Call me dumb, clueless or whatever but:
I honestly feel like higher caliber HEAT(120mm and above) doesn't do enough damage directly to props. Like it would take milion HEAT shots to scrape just a little bit off the health on a prop but with AP it would just take 5-6 shots and the armor would be penetrable already. Another thing, HEAT penetrators doesn't like to detonate ammo boxes. Takes quite a few hits.
But this is just a personal opinion.
[QUOTE=Shuzze;51911938]Call me dumb, clueless or whatever but:
I honestly feel like higher caliber HEAT(120mm and above) doesn't do enough damage directly to props. Like it would take milion HEAT shots to scrape just a little bit off the health on a prop but with AP it would just take 5-6 shots and the armor would be penetrable already. Another thing, HEAT penetrators doesn't like to detonate ammo boxes. Takes quite a few hits.
But this is just a personal opinion.[/QUOTE]
Because litterlly any detail prop, not having to be armored can stop HEAT. Also I'm pretty sure they don't ignore visclips. HEAT is OK, I personally don't use it much. It could also be how you make your anmo.
[QUOTE=Lufteh;51912100]Because litterlly any detail prop, not having to be armored can stop HEAT. Also I'm pretty sure they don't ignore visclips. HEAT is OK, I personally don't use it much. It could also be how you make your anmo.[/QUOTE]
I mean just directly onto 1 single prop with nothing in between and the damage done onto that prop is
literally 10x worse than AP of the same caliber. 55.65 AP damage done to prop, 5.65 HEAT damage done to prop w/0 deg angle.
I also tried different ammo settings, damage is more or less the same. I normally use
55 deg cone, max propellent mass, max filler, 400-550 muzzle velocity, w/ highest pen or
72 deg cone, max propellent length, max filler, 2000+ muzzle velocity, w/high pen
HEAT is meant to be useless unless it pens. It shouldn't do much to armor, and for a time, a reasonably sized HEAT shell was supposed to instantly detonate any ACF components it hit, but either it was never correctly implemented or was reverted at some point.
[QUOTE=Thomas, TTC;51912272]HEAT is meant to be useless unless it pens. It shouldn't do much to armor, and for a time, a reasonably sized HEAT shell was supposed to instantly detonate any ACF components it hit, but either it was never correctly implemented or was reverted at some point.[/QUOTE]
As it stands now, the only thing HEAT is useful for now is killing unprotected tank drivers. And usually, there's enough ammunition boxes around anyway to sponge up the majority of damage without significantly affecting the performance of the vehicle.
[editline]4th March 2017[/editline]
It probably was reverted, and rightfully so. Just think maybe it could maybe just do 2x or3x damage against any non-physics prop rather than instant detonation.
Heat needs to not be so easily defeated by unarmored layers and instakill ammo.
Ground turbines are dumb as hell and overpowered. Combine them with a lot of gears or a CVT to get around their slow response and they will beat down any engine combo. They were made by people who make stupidly small tanks.
They need to gtfo, or require fuel.
[QUOTE=Amplar;51914187]or require fuel.[/QUOTE]
Like everything else. Seriously, there isn't a non-microtank that has been built since fuel came out that doesn't use fuel.
30MM RAC with 4 pods breaks bullet table. Gg.
I feel that capacity and crate size should be far more aggressive.
Right now, 1x1x4/6/8 outperform almost all the large crates in capacity and usefulness for pretty much every ammo type, especially for cookoff. Rate of fire is kind of a nonissue since being penetrated won't kill you half the time.
For example, right now, 8 1x1x4 crates holds 8 100mm rounds, and a 2x4x4 holds 7, despite saying capacity is increased 12%, and taking up the same space. What if we made that a lot more aggressive, and that same 2x4x4 holds 10 rounds. A 2x4x8 holds 16 rounds, and you can fit 16 1x1x4s in the same place (and the 2x4x8 says it has +23% capacity. Wat.) The largest, 4x8x8, only increases ammo 50% or so. I also think it [i]might[/i] be a good idea to also reduce the weight of the ammunition as crate size goes up as well to help compensate for larger tonk, and further an incentive for bigger crates.
So in short, make crate size WAY more aggressive to ammunition stowed. Something like twice as much.
This would:
-incentivize larger crates (rate of fire alone isn't enough, the largest crate possible only improves rof by 20%.)
-perhaps make tanks a little bigger, or smaller ones a bit more powderkeggy
-reduce single-crate cookoff bullshittery
-Microtanks won't benefit
So I have been thinking about how ACF aircraft entities would work, and I think that a good starting point would be pretty much purpose built aircraft engines.
One of the reasons why E2 aircraft are attractive is that you can have a minimum of physical props. All you need is a baseplate and your weapons and thats it, which allows aircraft to be used easily even if multiple other vehicles are out.
The engine would function as propulsion for a single prop, effectively doing the job of the propulsion code in the E2. Basically you hook up the engine to an entity and it applies a force to that entity in one direction based on a flight model.
This would allow for proper power to weight ratio application as well as fuel requirements, which in turn apply non-arbitrary size and weight restrictions to aircraft. It is also possible to impose maximum speed restrictions, and to make dogfighting more enjoyable through more realistic airspeed management. This all in a package that does not increase the number of non-parented objects in the vehicle. A few different engines could be made, with different characteristics such as fuel usage and thrust, which would affect flight characteristics such as acceleration and maximum airspeed. This is basically a glorified thruster.
Arbitrary maneuverability remains an issue, however it is a complex one to solve because reason would follow that it depends on the aerodynamic design of the aircraft, and with the high variability of designs this is difficult to factor in.
have wings and stabilizers as mere props linked to the e2
if something goes missing, e2 does stupid shit to flying
enforce as a rule
planes solved
[QUOTE=Dakota0001;51876384]Not that I even exist in relation to ACF anymore, but I always did dislike aircraft in ACF combat. Most of the time people just used e2s with incredibly unbalanced mechanics for their aircraft then slapped as many rockets as they could onto a flying diamond box and a grenade launcher or MG to rip apart any infantry they saw.
Most Helicopters I fought easily would bounce 155mm APHE howitzer rounds, eat a thousand rounds of .50 cal, and just absorb more stingers than an infantryman could carry. Then they'd rain down about 16 missiles at once and carpet bomb a whole map section.
Real fun that was.
ACF could use some mobility entities for aircraft to standardize and properly balance aircraft. Make them have forced weight limits, speed limits that scale with weight, non instant response times, and possibly even throw in armor limits. No UFOs, super sonic jets, and 60 ton flying nuclear missile salvos.
After seeing ACF combat I heavily restricted aircraft's limits in my own mod and included movement entities for all allowed vehicle types so that balance may be maintained. It might be somewhat harder in ACF since ACF mobility is based on an entirely different method of control than my own, but with some creativity rotors, jet turbines, and other parts could be added and required for aircraft that would simulate flight through Lua and physics rather than leaving it all up to an E2. These could also take up certain amounts of weight like how tanks have to pay for mobility through heavy engines.[/QUOTE]
This is the same shit I was saying all along. I didn't like using E2 to build my aircraft, it takes a lot of the fun out in working out its mechanics, and results in aircraft that don't perform authentically. So, I made helicopters using Fins powered by ACF engines, gearboxes and fuel; and in the end I only used E2 for attitude control (Thrusters are too lame, swashplates are beyond my comprehension - plus they'd have been awful to attempt to create with the configuration I always used). They were on average much laggier than any other aircraft though, and always a million times less effective - Anything built to counter aircraft in any way were done so to compensate for retardedly powerful E2s that don't lose any function from the destruction of components other than baseplate or weapons/ammo, unless its creator went out of their way to tell the E2 "Hey if this wing dies, fuck me up fam".
Standardised propulsion for aircraft would solve so much shit it's unreal. On one side of the coin, it means aircraft can't perform way beyond what their design would actually allow, and require smart construction. On the other, it stops madmen like me getting two wheels to spin a pair of parented blades fast enough to get the thing off the ground, instead any Fin rotor can be replaced with a single animated model, with its parameters more easily manipulable, and simpler to set up by the builder than trying to unlock fin's mysteries and attempting to avoid giving the server a hernia. It also means the functionality of a swashplate can be built-in.
This all rolls back into the idea of vehicle "cores", an entity that that has editable attributes and also "classifies" the vehicle based on armour thickness weight HP per ton etc.
This "core" could let you specify things such as vehicle wheels/tracks, lift surfaces etc. (Dealing with thrust from engines to specified "props")
You can probs think up the rest at this point, all came under the thought of standardisation.
[QUOTE=shadowboy303;51942597]This all rolls back into the idea of vehicle "cores", an entity that that has editable attributes and also "classifies" the vehicle based on armour thickness weight HP per ton etc.
This "core" could let you specify things such as vehicle wheels/tracks, lift surfaces etc. (Dealing with thrust from engines to specified "props")
You can probs think up the rest at this point, all came under the thought of standardisation.[/QUOTE]
i almost want to say just make the engine the core but then i remembered most people use a pretty ridiculous linked-crankshaft double V12's in a T configuration
Just going to reiterate that while wing death is easy to do linking the wings to actual maneuverability would be pretty hard. Doing so would require at the very least some kind of center of lift calculations, and wings are usually not constructed of one prop so you have to find the lift of the entire wing assembly through some non-arbitrary method as well. In addition to that some kind of center of lift visualizer would also be needed or else I dont think people would want to try to make a flyable aircraft through trial and error.
Sure you could make some kind of prefab wing system but I feel that because wings are such an important part of an an aircraft, a decent selection of wing types would be ideal.
Hey people, I'm having problems with the automatic gearboxes. What are the "Upshift Speed" settings based on? Motor RPM? The real vehicle speed? Because even if I set upshift speeds of 10, 30 and 50, the gearbox shifts up early, when the vehicle is moving at around 15kph. If I increase those values too much, it doesn't shift anymore.
Also, do anyone know what "Shift Speed Scale" does? Increasing it doesn't seem to do anything.
[QUOTE=mecaguy03;51952553]Just going to reiterate that while wing death is easy to do linking the wings to actual maneuverability would be pretty hard. Doing so would require at the very least some kind of center of lift calculations, and wings are usually not constructed of one prop so you have to find the lift of the entire wing assembly through some non-arbitrary method as well. In addition to that some kind of center of lift visualizer would also be needed or else I dont think people would want to try to make a flyable aircraft through trial and error.
Sure you could make some kind of prefab wing system but I feel that because wings are such an important part of an an aircraft, a decent selection of wing types would be ideal.[/QUOTE]
I think delta wing and rectangular wing (or maybe tapered with a little taper ratio) would be enough. Then you can just hinge them backwards or forwards to make swept wings or things like that.
The center of pressure of each wing could be easily calculated like this:
[t]http://redlineremotecontrol.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/aero22.gif[/t]
A point at 25% of length of Mean Chord from the leading edge (front edge of the wing).
The coordinate centre could be put there and lift would be applied on it.
Then Lift changes based on speed and angle of attack (betwen path and plane axis to make it simple), but if we want to make it behave differently at different speeds based on wing geometry, a calculation of angle betwen leading edge and flight path or adding more different models would be required.
For example: swept wings perform best at high speeds and kinda bad at low speeds.
But we could just say "fuck it" and make the wings just generate lift, since gmod and muh tiny maps.
[U]This has probably already been suggested so I apologise if it has already, I skimmed over the other pages to see if it has and the other thread is obviously massive.[/U]
When it comes to the fire rate of weapons, do you think it would be possible to create a slider for the Rate of fire, similar to how Projectile Length and Propellant work? It would calculate the maximum rate of fire like it does at the moment but allows you to lower it, I know at the moment you can just stick on a sequence E2 to slow it down but it was just an idea and thought i would at least voice it on here.. The only issue I can see with it is the Crew fire-rate bonus, and I haven't got the slightest idea when it comes to coding the features.. The only reason I'm asking is that the HMG I've got atm is up to 1046 rounds a minute when it was supposed to be a slow firing gun, I'm not sure if anybody else would see this being a helpful idea but yeah..
snip, misread
Were turbines nerfed sometime in the past year or so? Been ages since I actually used one, and I tried putting one in a tank for the first time today (a medium transaxial turbine - not the ground gas turbine, just standard). The main thing I noticed was they seem to rev up [I]abysmally[/I] slow now, as opposed to how they could get up to speed in ~10-15 seconds before. Also seems like they don't have as much power, but that could just be me.
On an unrelated note, why do small transfer cases/differentials seem to slip even when the engine setup is well within the max torque rating? I've confirmed this happens on multiple tanks - on a setup with a large gearbox with 2 transfer cases on the sides to allow pivoting, if I use small transfer cases, on some tanks it'll slip and be extremely hard to turn (The engines [I]do[/I] have enough power to turn the tank). As I switch them to medium and then to large transfer cases, the problem goes away entirely. Is this intentional or some kind of bug?
[QUOTE=Guy123;51983982]Were turbines nerfed sometime in the past year or so? Been ages since I actually used one, and I tried putting one in a tank for the first time today (a medium transaxial turbine - not the ground gas turbine, just standard). The main thing I noticed was they seem to rev up [I]abysmally[/I] slow now, as opposed to how they could get up to speed in ~10-15 seconds before. Also seems like they don't have as much power, but that could just be me.
On an unrelated note, why do small transfer cases/differentials seem to slip even when the engine setup is well within the max torque rating? I've confirmed this happens on multiple tanks - on a setup with a large gearbox with 2 transfer cases on the sides to allow pivoting, if I use small transfer cases, on some tanks it'll slip and be extremely hard to turn (The engines [I]do[/I] have enough power to turn the tank). As I switch them to medium and then to large transfer cases, the problem goes away entirely. Is this intentional or some kind of bug?[/QUOTE]
Are you referring to the transfer cases you have coming off the main transmission that are slipping? If so, ensure that the final drive of the main box is 1; this is because anything lower would further multiply torque from the engine and probably end up outputting too much, leading to slip from the transfer cases. In general, do all of your reduction on the very last gearbox on the drivetrain, letting the gearbox only switch gears.
Even doing this, you might just need to use medium transfer cases still. Actually, is there any reason you're not just using a single dual-clutch transaxial gearbox?
Hey ppl, I have a few questions. What is the balancing factor in HE filler volume? I mean, why someone would want to use less volume in a shell? Also, aren't HEAT supposed to be more penetrative than AP? I tried with the smallest short cannon and the AP shells could almost double the penetration of a HEAT shell.
[QUOTE=MaxShadow;51986675]Hey ppl, I have a few questions. What is the balancing factor in HE filler volume? I mean, why someone would want to use less volume in a shell? Also, aren't HEAT supposed to be more penetrative than AP? I tried with the smallest short cannon and the AP shells could almost double the penetration of a HEAT shell.[/QUOTE]
Depends:
APHE: Less filler means more pen.
HE: Less filler (I think) means more fragmentation.
And as for HEAT, heat is supposed to be bad on small calibers. It doesn't have enough space for enough explosive filler to match the performance of AP which was somewhat the case irl.
[QUOTE=MrWhite;51986453]Are you referring to the transfer cases you have coming off the main transmission that are slipping? If so, ensure that the final drive of the main box is 1; this is because anything lower would further multiply torque from the engine and probably end up outputting too much, leading to slip from the transfer cases. In general, do all of your reduction on the very last gearbox on the drivetrain, letting the gearbox only switch gears.
Even doing this, you might just need to use medium transfer cases still. Actually, is there any reason you're not just using a single dual-clutch transaxial gearbox?[/QUOTE]
Oh shit I completely disregarded the fact that the torque would be multiplied, I feel dumb now as this issue has plagued me for over a year...
As for why I'm not just using a single dual clutch, I like being able to pivot steer by reversing one side of the tank.
[QUOTE=TheMrFailz;51986864]Depends:
APHE: Less filler means more pen.
HE: Less filler (I think) means more fragmentation.
And as for HEAT, heat is supposed to be bad on small calibers. It doesn't have enough space for enough explosive filler to match the performance of AP which was somewhat the case irl.[/QUOTE]
HE with less filler means heavier fragmentation, meaning each frag particle does more damage, more HE filler means lighter fragmentation but many more frag particles. The way armor works from my understanding is that the more outclassed a particle or shell's penetration value is by the armor it is trying to penetrate the less damage it actually does to the armor.
This means that heavy frag is better against heavier armor while just having max HE filler leads to more frag particles that would be better against lighter armor and absolutely decimate unarmored targets. Of course if you're looking to do more reasonable damage against heavy armor you're better off with APHE in the first place for that wonderful direct impact damage paired up with the low HE filler heavy frag and easier ability to set off ammo.
Also for HEAT just set the angle near 55 degrees and don't make the shell velocity too high and your HEAT rounds should have considerably better penetration than AP, especially on short cannons which have lower velocity in the first place.
[QUOTE=Dakota0001;52000098]HE with less filler means heavier fragmentation, meaning each frag particle does more damage, more HE filler means lighter fragmentation but many more frag particles. The way armor works from my understanding is that the more outclassed a particle or shell's penetration value is by the armor it is trying to penetrate the less damage it actually does to the armor.
This means that heavy frag is better against heavier armor while just having max HE filler leads to more frag particles that would be better against lighter armor and absolutely decimate unarmored targets. Of course if you're looking to do more reasonable damage against heavy armor you're better off with APHE in the first place for that wonderful direct impact damage paired up with the low HE filler heavy frag and easier ability to set off ammo.[/QUOTE]
In testing I found damage done to be more of a simple value based on how much energy is imparted by the shell. In practice, low calibers can still do damage when they have enough punch to them. Which is why you see AC spam being remarkably effective.
HE seems to work the same way, so feel free to max out that filler slider. Go ahead.
I've never personally seen a case where fragmentation actually mattered or whether it's even simulated by ACF
[QUOTE=Dakota0001;52000098]Also for HEAT just set the angle near 55 degrees and don't make the shell velocity too high and your HEAT rounds should have considerably better penetration than AP, especially on short cannons which have lower velocity in the first place.[/QUOTE]
50 degrees. HEAT can be at any velocity really, but using sub 500 m/s shell velocities forces you to arc the shell into the top of tanks where they're the weakest. Regardless, velocity does in fact matter to HEAT and can increase penetration power, but feel free to pick up a howtizer or shortcannon for the reduced weight or higher respective caliber.
