Jump to content


Question!: Armor that doesent exist?


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

Search_Warrant #1 Posted 01 November 2017 - 04:40 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 25990 battles
  • 5,333
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011

Is it possible that WG are allowed to get away with lieing about a tanks armor? for instance, the Thunderbolt:

Spoiler

As you can see the lowest part of the tank there is a bolted on plate attached to the spaced bottom plate covering most of the LFP from above.

 

but when you see this in armor model:

Spoiler

The bottom spaced plate doesent actually exist as it should. below half of the blue spaced armor exists. it should cover to the "bolted" part to the ending blue part as a slab of spaced armor! but it doesent...

 

Also something that also adds to the fact this is VERY wierd and defies physics.

Spoiler

Its floating.... its not even attached to the tank itself....WG have some seriously terrible armor modelers.

 

 

So as i said. What you visually see and purchase is what you expect to get right? (if tanksgg and such dident exist) is that technically lieing to customers? couldent they sell any tank that looks armored to hell and back but half the "armor plates" are missing or half modeled with holes in it, could WG actually get away with selling you this? just an odd and worrying thought.



tajj7 #2 Posted 01 November 2017 - 04:46 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 24391 battles
  • 13,836
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

There is no plate there, that is just the armour of the hull round the transmission. 

 

I don't think the real tank had any extra armour there either, probably because IRL hits there would unlikely to injure the crew. 



Search_Warrant #3 Posted 01 November 2017 - 04:50 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 25990 battles
  • 5,333
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011

View Posttajj7, on 01 November 2017 - 03:46 PM, said:

There is no plate there, that is just the armour of the hull round the transmission. 

 

I don't think the real tank had any extra armour there either, probably because IRL hits there would unlikely to injure the crew. 

 

Looks to be a giant slab leading to the bolted plate. doesent look to break off before that point and im pretty sure no plate in history was floating just above the LFP. :trollface:

Derethim #4 Posted 01 November 2017 - 04:52 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 16434 battles
  • 1,717
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012
It's obviously done in a hurry/lazily done and that's nothing new.

Aikl #5 Posted 01 November 2017 - 05:02 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25141 battles
  • 4,049
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

I find it more interesting that whether spare track links count as spaced armor is entirely up to chance or "balancing". Well, it's kind of obviously a balancing thing; the Panther/M10's armor model didn't include the add-on plates until the buff for instance, and IS-3 got track links on the beak because it was weak and needed buffs.

 

(I mean, straight-up borking armor models isn't new.)


Edited by Aikl, 01 November 2017 - 05:10 PM.


leggasiini #6 Posted 01 November 2017 - 05:03 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 9696 battles
  • 5,828
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

There is also the Pz IV Schalturm (or what the heck it is even called) that actually did not have those sideskirts modeled on it at all - despite that, WG actually even advertised it something like this "The sideskirts acts as an extra protection against HE shells and splashes!". They actually physically lied there. At least it has the side skirts modeled now, but still.

 

There is clearly a big sloped plate modeled on it yet only the tip is part of actual collision model. 



FluffyRedFox #7 Posted 01 November 2017 - 05:13 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 21566 battles
  • 7,703
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    12-05-2012
Didn't take long for you to make a Thunderbolt thread did it :trollface:

brumbarr #8 Posted 01 November 2017 - 05:17 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,299
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

They arent lying here as they arent making any claims regardign the armor that arent factually incorrect.

In this paricular case i dont see anythign wrong, where the extra armor plate touches the hull they made the hull thickness higher and where it goes away from the hull the had to model it as some spaced armor. THe plate is there, just not in the way you think.

Also, ofcourse its floating, the armor in this game has no thickness, its a 2D plane. So you hvae to decide wether to put that 2D plan in the bottom or upper  side of the real life armor plate. 



UrQuan #9 Posted 01 November 2017 - 05:28 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 19049 battles
  • 5,809
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

The 'floaty' armor modelling isn't new tho. KV-4 pre HD had the same thing going. The tracks weren't attached to the hull, there was a narrow gap between them (not narrow as in barely visible, but as in: plain to see) as shown below:

This flaw got fixed with the HD update.

 

With that said, the extra metal plate is indeed very weirdly modeled on the Thunderbolt armor model. Looking at the rest of the model, it seems they treated the slab as the spaced armor protection like the light blue sections, despite the dark blue being a massive slab of steel instead of spaced armor on the visual model.

With that out the way, if you look at it side on, the visual model & armor model don't overlap; the armor model front is slightly inward compared to the visual model (except the dark blue part where it does overlap the visual plate)

 

Honestly tho, in practically almost any case, the difference is negligible to non-existent. Only under some freakish circumstances it would matter.


Edited by UrQuan, 01 November 2017 - 05:33 PM.


Search_Warrant #10 Posted 01 November 2017 - 05:28 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 25990 battles
  • 5,333
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011
Id just make it a spaced plate as it visually is. rather than making a gaping hole in the armor and a point where you can hit the LFP above/frontally when you should hit the spaced armor first. its a right mess of a model.

UrQuan #11 Posted 01 November 2017 - 05:39 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 19049 battles
  • 5,809
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

View PostSearch_Warrant, on 01 November 2017 - 05:28 PM, said:

Id just make it a spaced plate as it visually is. rather than making a gaping hole in the armor and a point where you can hit the LFP above/frontally when you should hit the spaced armor first. its a right mess of a model.

 

The fun thing is that the visual model *fills in the gap*. The actual front armor model is slightly more back then the visual model, save for the dark blue part (where i agree they missed rendering the top of that armor plate). This is because they used the bottom of the bolted-on armor as base instead of the top, leading to the weird issue with the dark blue plate.

If they had modeled the armor model using the top of the bolted-on armor in the visual, the dark blue plate wouldn't be hanging so lonely in the air.

So yes, the way they handled that dark blue part is messy.



brumbarr #12 Posted 01 November 2017 - 05:47 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,299
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostSearch_Warrant, on 01 November 2017 - 05:28 PM, said:

Id just make it a spaced plate as it visually is. rather than making a gaping hole in the armor and a point where you can hit the LFP above/frontally when you should hit the spaced armor first. its a right mess of a model.

 

But its not really spaced armor though is it, as there is not space between the armor and the hull, its bolted on, not spaced. So increasing the thcikness of the hull instead of moddeling spaced armor is in fact correct , as is threatign the bottom as spaced armor sicne that is actualle spaced.  This is the best way really to represent that plate.

Search_Warrant #13 Posted 01 November 2017 - 05:59 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 25990 battles
  • 5,333
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011

View Postbrumbarr, on 01 November 2017 - 04:47 PM, said:

 

But its not really spaced armor though is it, as there is not space between the armor and the hull, its bolted on, not spaced. So increasing the thcikness of the hull instead of moddeling spaced armor is in fact correct , as is threatign the bottom as spaced armor sicne that is actualle spaced.  This is the best way really to represent that plate.

 

Dunno, the top part looks like its bolted on but its a seperate plate not fully bolted on? as it looks to flow over the LFP area. cant see any bolts or welding done as it goes down.

 

Edit: id have made it spaced slab up untill the bolted area and that can be a "raw thickness" part of the armor.


Edited by Search_Warrant, 01 November 2017 - 06:00 PM.


brumbarr #14 Posted 01 November 2017 - 06:26 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,299
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostSearch_Warrant, on 01 November 2017 - 05:59 PM, said:

 

Dunno, the top part looks like its bolted on but its a seperate plate not fully bolted on? as it looks to flow over the LFP area. cant see any bolts or welding done as it goes down.

 

Edit: id have made it spaced slab up untill the bolted area and that can be a "raw thickness" part of the armor.

 

yeah, the bottom part is also bolted on in some way I guess, or welded, idk, they didnt model that. But in any case its flush with the armor untill the armor starts curvign down. Making it spaced misrepresents the armor and would be less accurate than now.

 

I dont see what the issue is anyway? It might look weird but it performs as advertised anyway.



Gremlin182 #15 Posted 01 November 2017 - 06:34 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 45420 battles
  • 7,526
  • Member since:
    04-18-2012

2 things to always check because tank stats are often misleading.

 

Armour the stated armour value is the maximum so if they say frontal hull armour 100mm it may well be that much of the frontal armour is considerably less than 100mm but there will be one spot however small that is 100mm.

 

Speed the stated speed of a tank does not always indicate that the tank can actually reach that speed in a game.

 

Really they should state the average armour and the realistic in game speed but if they did they wouldn't sell the tank in the same numbers.

 

caveat emptor



Search_Warrant #16 Posted 01 November 2017 - 06:36 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 25990 battles
  • 5,333
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011
Accuracy of a tank? jumbo doesent even have its mini gun port as a weak spot, not even modeled. i cant take anything in this game as "accurate" or "historial"

Edited by Search_Warrant, 01 November 2017 - 06:37 PM.


brumbarr #17 Posted 01 November 2017 - 06:37 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,299
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostSearch_Warrant, on 01 November 2017 - 06:36 PM, said:

Accuracy of a tank? jumbo doesent even have its mini gun port as a weak spot, not even modeled. i cant take anything in this game as "accurate" or "historial"

 

so why are you then complaing about the armour model not being accurate.... ffs

Search_Warrant #18 Posted 01 November 2017 - 06:41 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 25990 battles
  • 5,333
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011

View Postbrumbarr, on 01 November 2017 - 05:37 PM, said:

 

so why are you then complaing about the armour model not being accurate.... ffs

 

Because its a phycial armor point thats covering a weak spot. its a main frontal armor piece used at all times when facing other tanks, the tank is literally made to be more durable but then dont give it the correct plating. at last the gun port is modeled right (even if i do find it BS). but that armor plate is a big part of the front and should be fixed.

brumbarr #19 Posted 01 November 2017 - 06:57 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,299
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

View PostSearch_Warrant, on 01 November 2017 - 06:41 PM, said:

 

Because its a phycial armor point thats covering a weak spot. its a main frontal armor piece used at all times when facing other tanks, the tank is literally made to be more durable but then dont give it the correct plating. at last the gun port is modeled right (even if i do find it BS). but that armor plate is a big part of the front and should be fixed.

what?  the spaced armor is covering the main hull( that is weaker than the rest) but with that spaced armor its not a weakspot anymore, so all in all that spot is just as effective frontally a the rest of the plate. I really dont see what the problem is?

 



Search_Warrant #20 Posted 01 November 2017 - 07:07 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 25990 battles
  • 5,333
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011

View Postbrumbarr, on 01 November 2017 - 05:57 PM, said:

what?  the spaced armor is covering the main hull( that is weaker than the rest) but with that spaced armor its not a weakspot anymore, so all in all that spot is just as effective frontally a the rest of the plate. I really dont see what the problem is?

 

 

There is a reason WG reverted Spershing changes. 2 plates and spaced armor then the main hull.  they changed it from 1 spaced armor and increased hull thickness back to 2 plates again. now imagine the lower plate section being taken off. this is whats wrong. they took off armor where it should be. there is a hole in the armor for god sakes. ITS FLOATING! there is no physical armor on that, that is shaped like the armor shown in the armor model. its wrong.

 

Took them god knows how many years to fix the Pz.Kpfw. IV Schmalturm!


Edited by Search_Warrant, 01 November 2017 - 07:08 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users