Jump to content

"Power to weight ratio" in relation to "terrain resistance"

  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

Dr_Oolen #21 Posted 18 July 2017 - 08:09 PM


  • Player
  • 23250 battles
  • 1,776
  • Member since:

View Posttmp, on 18 July 2017 - 07:57 PM, said:

One thing to take into account is traverse.  Grille has medium tank's power and resistance values, but it has a TD's traverse.  So it's probably going to feel pretty sluggish if you actually have to steer it while moving.  Need to test to actually tell for sure, of course, but this is a possibility.


It seems like siege mode TDs have one set of values for siege mode and other for drive mode.  But the game - OF COURSE - only shows you one set.



The siege mode having different values doesnt solve the problem, because the combination of what is fucked on those tds rules out those 2 sets of values being the problem.


The t9 traverses both in and outside of siege mode almost 50% slower than it "should", udes traverses "almost" as fast as it "should" outside of siege mode but much slower in siege mode and the t10 traverses exactly as it "should" in both modes.


grille/90b - sure the terrible hull traverses make them feel more sluggish, but id like to believe ive driven enough tanks enough times to be able to tell that those tanks are fucked by some hidden parameters. Its possible its all in my mind, but as i said - it simply doesnt add up based on my experience, when 20 hp/t tanks struggle to reach 45 km/h while 16 hp/t mediums with similar resistances reach their 50 kmh top speeds without any trouble.

gpalsson #22 Posted 18 July 2017 - 08:16 PM


  • Player
  • 23907 battles
  • 8,732
  • Member since:

View PostTinbawx, on 18 July 2017 - 06:58 PM, said:


How does WG like to put it again?


It might be to "confusing" for players. :trollface:

Something like that, yes haha

tmp #23 Posted 18 July 2017 - 08:37 PM


  • Player
  • 94789 battles
  • 175
  • Member since:

Quick unscientific testing with Grille shows that it struggles to reach 60 km/h, but E50M which is a medium with similar values tank _also_ struggles to reach 60 km/h.  Leopard 1 does it easily, but it has better resistance values.  Russian hovertanks are capped to 55 and, well, they are hovertanks.


I wonder if changing gears is purely cosmetic or if RPM has actually any effect on engine torgue; Grille changes gears at pretty unfortunate time.  Probably not, though.



Comparing Grille 15 to Object 140, after about (bit under) 40 km/h the Object actually has more engine power left for acceleration.  So yes, Russian hovertanks are _supposed_ to reach, say, 50 km/h much easier than Grille.




The formula may rather be something like this:  acceleration_power = (nominal_power - climbing_power) / terrain_resistance - constant * tank_velocity.


Thinking back, the tank with almost +100% engine power was only something like -25% faster on the climb and the magical T10 Russian hovertanks really do seem to perform rather too well unless they cheat somehow and double-deal their excellent terrain resistance.




It cannot be ONLY engine_power / terrain_resistance since stronger tanks DO climb faster.  There also has to be a braking force, since there ARE tanks that cannot reach their speed limit without going downhill, no matter how long they accelerate.  Also, the (constant * resistance * velocity) formula did work pretty well for determining the top speed of the tank for all the tanks I was able to test it on.




It's not that: tanks with higher engine power initally accelerate much faster from standstill, which is what you'd expect if terrain resistance does NOT directly add to engine power.  The hovertanks do still seem passing strange, but the work needed to accelerate rises in the square of the velocity so maybe it just seems so.




Edited by tmp, 19 July 2017 - 02:56 AM.

Ulfarr #24 Posted 18 July 2017 - 09:46 PM


  • Player
  • 26862 battles
  • 267
  • Member since:

Not sure if it was mentioned before, I just skimmed through the previus posts. 


I remember that there was a site tanknumbers or something like that (can't find it anymore) with a calculator where it show the terrain values and the effective PtW. Terrain resistance values below 1 did indeed  raise PtW beyond the nominal value which was also evident in practise as tanks with similar nominal ptw could have very different acceleration or very similar acceleration despite big differences on ptw. From my experience (mostly with the chinese tanks which rely on their terrain resistance) it's better to have raw ptw because despite their good behavior on flat grounds they tend to struggle when trying to climb anything.

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users