Tank scope

gerardnm · Post by **gerardnm** » 2007-04-10 16:00

Is it my imagination or on the tanks does the round hit under where the cross hair is?

Guerra norte · Post by **Guerra norte** » 2007-04-10 16:04

There is no Laser range finder system yet so ATM we're stuck at WW2 tanks :/
Hopefully with the ingenuity of the dev team we might be able to see this fixed in a future release.

Keeping my fingers crossed!

Post by **Exel** » 2007-04-10 16:15

You are right, since like in real life the tank rounds drop over distance (like bullets). The difference to reality is that we don't have fire control computers adjusting for that drop.

Leo · Post by **Leo** » 2007-04-10 18:41

If you don't find any fix for that couldn't you simulate it by giving the tank no bullet drop?

Guerra norte · Post by **Guerra norte** » 2007-04-10 18:49

Leo wrote:If you don't find any fix for that couldn't you simulate it by giving the tank no bullet drop?

That would be a very poor solution.
Giving the shells a completely flat trajectory would mean that you could hit ANY target at ANY distance without resetting your range finder.

Shining Arcanine · Post by **Shining Arcanine** » 2007-04-10 18:52

Guerra norte wrote:That would be a very poor solution.
Giving the shells a completely flat trajectory would mean that you could hit ANY target at ANY distance without resetting your range finder.

Would hitting any target at any distance be any different from what real M1 Abrams tanks do today?

Post by **LeadMagnet** » 2007-04-10 19:15

and how exactly is having a sabot round with a muzzle velocity in excess of 3800fps "arcing" at 600m realistic?

Guerra norte · Post by **Guerra norte** » 2007-04-10 19:17

Shining Arcanine wrote:Would hitting any target at any distance be any different from what real M1 Abrams tanks do today?

First off; tank shells don't fly for ever, not even aim at a 45 degree angle or any other.

Second; a 100% flat trajectories means you could exploit raping beyond visual view distance, like diagonally across a map via the aid of either a way point, 3D map or something else.

Third; Your view might be slightly obstructed by something and with a range finder at long range engagements your barrel will fire off at a high angle giving you an arced trajectory which will sail clear of that obstruction, with a completely flat one you might hit it....not very realistic IMO.

Fourth; I don't know how/or if this is calculated in modern ballistics computers on MBT's, but if your firing form a sloped angle like in a hill at 40 degrees angle, your trajectory won't be exactly the same as if it were fired at 90.
That should be taken into consideration too.

Plus where's the fun in simplistic tanking? Point and shoot is just boring.

Semi · Post by **Semi** » 2007-04-10 20:32

Guerra norte wrote:
Plus where's the fun in simplistic tanking? Point and shoot is just boring.

Ever played Forgotten Hope?

arneboe · Post by **arneboe** » 2007-04-10 21:01

"and how exactly is having a sabot round with a muzzle velocity in excess of 3800fps "arcing" at 600m realistic?" because of gravity

still if you would want the ultimate realism you would need huge by huge maps, and even longer draw distance.. what i think and understand out of what i've read here is that they try and keep the game as realistic as possible, while still implementing "real" physics although some "shortened" a bit and still keep the gameplay value...

until we get the super-laser-rangefinder-target-system couldn't you maybe do it as in Red Orchestra where you manually set the sights to XXX meters and maybe just have the rangefinder as in the SOFLAM in the tank scope?

Sneak Attack · Post by **Sneak Attack** » 2007-04-10 23:21

Guerra norte wrote: Third; Your view might be slightly obstructed by something and with a range finder at long range engagements your barrel will fire off at a high angle giving you an arced trajectory which will sail clear of that obstruction, with a completely flat one you might hit it....not very realistic IMO.

if there is an object in the way you wont be able to use the range finder because you would find the range of the object and not the tank anyway.

Guerra norte · Post by **Guerra norte** » 2007-04-10 23:32

Sneak Attack wrote:if there is an object in the way you wont be able to use the range finder because you would find the range of the object and not the tank anyway.

True, but I was thinking more along the lines of having already set the range, then a vehicle or something moves in in front of you half way down range.
Not very likely scenario I know but still

Leo · Post by **Leo** » 2007-04-10 23:41

Plus, there is practically no bullet drop for tanks at the max range of what is now 400-500 meters.

Guerra norte · Post by **Guerra norte** » 2007-04-10 23:45

Leo wrote:Plus, there is practically no bullet drop for tanks at the max range of what is now 400-500 meters.

But soon we shall have maps soon which will feature 1000 meters view distance!

also there's engament compresion to consider since the bf2 engine can't handle realistic view distances.

Post by **77SiCaRiO77** » 2007-04-11 02:26

t90 comanders sigh

Guerra norte · Post by **Guerra norte** » 2007-04-11 02:30

77SiCaRiO77 wrote:t90 comanders sigh

[IMG]http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/9885/mirabn5.png[/IMG

Awesome 77SiCaRiO77! I'm adding that to my collection!

Also to THIS thread.

BTW you got any more reticle patterns for tank optics 77SiCaRiO77?

Wasteland · Post by **Wasteland** » 2007-04-11 02:31

If you had zero bullet drop, you'd have to give the shell a velocity value of 999999 or whatever (if I'm not mistaken, or is it possible to just turn arcing "off"?). That would mean you could easily hit aircraft and whatnot flying perpendicular to you. Realistic?

Post by **Katarn** » 2007-04-11 02:33

There are gravity multipliers that account for bullet drop but i fail to see what the issue is here?

Post by **GeZe** » 2007-04-11 02:36

JP*wasteland.soldier wrote:If you had zero bullet drop, you'd have to give the shell a velocity value of 999999 or whatever (if I'm not mistaken, or is it possible to just turn arcing "off"?). That would mean you could easily hit aircraft and whatnot flying perpendicular to you. Realistic?

I think you can just turn arcing off (gravity modifiers), the velocity doesn't need to be high like that.

I think maybe we should turn arcing off, to simulate fire control systems.

The benefit/cost to realism I think is higher then what we have now.

And yes, I think it is realistic for tanks to take out choppers. Regarding jets, with the new speeds in .6, even if we did do what you said wasteland, tanks would not be able to hit them. They are so fast.

edit:
damn, katarn beat me to it

Post by **77SiCaRiO77** » 2007-04-11 02:38

Guerra norte wrote:Awesome 77SiCaRiO77! I'm adding that to my collection!

Also to THIS thread.

BTW you got any more reticle patterns for tank optics 77SiCaRiO77?

lol, wrong thread

, my intention was to post in that thread

BTW, this is from a tank sim , supostly is the sight of a t90

i have some more of t55 (the peruvian version ) , but isnt in game