Jump to content


Dispersion values are 3 times worse than claimed.

Proof

  • Please log in to reply
110 replies to this topic

Dava_117 #101 Posted 13 September 2019 - 11:26 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 22312 battles
  • 4,704
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View PostDorander, on 13 September 2019 - 11:05 PM, said:

 

Not sure if there IS such a thing as maximum shooting distance. It's tricky to determine because the game calculates shot elevation independently of the player's aim point. From https://wiki.wargami...s#Draw_Distance we know that the maximum rendering circle is 564m. It's possible, but really tricky, to hit players beyond that range if they're spotted and you make an educated guess (plus a straight line on the minimap) to make a solid guess where they are. Most games in my experience have their hits limited by the rendering distance and at some point the map design also becomes a factor as solid objects simply get in the way.

 

One thing of interest about this, is what happens if you aim at no target. Not too long ago something changed and people were complaining that their guns kept snapping up when they were in sniper mode and their target left their reticle. The reason was because the gun would be aiming at a point far beyond the map distance but I don't know if anyone has information about how far this range actually is. It does imply that you're theoretically capable of firing shells beyond the map size of 1000m.

 

Such a distance actually exist. 

Autocannons shoot up to 400m (like Pz1C or Luchs guns), normal guns up to 720m and arty limited by their shell velocity.

Guess the limit is there to reduce the computational power required, as shooting above the draw limit is quite hard they may have saved some resources adding those limits.


Edited by Dava_117, 13 September 2019 - 11:27 PM.


Dorander #102 Posted 13 September 2019 - 11:55 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 21025 battles
  • 5,767
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostDava_117, on 13 September 2019 - 10:26 PM, said:

 

Such a distance actually exist. 

Autocannons shoot up to 400m (like Pz1C or Luchs guns), normal guns up to 720m and arty limited by their shell velocity.

Guess the limit is there to reduce the computational power required, as shooting above the draw limit is quite hard they may have saved some resources adding those limits.

 

Thanks. Mind if I ask where you got this information?



Baldrickk #103 Posted 14 September 2019 - 02:11 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 32165 battles
  • 16,471
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View PostDorander, on 13 September 2019 - 11:55 PM, said:

 

Thanks. Mind if I ask where you got this information?

I was about to say the same. 

Various sources, including WG multiple times over the years. 

For some reason I wanted to say 710m though... eh.

 

Shooting doesn't exactly add much to the performance requirements,  but yeah,  it's still an optimisation. 


Edited by Baldrickk, 14 September 2019 - 02:12 AM.


Dava_117 #104 Posted 14 September 2019 - 07:30 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 22312 battles
  • 4,704
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View PostDorander, on 13 September 2019 - 11:55 PM, said:

 

Thanks. Mind if I ask where you got this information?

 

The autocannon limit is exposed in game. Check the shells panel in garage and you should have the last penetration value listed at 400m and IIRC a warning about it. I also saw that happening in a replay. :D

 

For normal gun, I first found that on the ammo specs on armour inspector. I then did some testing and saw that there is really a shell flight cap. Can't say the exact value, as it's out of the render distance so there is no way to get an ingame measurement, but guess 720m is likely right.

 

For arty, armour inspector says 10000m as calculation limit. Have no way at all to prove that, tho... Guess is there just as a filler for the shell stat, as is likely bigger than all the shell trajectory...

 

Edit

Can't also say if it's a limit in shell trajectory length or is based just on the horizontal displacement. If the first is true, then shell speed plays a role in the effective maximum range.


Edited by Dava_117, 14 September 2019 - 07:33 AM.


Vela_ZG #105 Posted 14 September 2019 - 09:30 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 27859 battles
  • 735
  • [CBS87] CBS87
  • Member since:
    10-09-2013
Ok, so about the reticle size... It should be determined by the dispersion stat of the gun multiplied by max max shell flight / rendering distance. That way no shells can fly out of it.

Edited by Vela_ZG, 14 September 2019 - 09:33 AM.


Dorander #106 Posted 14 September 2019 - 10:04 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 21025 battles
  • 5,767
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostVela_ZG, on 14 September 2019 - 08:30 AM, said:

Ok, so about the reticle size... It should be determined by the dispersion stat of the gun multiplied by max max shell flight / rendering distance. That way no shells can fly out of it.

 

Why incorporate rendering distance into the consideration? Isn't the basic assumption that the reticle indicates where shells can actually go, not where they can be rendered to actually go? If I fire at a target out of rendering range the shell lands somewhere within what the dispersion at that range allows even if I can't see it land. Maybe I need coffee but I don't see it atm.



4nt #107 Posted 14 September 2019 - 10:08 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 28845 battles
  • 1,432
  • Member since:
    04-09-2013
One thing jumped yesterday when playing, in 3rd person cam the reticle changes size according to aim point. Noted as I circled around an VK 75, on autoaim the initial aim was due gun depression constraint on turret but when I got to level the reticle shrank a bit as it set on The side of The tank. Maybe Look at the 3rd person also?

Vela_ZG #108 Posted 14 September 2019 - 10:13 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 27859 battles
  • 735
  • [CBS87] CBS87
  • Member since:
    10-09-2013
Dorander you are right. The reticle size is determined by the dispersion value of the gun at maximum distance the shell can hit or is being rendered. It's so the shells wouldn't fly out of it. I believe it's done like that so it wouldn't be too large as it doesn't need to show where shells can actually fall out of render distance because we can't see it anyway.

Edited by Vela_ZG, 14 September 2019 - 10:14 AM.


protonicreduction #109 Posted 16 September 2019 - 11:51 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 2655 battles
  • 9
  • [25001] 25001
  • Member since:
    07-15-2019
i agree.
the dispersion data in no way reflects reality.
i can give an instance.
Ikv 103, dispersion per 100mt=.54, as i understand it thats just over half a meter per 100metres.
so, sat still aiming at a 0-1 Exp from 200mt approx, dispersion ought to be 1.08 mt either direction, giving a total error maximum of 2.16mt up/down or side/side
an O-1 Exp is 4 or 5 metres high (i cant recal exactly it was some time i worked this out) and 10 metres long, its sat  angled at approx 45 degrees, but that still presents a width of around 6-7 meters.
i can see the entire silhouette in my sites, nothing is hidden or behind cover, the width of the turret is 3 or 4 meters.
it is only 200 meters away, yet my fully rested reticle encircled the entire tank.

thats a 3to5 meter dispersion at 200 metres. nothing like the half a meter specified, its up to 5 times that amount.
as the reticle shows the dispersion rate should be recorded as 2.5 metres per 100 meters.

needless to say i totally missed the shot as the game mechanics rigged it so my shot found a gap. because that is what the game appears to do, completely wonks aim in one game for almost every shot and leaves them pretty much accurate in another.
i guess its to keep the coiners happy with plenty wins, but if the game had reliable trustworthy mechanics more would choose to pay to play it?
the dispersion specifications do not reflect reality, the distances can be verified by the minimap squares.

or at least it could be if i could upload a screenshot or link to lighshot, i dont have the screenshots stored online.

some may say well its the crew training levels blah blah, but I AM THE GUNNER! any errors by the 'gunner' should only be those i make with the given specifications of the tank.

anything else leaves it to speculation about match rigging and mechanics fudging

 

Baldrickk #110 Posted 17 September 2019 - 01:19 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 32165 battles
  • 16,471
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View Postprotonicreduction, on 16 September 2019 - 11:51 PM, said:

i agree.
the dispersion data in no way reflects reality.
i can give an instance.
Ikv 103, dispersion per 100mt=.54, as i understand it thats just over half a meter per 100metres.
so, sat still aiming at a 0-1 Exp from 200mt approx, dispersion ought to be 1.08 mt either direction, giving a total error maximum of 2.16mt up/down or side/side
an O-1 Exp is 4 or 5 metres high (i cant recal exactly it was some time i worked this out) and 10 metres long, its sat  angled at approx 45 degrees, but that still presents a width of around 6-7 meters.
i can see the entire silhouette in my sites, nothing is hidden or behind cover, the width of the turret is 3 or 4 meters.
it is only 200 meters away, yet my fully rested reticle encircled the entire tank.

thats a 3to5 meter dispersion at 200 metres. nothing like the half a meter specified, its up to 5 times that amount.
as the reticle shows the dispersion rate should be recorded as 2.5 metres per 100 meters.

needless to say i totally missed the shot as the game mechanics rigged it so my shot found a gap. because that is what the game appears to do, completely wonks aim in one game for almost every shot and leaves them pretty much accurate in another.
i guess its to keep the coiners happy with plenty wins, but if the game had reliable trustworthy mechanics more would choose to pay to play it?
the dispersion specifications do not reflect reality, the distances can be verified by the minimap squares.

or at least it could be if i could upload a screenshot or link to lighshot, i dont have the screenshots stored online.

some may say well its the crew training levels blah blah, but I AM THE GUNNER! any errors by the 'gunner' should only be those i make with the given specifications of the tank.

anything else leaves it to speculation about match rigging and mechanics fudging

 

Replay, or it didn't happen. 



Dorander #111 Posted 17 September 2019 - 10:06 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 21025 battles
  • 5,767
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View Postprotonicreduction, on 16 September 2019 - 10:51 PM, said:

needless to say i totally missed the shot as the game mechanics rigged it so my shot found a gap. 

 

So what you're saying is, that this gap, which going by your story was within your reticle, was where your shell went and that is rigged, because it should've been impossible for your shell to go to a place underneath your reticle? Which is to say, the shell should've been forced by the game to go anywhere else than this otherwise completely legit position?

 

See when you post conclusions like this, all it means is that you want the game to be rigged in your favour so that improbable things don't happen. It would be mightily suspicious if this never happened, that it did happen on this occasion that you happen to remember because I'm guessing it was really irritating at the time, is not evidence of the mechanics not working consistently or not being trustworthy. It falls within the described mechanics of shot dispersion. No rigging. No fudging.

 

The question about your situation as it relates the actual topic of this thread, which revealed a common misconception about the aiming circle and the meaning of its size, has no bearing on your story of where the shell landed. The only thing that matters is if your aiming circle is consistently the same size when fully aimed at a target of consistent distance. The shell will then land anywhere within your aiming circle, and if your shell flies through a gap, it'll land further away where you have a higher effective dispersion value within your aiming circle because the aiming circle is the same size regardless of where you point it at.

 

People doing actual tests with multiple shots in this thread revealed that the cluster of shots is far tighter than the size of the aiming circle suggests and seems to behave consistently with the dispersion values of the gun. It's just the visual aid of the reticle that's not useful in representing what your accuracy actually is, it doesn't mean the mechanics don't work.







Also tagged with Proof

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users