stabilizers on abrams?

[kilroy0097]

Sounds like, that gunners would just "lock-on" to another vehicle and the tank would automatically track it and fire, destroying it. Which makes armor even more over-powered as the gunner isn't required any sort of skill to shoot.

Yea you need to read my entire post and not skim it.

I included a degree of error so fine tuning aim still needed to be done. It would just keep the target in a general view box is all. Gunner skill is still very much needed on Zoom #2 shots at extreme range.

[CodeC.Seven]

Prove me im wrong but the HEAT Round or whatever would fly like a rocket than to the enemy vehicle..

Some factors:

1. You could track Helis and Jets too.
2. Your heatround fly like a rocket. (Not straight like it should be!)
3. You would track even infantry i think...

[jerkzilla]

Prove me im wrong but the HEAT Round or whatever would fly like a rocket than to the enemy vehicle..

Some factors:

1. You could track Helis and Jets too.
2. Your heatround fly like a rocket. (Not straight like it should be!)
3. You would track even infantry i think...

As I understood Kilroy's idea, no. His solution would not affect the trajectory of the projectile but would just keep the target within an area of the screen (as in, not keeping the target right in your crosshairs, also enabling you to compensate for drop and/or lead a moving target) by moving the turret for you while you just fine tune the aim to score a hit.
This doesn't sound bad at all but it would have to work perfectly to be usable, which would mean no stuttering whatsoever etc.

[VipersGhost]

This sounds interesting and no this isn't creating a tank round that flies like Rocket with a lock. It means where using the mechanic that missiles use to track a moving target and then applying that mechanic to the aiming mechanic of the Tank. BUT this doesn't mean the Tank's sites will be perfectly attached aimbot-style to the moving tank...but it will loosely track the moving target while still allowing you to fine tune it.

This is a fantastic idea but it seems very ideal...all of these ideas are needed for it to work well. I'm doubtful that all components are possible but I hope I'm wrong.

This would allow for some awesome moving tank battles. The trick is to make it so a moving tank has very little disadvantages to his stationary opponent.

[CodeC.Seven]

Ok i have to say something now this is going to far away of a gameplay... I know we all want reality but it shouldnt go to far... The guy in the turent would do nothing beside klicking the shoot button... Its shouldnt go to far into reality...

[markonymous]

Ok i have to say something now this is going to far away of a gameplay... I know we all want reality but it shouldnt go to far... The guy in the turent would do nothing beside klicking the shoot button... Its shouldnt go to far into reality...

if you read the post it says that its keeps the aming whithin a box not exactly on target.

i think this should also be added to helicopters.

[BloodBane611]

An interesting idea kilroy, but it seems unlikely that it is possible to implement. Could someone with a bit more indepth knowledge of the BF2 engine chime in here?

ObjectTemplate.automaticYawStabilization 1
ObjectTemplate.AutomaticPitchStabilization 1

That was quite vague jonny, care to expound for those of us with no clue?

[jerkzilla]

ObjectTemplate.automaticYawStabilization 1
ObjectTemplate.AutomaticPitchStabilization 1

?

With my complete lack in coding knowledge, I've checked the .tweak file, or whatever it's called, for the Landrover and found the line with yaw stabilization, but not with pitch although it's 01:30 where I'm at so no wonder.

[zangoo]

well me nad cas have looked around at

ObjectTemplate.automaticYawStabilization 1
ObjectTemplate.AutomaticPitchStabilization 1

but it didnt seem to really do anything from our tests, but

ObjectTemplate.regulatePitch -0.05/0.5

did seem to work, needs to be tweaked, but like i have said many times, if you go drive the brit apc there is picth stabilization.

[El_Vikingo]

my comment is; no comment.

[Mosquill]

I made a little research on this yesterday. And now I can say that stabilization is an easy thing to do.

AutomaticYaw/PitchStabilization only seem to work relatively to parent object. But like Zangoo said regulateYaw/Pitch really works.

There's a catch however, you can't be a gunner and driver at the same time, so you can't tweak it in bf2editor AND it's a 2 men job.

[Mosquill]

Hey I've just made a stabilization on Challanger 2. Pitch and yaw. Driver can turn the tank 360°, and the gunner wont even note it

Used regulatePitch and regulateYaw. It's easy enaugh.

If the Devs or anyone is interested, I'll tell the details.

[IAJTHOMAS]

Would mean 2 mans tanks are used because they have a real advantage over 1 man tanks (shooting on the move), rather than 1 man tanks being discouraged by punishment. Would hopefully lead to some more realistic armoured warfare, rather than the stop-shoot-move/stop-shoot-camp scenarios we have atm.

If some form of stablisation could be implimented effectively it would be great.

[Mosquill]

Strange isn't it? It was the second time I used bf2editor, and already managed to get it done. I meen even the manual says:

ObjectTemplate.RegulateYawInput - This value is used to have a rotational bundle counter or enhance input on the given axis. I. e. to create an stabilizer for the main gunbarrel on a tank.

So how come they haven't done it yet? Maybe there's something that preventing the Devs from implementing this feature?

Btw I'd love to see stabilized Apache guncam in action

[Mora]

if this is true and working correctly then it will be allot simpler to hit targets for gunners on choppers - chopper gunners need it so badly. can any dev confirm this methot be working?

[jerkzilla]

Would mean 2 mans tanks are used because they have a real advantage over 1 man tanks (shooting on the move), rather than 1 man tanks being discouraged by punishment. Would hopefully lead to some more realistic armoured warfare, rather than the stop-shoot-move/stop-shoot-camp scenarios we have atm.

If some form of stabilisation could be implemented effectively it would be great.

Thing is, despite all my positive comments on the subject at hand, stabilizers are pretty useless at anything up to long range when the projectile takes enough time to reach it's target to require the gunner to lead the target a considerable distance. The cannons are almost laser accurate anyway and they travel so fast that up to about 400 meters, if not more, it doesn't really make a difference if the target is moving or not. In fact, if the target was moving in such a way as to require the gunner to lead it, the target would most likely expose it's broad side, which, other than the obvious fact that it is twice as big as the front side, it is also much weaker.
But by all means, if it's this easy, it won't hurt implementing this.

[Mosquill]

Thing is, despite all my positive comments on the subject at hand, stabilizers are pretty useless at anything up to long range when the projectile takes enough time to reach it's target to require the gunner to lead the target a considerable distance. The cannons are almost laser accurate anyway and they travel so fast that up to about 400 meters, if not more, it doesn't really make a difference if the target is moving or not. In fact, if the target was moving in such a way as to require the gunner to lead it, the target would most likely expose it's broad side, which, other than the obvious fact that it is twice as big as the front side, it is also much weaker.
But by all means, if it's this easy, it won't hurt implementing this.

Yes, but you can accurately shoot enemies while advancing at full speed. That makes you a very hard target for any anti-tank threat at 9 and 3 o'clock. And with stabilization the ability to shoot while maneuvering will make any tank much deadlier.

And dont forget about choppers with their LG missiles.