Improving armor combat

[fubar++]

Ive said this before and i say it again.

We only need a aimbot. NO! before you think hacks? cheating? etc.. no i mean a loosy aimbot that wont give you all the positions of enemy's.

It would work just like a real targeting system, aquire a lock by tracking it for a short time.
It could be made vehicle specific, and not usable while walking for example. To use it hold your croshair on the target for a moment and press the button that triggers the "aimbot" now it will track your target loosly, meaning if you move your mouse too much it will lose lock. And tracking need to be done again.

It would also be able to calculate the speed of the target, distance and bullet drop.

And i know for a fact that this is very well possible.

Me too thinks that this would be the best system. That's very close to IRL systems and that's why should be implemented to PR.

EDIT: Only the part how you actually trigger the "aimbot" might be somewhat tricky. Maybe change zoom to cycle camera view key (where it should already be) and place "aimbot" trigger to present zoom key. But not really an issue if the coding part is possible.

[ERASERLASER]

But doesnt aimbots see enemies through walls? I dont know how realistic the Tank sights are now, all that matters to me is that everything looks and acts realistic, if the current sights are relistic then leave it if not then change it. When aiming through the sights while the tank is moving its very shacky unless your on flat concrete like qwai, how about the turret acts like a seperate object of the tank and doesnt get the vibrations the tank gets? if you get what I mean

[Ondskan]

It should be possible to code the turret to move in opposite direction of the tank should it not? Though it's probably complicated.

Basicly for the turret to compensate for the "bumps" by moving in the other direction.

This should be a feature you can turn off and on though ellse I don't want it.



PS: on all tanks except the militias tank.

[Alex6714]

It already is coded like that, it just doesn´t really work 100%.

If the aimbot thing could be done, only on line of sight and locks on then that is perfect for tanks, apcs and helis.

In real life these things can track targets so locking is realistic.

Also brings tactics a bit more into play.

But I fear this will be ignored for "overpowering gameplay etc" issues...

[Ondskan]

It already is coded like that, it just doesn´t really work 100%.

If the aimbot thing could be done, only on line of sight and locks on then that is perfect for tanks, apcs and helis.

In real life these things can track targets so locking is realistic.

Also brings tactics a bit more into play.

But I fear this will be ignored for "overpowering gameplay etc" issues...

Was that a reply to me or to the thread overall?
Cause I wouldn't like an aimbot, just a stabilazor.

Pitty if its coded and doesnt work tho

[Spaz]

But doesnt aimbots see enemies through walls?

Thats wallhack.

[77SiCaRiO77]

call me oldfashioned but i prefer the manual aiming

it really shows how much skilled is the crew (how/when to move)

i will even like to see bullet drop for the main canon(instead of the current ingravitational round) so you could actually have to calculate the distance .

but then i remember that modern tanks have computers and that , wich make tanks boring :[

[Ondskan]

77SiCaRiO77;882320']call me oldfashioned but i prefer the manual aiming

it really shows how much skilled is the crew (how/when to move)

i will even like to see bullet drop for the main canon(instead of the current ingravitational round) so you could actually have to calculate the distance .

but then i remember that modern tanks have computers and that , wich make tanks boring :[

There isn't bullet drop? w00t?

There's freakin bullet drop in BF2...why did they remove it?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKnCgAwZ_TM bullet drop.

[ERASERLASER]

vbf2 has stupidly outrageous bullet drop on tank shells

[Raic]

Well aimbot is also just code, so If DEVs make their own "hack" they could make it to lock on targets that the gunner is able to keep near the middle point for few seconds, it would be working thingy.

Everyone who says its "overpowered" or a hack should get smacked in the face. It wouldn't be like normal aimbots witch lock on everything, everywhere instantly. I wouldn't even call it that.

[Ondskan]

vbf2 has stupidly outrageous bullet drop on tank shells

Noooooo

[fubar++]

I'm not sure how these tracking systems work exactly IRL, but somekind gyroscope and distance meter aided tracking computer wouldn't be technically hard to make (that's close to WWII submarine computers). So a compromise for PR use could be "aimbot" that follows only static point. That would give the target somekind chance for counter maneuvers. I think that present stabilizer doesn't track anything it just tries to keep your barrel in same direction.

[Mora]

IMO this wouldn't be so overpowered as you might think. I mean other tanks, apcs and everything that uses tracking have it too. So there comes more strategy in play and possible more teamplay as you will need your tank squad to be even more effective. Flanking your enemy and things like that really makes a difference. Or calling in air support that actually can get a clear shot while on the move.

This would only make PR more realistic.

And HAT could be changed abit like less deviation while moving the sights or so.

[Undies]

IRL the turret 'talks' to the hull and vice-versa via one or more gyroscopic gimbles (on CR2 there are three) several thousand times per second.

The turret does not lock on to anything at any most of the firing sequence is still done manually, contrary to popular opinion. The bulk of what the computer tied to the turret/weapon system do is stabilising the gun (to a certain degree) and carrying out ballistic calculation to account for things such as wind, temperature, air pressure and barrel droop among other things.

The crux of the whole thing is that the gunner must still control the 'lay' of the turret using his controls, and he has some very similar problems to those faced in PR. The turret does go up and down and side to side as the driver negotiates different terrain, meaning he has to try and maintain that 'lay'.

The comments people make about 'bullet drop' do not really hold much water with a modern tank TBH. As i mentioned earlier, the computer makes allowences and adjusts the ballistic calculation to help achieve a first round hit. This includes bringing the weapon systems to the correct angle of elevation before it is fired, thus virtually eliminating 'bullet drop' and tanks firing. Of course it still happens but the gun is raised by the computer before firing to account for this.

The dispersion of the rounds at 2km is pretty tight.



I have crewed CR1 and CR2 for 10 years now and trust me, the PR tanks arent far off. (Within the limits of a game)

[Mora]

So what are you saying? This isnt needed?

What about attack choppers then?

[IAJTHOMAS]

Undies;882363']IRL the turret 'talks' to the hull and vice-versa via one or more gyroscopic gimbles (on CR2 there are three) several thousand times per second.

The turret does not lock on to anything at any most of the firing sequence is still done manually, contrary to popular opinion. The bulk of what the computer tied to the turret/weapon system do is stabilising the gun (to a certain degree) and carrying out ballistic calculation to account for things such as wind, temperature, air pressure and barrel droop among other things.

The crux of the whole thing is that the gunner must still control the 'lay' of the turret using his controls, and he has some very similar problems to those faced in PR. The turret does go up and down and side to side as the driver negotiates different terrain, meaning he has to try and maintain that 'lay'.

The comments people make about 'bullet drop' do not really hold much water with a modern tank TBH. As i mentioned earlier, the computer makes allowences and adjusts the ballistic calculation to help achieve a first round hit. This includes bringing the weapon systems to the correct angle of elevation before it is fired, thus virtually eliminating 'bullet drop' and tanks firing. Of course it still happens but the gun is raised by the computer before firing to account for this.

The dispersion of the rounds at 2km is pretty tight.



I have crewed CR1 and CR2 for 10 years now and trust me, the PR tanks arent far off. (Within the limits of a game)

Interesting. I've always thought though that modern tanks could engage targets effectively whilst moving , which just isn't really possible in PR at any kind of reasonable range with the current system. In fact you pretty much have to come to a complete stop to fire accurately.

This seems to lead to 'mobile pill box sydrome' where tank seem to move from static point to static point, firing from those positions. It seems to discourage a war of movement.

Although, as you say, its perhaps a product of popular misconception how I envisage tank comabt

[fubar++]

Of course different tanks do vary, but according to fast reading of Wikipedia and other sources automatic tracking systems are in use:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Khalid_tank:
"The automatic target-tracking system is designed to work when tank and target are both moving."

Leopard 1T Modernized by Aselsan - Military Pictures - Air Force Army Navy Missiles Defense
"- Automatic Target Tracking"

Japan Type 90 MBT (Main Battle Tank) 7, TYPE 90 Panzer-japan,self,defence,force,jsdf,jgsdf,military,army,type90,tank,mbt,panzer Video Search - The Best japan,self,defence,force,jsdf,jgsdf,military,army,type90,tank,mbt,panzer video search engineer, yo
"Includes the Automatic target tracking systems."

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land ... pe-90.htm:
"The automatic target tracking system using a thermal image display is controlled through a tank commander's targeting periscope attached to the top of the turret in an independently rotatable mode"

http://www.iss.co.za/Pubs/Monographs/No ... wicz.html:
"Other developments will include automatic target tracking, which is already incorporated in the fire control system of the Japanese Type 90 tank, and automatic target detection and recognition, which will enhance the performance of tank crews."

[Undies]

Interesting. I've always thought though that modern tanks could engage targets effectively whilst moving , which just isn't really possible in PR at any kind of reasonable range with the current system. In fact you pretty much have to come to a complete stop to fire accurately.

This seems to lead to 'mobile pill box sydrome' where tank seem to move from static point to static point, firing from those positions. It seems to discourage a war of movement.

Although, as you say, its perhaps a product of popular misconception how I envisage tank comabt

You are absolutely correct when you say tanks can effectively engage targets on the move, sorry if i mislead in any way.

Modern tanks can very effectively engage targets on the move, the point i am trying to make is that the gunner must still carry out manual lay of the sighting system and weapon system onto the target.

Someone kind of hit the nail on the head earlier on when they said the BF2 engine lets you though it is flawed in that it isnt vastly accurate. I think this is the problem, a limitation of the game engine and nothing else.

@Fubar++ They are slightly misleading articles or poorly worded, tanks are fitted these days with assisted lay or aided lay which is only automatic in that once the gunner has selected his target and laid the sighting systems onto it. If he (his tank) is moving, or the target is moving, or both are moving, then he will initially begin to manually track the target. Once the Fire Control System has calculated what it thinks is the best or most accurate tracking speed in whatever direction it is required, will conitnue to track along that line/direction. With the intention being that the gunner should only need to 'fine tune' his lay before firing.

If the target makes a sudden change of direction the gun will still 'track' along the direction it previously followed. This means the gunner needs to manually lay onto the target once more, and the process starts again. These systems aid the gunner massively in controlling a fast moving turret looking at small targets which could be some way off but unfortunately they are not automatic target trackers per'say.

Hope i didnt confuse anyone.

[fubar++]

@[R-DEV]Undies

So you are saying if the target isn't moving or changing speed and direction the target will be automatically tracked (excluding fine tune) while yourself are moving (even with varying speeds and directions)?

[Mora]

Its still a good idea to have a aimbot like this ingame IMO.