Jump to content


IS-M armor model


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

zero_fox_given #1 Posted 25 May 2018 - 01:04 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 3222 battles
  • 98
  • Member since:
    03-23-2018

https://tanks.gg/tank/is-m/model

notice the gun mantlet, there is strip of ZERO FOX...err, zero mm of armor

apart from that the gun mantlet is just 250mm spaced armor with nothing behind it

today i was penned trough the mantlet like 3-4 times in 10 battles....

 

i thing this tank was supposed to be the "superheavy" class, it turns like a ship but armor is worse than IS-3



speedphlux #2 Posted 25 May 2018 - 01:06 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 42029 battles
  • 1,681
  • [TZAR] TZAR
  • Member since:
    01-28-2011
Every VK 7201 K driver will sympathize you.

clixor #3 Posted 25 May 2018 - 01:06 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 49954 battles
  • 2,979
  • Member since:
    08-07-2011
Are you sure you were hit on the 0mm part. Other parts of the mantlet are 250mm.. Not unpennable with high pen guns.

Steffin #4 Posted 25 May 2018 - 01:09 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 23473 battles
  • 345
  • [WOOF] WOOF
  • Member since:
    09-06-2011
the model seems wrong. the gun is off center

Geno1isme #5 Posted 25 May 2018 - 01:11 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 40894 battles
  • 6,751
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013
Looks more like another case of tanks.gg no longer being able to process the models correctly since 1.0, as the whole gun appears to be shifted to the left (the hybrid model shows it clearly)

Edited by Geno1isme, 25 May 2018 - 01:12 PM.


Aikl #6 Posted 25 May 2018 - 01:17 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25150 battles
  • 4,200
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostGeno1isme, on 25 May 2018 - 12:11 PM, said:

Looks more like another case of tanks.gg no longer being able to process the models correctly since 1.0, as the whole gun appears to be shifted to the left (the hybrid model shows it clearly)

 

My bet as well. Also, 250mm is just a good roll for a 225mm-pen gun.

firelars4 #7 Posted 25 May 2018 - 01:18 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 41476 battles
  • 107
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    02-04-2013

View Postzero_fox_given, on 25 May 2018 - 01:04 PM, said:

i thing this tank was supposed to be the "superheavy" class, it turns like a ship but armor is worse than IS-3

 

It's not a super heavy. Things like the VK 100 01 P and O-Ho are (arguably mauerbrecher, KV-4 and KV-5 aswell) . There are not a whole lot of super heavies at tier 8 anyway, If you want a superheavy you're better off with tier 9 or 10. 



Tankyouverymuch2 #8 Posted 25 May 2018 - 01:18 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 28659 battles
  • 792
  • [VRTC] VRTC
  • Member since:
    09-13-2013

The actual in-game model might be bugged in that case... Visually, the gun mantlet is properly positioned, but on the hitbox model it's shifted to the side, revealing a gap of 0mm armor. I took screenshots:

 



zero_fox_given #9 Posted 25 May 2018 - 01:22 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 3222 battles
  • 98
  • Member since:
    03-23-2018

View PostGeno1isme, on 25 May 2018 - 01:11 PM, said:

Looks more like another case of tanks.gg no longer being able to process the models correctly ...

 

is is so?

there were cases where the armor model was wrong in game i recall.

 

and i dont recall any community contributor complaining about the armor, like oposite, everyone was praising it...

View PostTankyouverymuch2, on 25 May 2018 - 01:18 PM, said:

The actual in-game model might be bugged in that case... Visually, the gun mantlet is properly positioned, but on the hitbox model it's shifted to the side, revealing a gap of 0mm armor. I took screenshots:

ah, ty kind sir, i dont have means to test this in game....



zero_fox_given #10 Posted 25 May 2018 - 01:27 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 3222 battles
  • 98
  • Member since:
    03-23-2018
its fuked up, look at foches review of this tank, there was originally 250mm frontally
https://youtu.be/yN3st2RsriI?t=2m39s

Geno1isme #11 Posted 25 May 2018 - 01:27 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 40894 battles
  • 6,751
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013

View Postzero_fox_given, on 25 May 2018 - 02:22 PM, said:

is is so?

there were cases where the armor model was wrong in game i recall.

 

Could be, but we know for sure that tanks.gg has issues with the armor models recently (e.g. they are missing completely for the Italian branch).

Edited by Geno1isme, 25 May 2018 - 01:28 PM.


Tankyouverymuch2 #12 Posted 25 May 2018 - 02:14 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 28659 battles
  • 792
  • [VRTC] VRTC
  • Member since:
    09-13-2013

View PostGeno1isme, on 25 May 2018 - 01:27 PM, said:

Could be, but we know for sure that tanks.gg has issues with the armor models recently (e.g. they are missing completely for the Italian branch).

 

Sure, but isn't it really odd to have the hitbox model be wrong, while the visual model is fine, just for this one specific recently-introduced tank? I think it really is bugged.

 

View Postzero_fox_given, on 25 May 2018 - 01:27 PM, said:

its fuked up, look at foches review of this tank, there was originally 250mm frontally
https://youtu.be/yN3st2RsriI?t=2m39s

 

That's from patch 9.22 though, and the model looks fine. Seems update 1.0 somehow screwed it up.

 

BIG EDIT: Took screenshots from multiple patches on tanks.gg, seems the problem appeared in patch 1.0.1, also for some reason I can't upload directly from my PC...I'll put the pics in the Spoiler.

 

Spoiler

 


Edited by Tankyouverymuch2, 25 May 2018 - 02:35 PM.


Geno1isme #13 Posted 25 May 2018 - 02:48 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 40894 battles
  • 6,751
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013

View PostTankyouverymuch2, on 25 May 2018 - 03:14 PM, said:

Sure, but isn't it really odd to have the hitbox model be wrong, while the visual model is fine, just for this one specific recently-introduced tank? I think it really is bugged.

 

Well, do you know for sure that it's only this tank? Also visual and armor models are two independent things. Should be fairly trivial to test though in a training room, just let a T1 (or any other low-tier gun) shoot that spot. If he pens you it's a bug in the actual model.

Edited by Geno1isme, 25 May 2018 - 02:48 PM.


Tankyouverymuch2 #14 Posted 25 May 2018 - 02:51 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 28659 battles
  • 792
  • [VRTC] VRTC
  • Member since:
    09-13-2013

View PostGeno1isme, on 25 May 2018 - 02:48 PM, said:

Well, do you know for sure that it's only this tank? Also visual and armor models are two independent things. Should be fairly trivial to test though in a training room, just let a T1 (or any other low-tier gun) shoot that spot. If he pens you it's a bug in the actual model.

 

I haven't researched the top turret yet, otherwise I would've asked a clanmate to help out. :trollface:

 

Though having said that, the gun is improperly positioned on the stock turret aswell. :unsure: I noticed this while taking the screenshots...I might go ask for help now.

 

Edit: nope, the 0mm spot on the stock turret is there, but it's miniscule... I can try to get an autoloader to shoot there...


Edited by Tankyouverymuch2, 25 May 2018 - 02:58 PM.


leggasiini #15 Posted 25 May 2018 - 07:25 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 10633 battles
  • 5,960
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

IS-M is not the only vehicle that has a bugged collision model like this - another one is the Alecto, since 1.0 - the mantlet is floating up in the air.

 

The bugged model

 

You can hit an Alecto perfectly behind a cover like this

 

Just casually firing at nothing, which somehow damages the tank

 

 

Some nice troll at WG is likely intentionally screwing up these models. Alecto's model has been like that since 1.0 - and they did absolutely nothing to the tank in that patch. Similarly with the IS-M, nothing was done to it in patch 1.0.1, which introduced the bugged model.

 

These two are not the first screwups, though. Back in 2014, the M53/M55 collision model was horribly messed up, even more than the Alecto:

 

In action

 

Just like with the IS-M and Alecto, the M53/M55 collision model change was completely random, so it was widely suspected that it was intentional. Looks like the troll who was behind the M53/M55 collision model has returned.


Edited by leggasiini, 25 May 2018 - 07:25 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users