• ACF General Thread
5,010 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Uberdude9001;46902787]As much as I want source units to be 1:1 inches and for players to not be 4'6" this is obviously not the case as both Wiremod and the Source wiki(indicating that it is not as you claimed, an issue with wire) agree that Source units are 3/4s of an inch and players are 4'6" tall. Amusingly, neither of the scales put gravity at its correct 9.81m/s^2. If we use gravity as the scale we end up with 1 source unit being 0.858 inches. This lends even more credibility to the theory that Valve doesn't give a shit about scale, players being midgets, source units not being inches, etc. [img]http://i.imgur.com/epE8ggk.png[/img] White is what sprops and you tell me 2 feet is. Red is what everything but you and sprops tell me 2 feet is. Green is what gravity tells me 2 feet is. It makes far more sense to assume that Valve didn't give a shit about the height players would be. The developer wiki's explanation for 16 source units being 1 foot instead of 12 also makes more sense than yours. 16 units is 1 foot because skyboxes are 1/16th scale, making 1 unit in the skybox 1 foot.[/QUOTE] Gravity is not 9.8 m/s^2 in gmod last I checked. Also te whole skybox thing gets back to what Source likes, VBSP prefers to deal with things that are powers of 2, is 12 a power of 2, no. 16 is though, and things are subdivided by powers of 2, so to compensate for this, that's probably why the list a foot as 16 inches and then the source unit increments as 0.75 inches apiece. The powers of 2 affinity also explains hallway heights which cause the maps to seem bigger. Which to compensate, you need larger scale models so the models don't look derpy next to the larger scaled buildings. So my ideology behind the source of this argument isn't refuted as it is accepted in mapping that Source likes powers of 2. But physics testing using my wheel test and the jeep test say that using the basic source unit when dealing with in-game physics is the only correct way since you don't get midget players or ridiculously slow speeds. Just because Hammer works one way does not mean that in-game physics works the same way a'la Valve's inconsistencies. But my math holds up due to Valve stating that the base unit for speed is Miles/Hour, which is why the jeep test and wheel RPM test work. The physics engine doesn't treat 16 source units as 1 foot but rather 12, unlike the map compiler. its 600 units per second^2, the 'units' are the standard source unit which we are debating as to whether it is inches or 0.75 inches. According to wiremod, apparently gravity is calculated by source by the value of sv_gravity(default of 600)/tick rate(66.7) Which gets you 8.99, but this doesn't make much sense (and I don't believe you can treat it as a measurement of gravity) . When you treat the source unit as inches and preform dimensional analysis you get 15.24 M/s^2 So really either you or I need to complete a series of acceleration tests to solve this part of the puzzle, but I do know acceleration due to gravity is not 9.8 M/s^2 in Source. Also: [t]http://i.gyazo.com/8087a617bef2c75fd6d62c120aa951d2.png[/t] I believe physics is calculated based on the playerscale because of my tests and this.
Hl2 maps are made 25% bigger, such as doorways. Most things are modelled by valve as 1 unit is 1 inch (ironically, the jeep and jalopy are 25% bigger than they should be. But their specified top speed of 35-45 mph checks out with in/s / 17.6). You also can't use any sort of physics basis because most props have very high drag at low mass.
[QUOTE=beatriz;46905189]Hl2 maps are made 25% bigger, such as doorways. Most things are modelled by valve as 1 unit is 1 inch (ironically, the jeep and jalopy are 25% bigger than they should be. But their specified top speed of 35-45 mph checks out with in/s / 17.6). You also can't use any sort of physics basis because most props have very high drag at low mass.[/QUOTE] You can remove drag for a gravity test. You can also use other physics based tests as long as you keep certain parameters constant.
Just to clarify all of this scale problems: Valve didnt give a shit about scale when making their games, all the settings for speed, measurements, maths and shit were made to give the game an "optimal" perfomance when playing them, not for advanced experimenting, far as i have investigated, none of the games valve made are made at a correct scale. Most (or maybe every) of the speed and gravity functions are weight based tho.
K, so... Regarding scale. We don't need to include anything about the physics of Source or Wiremod's units in order to tell that the units are seriously screwed up. One of two things is possible with scaling in source: Either players are normal size (72 source units/12inches = 6 ft, as shown in Slithers' post) and the world is up scaled by roughly 1.25 or the world is actual sized and players are scaled down by roughly 0.75. Either way, there are discrepancies in the scale between the world and the player. I've made some observations using both Hammer/Source/Gmod and just real life. I grabbed some measurements and pics of source and real life. For example: Height of a real life door = 6' 10" = 80" Height of Source doors = 9' 3/5" = 108.6" if divided by 12 Height of Source doors = 6' 11 9/20" = 81.45" if divided by 16 Player height in source units = 72 units in feet and inches (divided by 12) = 6' in feet and inches (divided by 16) = 4' 6" [U]Door in my house with a line drawn at the 6 foot mark (ignore tacky decorations)[/U] [IMG_THUMB]http://puu.sh/eo1HL/22de2897b3.jpg[/IMG_THUMB] [U]Player in front of door in Gmod (Supposedly 6 feet tall)[/U] [IMG_THUMB]http://puu.sh/eo1nR/6f47e6717d.jpg[/IMG_THUMB] It's easy to see that a player shouldn't be almost half the height of a door. Why would Source do this? The answer is actually really simple: In the game the world looks more realistic. In my experience working with hammer and several other game engines (such as UE4 and Unity), building a map at the same scale as the player makes the world look tiny, so in either case in this dispute on scale, the world and player are on a different scale. I believe that the player is on a inch scale while the props and world itself is on the scale Uberdude explains and the developer site explains when he says "The developer wiki's explanation for 16 source units being 1 foot instead of 12 also makes more sense than yours. 16 units is 1 foot because skyboxes are 1/16th scale, making 1 unit in the skybox 1 foot." This is representative of the 0.75 scale difference between the two. I found another example of this while working on a new map. The train models are on the same scale as the player rather than the rest of the world and imo, they look rather tiny when compared to pictures of real life because they are scaled with the player. [IMG_THUMB]http://puu.sh/eoald/05586fac41.png[/IMG_THUMB] The cabin on Source's train engine doesn't even look big enough to carry 2 people while the image on the left is taken from farther away. The train still looks larger at this distance. If the Source's train was scaled up to the same scale as the map, it would look more realistic. Valve's reason for this difference in scale is beyond me, but you can see that scaling things to the size of the player causes them to look rather small. Building to the scale of the player results in smaller vehicles which may realistically fit the player, but will feel rather small visually, and they may not fit the world properly. Building on scale with the world results in a more realistic looking vehicle to the player and it will fit the world itself properly. [IMG_THUMB]http://puu.sh/eoliR/3136a5210a.jpg[/IMG_THUMB] Would you look at that? When we look at the train from a view other than the player, the player and train look correctly scaled, but to the player it looks tiny. For some reason scaling things up by 1.25 looks more realistic to players. I believe this is related to the field of view the player has because objects appear smaller when we give the player a larger field of view. In order to compensate for this, we have to scale the world up. Notice how the bridge rail however, looks overscaled because it is on the 1.25 scale. Edit: Wiremod may do measurements for velocity based on world scale and not player.
[QUOTE=Kardel;46906641]Just to clarify all of this scale problems: Valve didnt give a shit about scale when making their games, all the settings for speed, measurements, maths and shit were made to give the game an "optimal" perfomance when playing them, not for advanced experimenting, far as i have investigated, none of the games valve made are made at a correct scale. Most (or maybe every) of the speed and gravity functions are weight based tho.[/QUOTE] Oh there is no debating that, but this debate is at the heart of wire speedo v. vel():length()/17.6 argument as well as vehicle construction to a scale that doesn't look goofy.
A little while ago I was working a bit on my m1 abrams and what not and I noticed that eh, the breeches on the regular cannons are pretty huge. I mean, my M1 is slightly scaled down but a 120mm shouldn't take the whole length of the turret to contain. Especially compared to the SBCs which have tiny breeches in addition to tiny barrel lengths. If anything it would seem like the SBCs need larger breeches and vice versa. [t]http://cloud-4.steamusercontent.com/ugc/536259912167026362/A1412A815562C44BD5920858260E2A992E1DCE5C/[/t] Guide: Red = regular cannon/short barreled cannon Green = approximate end of the main gun inside an m1 abrams. Sorry if what I'm trying to get across is eh, a bit jumbled. Also, someone on GGG (can't remember who) told me that cannon breeches in ACF are over sized. Any confirmation on this? edit: \/ Sorry that I don't feel like reading the entire thread from page 1.
[B]Any word on the HEAT buffs? Seem to recall an increase in their probability to ignite ammo/fuel was in the works, is that still happening or no? [/B] [editline]12th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=TheMrFailz;46910591]A little while ago I was working a bit on my m1 abrams and what not and I noticed that eh, the breeches on the regular cannons are pretty huge. I mean, my M1 is slightly scaled down but a 120mm shouldn't take the whole length of the turret to contain. Especially compared to the SBCs which have tiny breeches in addition to tiny barrel lengths. If anything it would seem like the SBCs need larger breeches and vice versa. [t]http://cloud-4.steamusercontent.com/ugc/536259912167026362/A1412A815562C44BD5920858260E2A992E1DCE5C/[/t] Guide: Red = regular cannon/short barreled cannon Green = approximate end of the main gun inside an m1 abrams. Sorry if what I'm trying to get across is eh, a bit jumbled. Also, someone on GGG (can't remember who) told me that cannon breeches in ACF are over sized. Any confirmation on this?[/QUOTE] With the way most people seem to think, I guess you could just clip it outside the turret (breech I mean) a bit and then make a holo barrel. I've noticed they seem overly large as well, and have done as I stated above once or twice to compensate. It's not like the breech presents any kind of actual vulnerability as ACF guns are just chunks of metal.
[QUOTE=ted234521;46912210][B]Any word on the HEAT buffs? Seem to recall an increase in their probability to ignite ammo/fuel was in the works, is that still happening or no? [/B][/QUOTE] That's how it has been on DB for months. HEAT on DB is guaranteed to ignite fuel(including diesel) because the temperature of the penetrator is far in excess of the flashpoint of the fuel. It also has a higher probability to detonate ammo, but you'll have to ask Steve more about that.
HEAT buff is currently being tested.
[QUOTE=TheMrFailz;46910591]A little while ago I was working a bit on my m1 abrams and what not and I noticed that eh, the breeches on the regular cannons are pretty huge. I mean, my M1 is slightly scaled down but a 120mm shouldn't take the whole length of the turret to contain. Especially compared to the SBCs which have tiny breeches in addition to tiny barrel lengths. If anything it would seem like the SBCs need larger breeches and vice versa. [t]http://cloud-4.steamusercontent.com/ugc/536259912167026362/A1412A815562C44BD5920858260E2A992E1DCE5C/[/t] Guide: Red = regular cannon/short barreled cannon Green = approximate end of the main gun inside an m1 abrams. Sorry if what I'm trying to get across is eh, a bit jumbled. Also, someone on GGG (can't remember who) told me that cannon breeches in ACF are over sized. Any confirmation on this? edit: \/ Sorry that I don't feel like reading the entire thread from page 1.[/QUOTE] Currently, Regular cannons have a retardedly long breech, to like fit rounds only stupid cannons that uses [B]2-piece propellant ammunitions[/B] (Possibily, Challenger 2's ammunition, useless shit that only brits would use), while Short cannons have a pretty close to an accurate breech of most of current MBT's (I prefer to call them current or modern, i know they come from CW era) guns. I dont think it fits so good on the balance thing as its damn nosense getting more depression and elevation on a shortgun then a regular gun of the same caliber, just with the long barrel. You dont get any extra muzzle velocity neither (Except Short cannons got limited propellant for some stupid reason, even if it basically loads the same ammo) Also Challenger 2's ammo is loaded part by part, due to being 2 piece propellant, making it too long to draw it directly from the rack [IMG]http://puu.sh/euNwL/abff40ae7c.jpg[/IMG]
wonder if it'd be cool to make a checkbox for ammo to set it as single cartridge or two piece, maybe two peice ammo could get a boost in ammo capacity at the cost of rate of fire or something. 2 part ammo might be easier to cram into a box than single ammunition. Also, we're testing the heat buff (higher penetrator caliber increases damage to acf components, and muzzle velocity is calculated into the penetration output in the menu.) and a global prop health nerf to give AP more punch (1.5x less hp), and HE is dialed back to compensate. Ferv's also worked out an approximation of penetration ability over range in the menu (0/300/800m)! :D If you wish to see the upcoming changes, my server the Dong Den is usually the dev server. 70.42.74.15:27015
HEAT's penetration is totally independent of shell velocity so long as the shell's moving fast enough to trigger the fuse. AP, APHE, APBC, APCBC, SABOT rounds are the ones that have penetration and velocity tied, since thye use kinetic energy to do their work, Regarding two-piece ammo: The Russians found it to just in general not be worth it. They tried it in the KV-2(Reload time: >30 seconds), IS-2(Reload time varied between 15 and 45 seconds depending on whether the turret's ready racks were full). It was found to be unsatisfactory, the ability to mix-and-match propellant charges and shell types didn't really make up for the downsides. Idunno how close to reality we should go if we introduce such ammunition to ACF. In the name of fun we may have to do something wildly unrealistic with it.
I think it'd be neat if (since it sounds like HEAT is actually going to be a threat to ammo crates now) 2-piece ammo were introduced as a way to boost health of ammo racks, at the cost of reload speed and the actual number of rounds you can fit in the case itself.
^ that idea sounds a lot better. wet ammo racks or two piece ammo for stronger ammo crates at the cost of weight or reload speed
If wet racks become a thing and if HEAT is getting a buff because it wasn't a threat to ammo racks, I don't think adding wet racks would help, they'd instead add the side effect that (against tanks that use them) now all shells are a little bit worse vs ammo than before. I think competitive tanks are already hard enough to pierce into so if you do manage to dig a hole through a tank and into an ammo box then regardless of what shell you use you should be rewarded with a nice big boom. I don't like shitting on useful ideas but I'm saying this because apart from a driver kill (which some people don't even acknowledge as long as the seat's still there), ammo detonation is the marker of a dead tank so the only place where I'd ask for wet racks is within a meta where frontal armour isn't more than 1 meter of eRHA as a standard measure.
[QUOTE=Splambob;46940763] a meta where frontal armour isn't more than 1 meter of eRHA as a standard measure.[/QUOTE] What do you mean by that? Are you including the effects of using multiple plates over one big plate and spacing, or is that 1000+ mm of actual "adding up the value of each plate" thickness? If it's the latter, what weight class are these things at?
1kmm+ of effective. aka angling your armour at values of like, 20 degrees from the ground. pancake tanks. speaking of armour though, i heard that different material types were considered. why hasn't that been implemented?
Yeah I'm talking about effective RHA, taking angle etc into account. For example, here's my 30t: [IMG]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/902553/ShareX/2015-01/gm_freespace_130014.jpg[/IMG] It's got angle for sure but I don't consider it to be incredibly pancakey - it's tall, got 60 degrees on the top glacis and there's another 5 degs on the middle applique slats (which people always aim for?!). I'd rather have less angle so I can fit more ammo in but from what I've seen if I don't put at least 60 degs on the front, it just can't compete in a straight slug-fest. I'd love to see some normalizing rounds (applied like the tracer option) to make pancakes less coercive upon the meta. btw I'm not suggesting we nerf armour or buff penetration because I think longer fights are more fun and thicker armour leads to that. I'm just saying that once you finally get through the armour you've earned a nice big boom.
Armor thickness is irrelevant beyond around 650mm(the maximum penetration of very low velocity 203mm HEAT that no one uses). Once you have that you should aim instead for high ductility. A tank being a pancake has nothing to do with its slope, there are many real tanks with slopes far in excess of 70 degrees. The slope of the Abrams' upper plate is in excess of 80, and it is a relatively tall tank. You can tell a tank is a pancake solely by its height relative to players, or if its width or length appears ridiculously stretched relative to its height. If the height from the bottom of the hull to the top of the turret plus the 18 inches of ground clearance that most tanks have is shorter than a player, chances are it's a pancake. Example: [img_thumb]http://puu.sh/ezGnT/f864337996.jpg[/img_thumb] And yes, that's a real tank. Also, while we're on the subject of pancakes I might as well redpill you guys on several myths that have been spread about them. No, you cannot kill pancakes by using low velocity HEAT to negate their slope. The majority of them have enough nominal armor to prevent this and even with the drop a well designed pancake will still autobonce HEAT. No, they do not rely on slope, although it does help. They achieve most of their weight savings simply by having lower frontal profile. Most importantly, no, they do not have lower side armor than regular tanks. The weight saved on frontal armor can be moved to other parts of the tank.
TLDR; don't build stupidly short shit
[QUOTE=Splambob;46942344]Yeah I'm talking about effective RHA, taking angle etc into account. For example, here's my 30t: [IMG]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/902553/ShareX/2015-01/gm_freespace_130014.jpg[/IMG] It's got angle for sure but I don't consider it to be incredibly pancakey - it's tall, got 60 degrees on the top glacis and there's another 5 degs on the middle applique slats (which people always aim for?!). I'd rather have less angle so I can fit more ammo in but from what I've seen if I don't put at least 60 degs on the front, it just can't compete in a straight slug-fest. I'd love to see some normalizing rounds (applied like the tracer option) to make pancakes less coercive upon the meta. btw I'm not suggesting we nerf armour or buff penetration because I think longer fights are more fun and thicker armour leads to that. I'm just saying that once you finally get through the armour you've earned a nice big boom.[/QUOTE] The HP nerf is going to make AP a lot more deadly- it's going to cost a lot more weight to keep your health the same as it was before. Also, you may have all that line of sight protection,, but durability is key. ERA i've found is really good at plate preservation... mitigate as much damage from the main armor as you can.
ACF r533 -Added _Beckett's updated V engine models with bodygrouped airfilters and exhaust -Added _Beckett's updated howitzer models with bodygrouped recoil and muzzles -Added _Beckett's new RAC and HMG models -New 2x3x6 and 2x3x8 ammo crate sizes, model courtesy of _Beckett -New thin clutch "gearbox", model courtesy of gamerpaddy -Fixed standalone electric driveshaft attach point, courtesy of gamerpaddy -Added I2 and V4 special -1.0L I4 special flywheel mass reduced -Large I3 petrol torque lowered slightly -Drag halved in ballistic calculations, making long range combat more viable -In ACF menu tool, HEAT penetration now accounts for muzzle vel -In ACF menu tool, added velocity / penetration estimates at 300m and 800m for AP, APHE, HEAT, HP, and FL -HEAT damage increased 25% against engines, fuel, and ammo -MGs can no longer fire HE rounds -Smoke rounds no longer deal HE damage
[QUOTE=Damnation;46950980]ACF r533 -Added _Beckett's updated V engine models with bodygrouped airfilters and exhaust -Added _Beckett's updated howitzer models with bodygrouped recoil and muzzles [B]-Added _Beckett's new RAC[/B] and HMG [B]models[/B] [B]-New 2x3x6 and 2x3x8 ammo crate sizes, model courtesy of _Beckett[/B] -New thin clutch "gearbox", model courtesy of gamerpaddy -Fixed standalone electric driveshaft attach point, courtesy of gamerpaddy -Added I2 and V4 special -1.0L I4 special flywheel mass reduced -Large I3 petrol torque lowered slightly [B]-Drag halved in ballistic calculations, making long range combat more viable[/B] -In ACF menu tool, HEAT penetration now accounts for muzzle vel [B]-In ACF menu tool, added velocity / penetration estimates at 300m and 800m for AP, APHE, HEAT, HP, and FL[/B] -HEAT damage increased 25% against engines, fuel, and ammo -MGs can no longer fire HE rounds [B]-Smoke rounds no longer deal HE damage[/B][/QUOTE] [U]Fuck yes[/U] at these
[QUOTE=Damnation;46950980]-Smoke rounds no longer deal HE damage[/QUOTE] Goodnight sweet prince :'( (totally adding this back into acf-sweps because it's hilarious)
[QUOTE]-Added I2[/QUOTE] Please make an I1 now too
[QUOTE=Oldrid;46952651]Please make an I1 now too[/QUOTE] What do you even mean.
[QUOTE=MrWhite;46952971]What do you even mean.[/QUOTE] Literally an Inline 1 engine with perhaps half the power of that I2 which got added. Because, well. There's I2, I3, I4, I5, I6. Where's the I1?
Single = I1 Hmm, i didnt see my "modified" Inline 3 4 5 and 6 engines in the list, i added bodygroups to remove the exhaust.
[QUOTE=Oldrid;46953381]Literally an Inline 1 engine with perhaps half the power of that I2 which got added. Because, well. There's I2, I3, I4, I5, I6. Where's the I1?[/QUOTE] Holy shit dude, thats a great idea, specially if it looks something like the model we already have of the engine we already have! Seriously, do you even know what an I1 is? It has been on ACF for long already, its called [I]Single[/I]. You should try it out