldown easily on a reverse slopeand still use its gun!

One could make the case that a AFV with limited gun depression would also limit the gunner's spotting ability since his sight is looking at sky (or maybe a higher hill further away but his near-vision is nil).

But I think they are in a frantic band-aid mode now and focusing on immediate concerns and issues like this won't pop up till customers bother to do tests after product release. Of course, Steve will go through the whole routine of denial, berating, mocking, calling on the fanbois, calling-on-the-charley, realizing there are issues, congratulating the betas for their heroic work, and finally another band-aid will be rolled out. All with a promise of a free patch at a later date, etc.
 

mOBIUS

Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
650
Reaction score
4
Location
Kalifornia
As much as we think hulldown is some ideal of where a tank is on the reverse slope looking over a ridge down to a lower elevation it is not the usual hulldown. I found that 4 out of 5 hulldown situations in a game are that both tanks are in effect hulldown to each other because there is some rise in ground between them. Maybe one tank is more hulldown than the other because the rise is closer to that tank. So gun depression would not matter so much most of the time.

Turret down spotting isn’t that important when games have the over-mind spotting. Or near instantaneous reaction.
 

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
37
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
As much as we think hulldown is some ideal of where a tank is on the reverse slope looking over a ridge down to a lower elevation it is not the usual hulldown. I found that 4 out of 5 hulldown situations in a game are that both tanks are in effect hulldown to each other because there is some rise in ground between them. Maybe one tank is more hulldown than the other because the rise is closer to that tank. So gun depression would not matter so much most of the time.

Turret down spotting isn’t that important when games have the over-mind spotting. Or near instantaneous reaction.
I disagree. And my point is that you can be hulldown and the other AFV can be hulldown, but unless you can depress the gun enough to shoot, and the other AFV can, the only advantage would be that you are a smaller target.

The classic reverse slope hull down...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hull_down_tank_diagram.png
 
Top