Storm is asking about physics

Posted on by

Source: http://world-of-kwg.livejournal.com/270824.html

Hello everyone,

once again, Storm is asking the players about their opinion, this time about physics. From the discussion:

- Storm states that the tank “rocking” when going over rails is realistic – as a proof, he shows this video, where even the Turkish Altay MBT is rocking when going over obstacles
- apparently, the amount of rocking when crossing rails will not be reduced, it’s realistic (Storm adds that the tanks in game don’t have hydrodynamic stabilized suspension)
- Storm states that the way the suspension is modelled, it has five elastic points (that interact with the ground), that prevent it from behaving like a “ski” (SS: this is probably the reason why independent suspension will not change tank movement – the points, simulating the wheel movement, are already there)
- Storm states that with the introduction of ingame physics, special tests were held on maps and they have not shown any significant changes in tank mobility (2-3 percent change)
- apparently the current loss of speed when turning the tank is realistic
- the fact you don’t take damage from ramming other objects than tanks is intentional
- apparently, tanks getting stuck on the anti-tank “dragon teeth” strip on Siegfried Line is sort of mixture of a bug and feature (Storm said that, Veider adds it’s simply a feature, after all the strips were designed to block tanks)
- the fact that you cannot create a one-man training room is there to protect the server from being overloaded by too many “training rooms” (SS: creating one training room takes as many server resources as running a full battle)
- the way the braking works in the game (SS: whenever you release the “gas”, the tank immediately stops instead of rolling forward for a while on “neutral”) was specifically and intentionally made to make the gamplay easier
- the situation where you are crossing a dune (SS: this is very noticable in Sand River), you park your vehicle on the top of it and it swings for a while is not a feature, it’s a bug, there was some solution for this by Wargaming, but in the end it did not work

And what is YOUR opinion on WoT physics? Write, you can even link screenshots :)

77 thoughts on “Storm is asking about physics”

  1. quote: “the fact that you cannot create a one-man training room is there to protect the server from being overloaded by too many “training rooms” (SS: creating one training room takes as many server resources as running a full battle)”

    So what about creating the ‘lonely room’ locally, on a selection of map downloaded on the client’s PC ?? I’m thinking about “Virtual Server” or “VMWare” : a “light server” (without MM) used on the client’s PC for lonely trainings…

      • Yes, it’ll be possible if the devs forgets to “put” an internal firewall to this “light server”. to block the incoming connections…

        Working in a IT Service, we had used this kind of “server” (VMWare) to test a software “in real condition” without bothering all the users…. and breaking the “production” server :-)

        • “creating one training room takes as many server resources as running a full battle”

          If only 1 player is in the room:
          Spotting calculations are ~0.
          Hit detection… well it’s too ~0.
          Damage calculation, only when the player jumps with his/her tank…
          Basically the server has to calculate nothing.

    • You do understand that current client as it’s provided is just like video player. Server calculates things and than streams data to client. If they were to add option to create one-man training rooms than they would have to provide whole software that does calculation with client, which would possibly make client size way bigger that it’s now. And making users download 20+ GB is not how WG works.

      • Make the download optional and there would be a lot of happy people finally being able to test all the maps, routes, places, bushes and hard to access spots without testing their friends patience.

        • you dont need that, just his password….run the game on two computers, log in with both of them…then create a room on one pc and invite the second pc to join….blah blah…you got the ideea…..

          one person can do that alone ;)

          alex

    • You do know this’d mean the game client would have to download the server calculations engine. That’s right, all the coefficient tables, camo formulas, everything WG worked so hard to keep concealed from the prying eyes of over-inquisitive players, laid bare for decryption. Not going to happen.

    • Then they need to add the ability to download a “Training room” where we can load our own and use our resources, hell this might alleviate strain.

  2. It would be good if you COULD create one man Training rooms if you want to test tanks. But why is it that when there are only 50 Training rooms shown at one time?

    • The tank has to be on a very tough surface to hold a 10+ ton vehicle like it is in the game currently. A rock will hold it, but sand or dirt wont.

    • True. Because sand is so hard, it will not give in an inch when a tank crosses the top of a dune.

      • So what should we do ? Render all the sand in full polygons as a semi-viscous fluid ? People bitch about FPS drop, wait until this kind of thing is implemented.

        • Meh, it would be enough to make it just like some sort of water which is already in game. Only little modifications would be needed to make various vehicles “sink” with different depth, like 10t class, 30t, 60t, 100t, 150+t or whatever they desire. Then probably a little modification would be needed to make invisible barriers for that water-like sand. And this same could be implemented with snow. Also, different areas would have different depths and there could be some indicator like it is in water, warning you that you are going into too deep sand/snow and if you go too deep, the end or at least engine would be knocked out and someone would have to knock you out of that depth. Add factor that moving in such sand/snow slows vehicles and you got yourself another nice gameplay element to plan around.

          What do you think about this?

  4. I would like that you take dmg even when you ram say a house in full speed.. if the house is a “solid” house and not a destructable one that is. The same with stones/mountains etc..

    Tanks flipping over from turning to fast etc will be a nice addition if it is added.

    Other than the two things mentioned i think the physics are fine.

    • I think it was possible to take damage by ramming objects during the first public physics test. Very few managed to make contact with the enemy while still having full HP. But that was long ago, so I’m probably wrong.

      • I think the tanks not getting damage is awesome, for example in sand river there is a spot with some houses and trees in the dunes (I don’t remember right now, maybe someone has noticed this) where there’s a rock behind a bush, and as I drive my T30 into position on the middle, I almost always hit that rock. The tank usually drives over it, but sometimes it stops completely, and that would be pretty lame if I was to be detracked there every single time.

  5. Overall I’m quite happy. One of my biggest niggles, that the tracks have too much traction against the ground was confirmed in the latest Q&A, so there’s that.

    With that, there should hopefully be some changes when it comes to climbing step hills. Rather than just stopping when hitting a specific angle, tanks with high-traction tracks such as the Churchills will keep climbing to reach new and exciting firing positions, while tanks with smooth tracks, the T-34 for example, will start spinning and sliding back down again.

  6. The physics seems to be decent enough, of course more realistic features such as spinning when the tracks loose traction which they seem to be planning to add, more realistic behaviour.

    And damn I would love if they at least added some jerking when the tank switches gears when they introduce the new tank driving model.
    The jerking of the tank could be balanced by that it happens less when the driver gets more experienced or that you do not loose any accuracy when it happens but just for appearance sake.

  7. The rails rocking is debatable, that tank had its cannon locked in a fix position.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h0-yfoi5PM

    It might be extremely modern, but WG never really hid the fact that they made aiming in WoT to handle like modern up to date tanks especially when they implemented the dynamic camera. You most likely can’t eliminate rocking entirely, but it sure wouldn’t be as exaggerated as in WoT even with dynamic camera on.

    • In tanks of that era rocking was much worse than what you have in WoT, obviously. Dynamic camera works as dual-plane stabilizer, a luxury unseen in WW2. So IRL guns of those tanks behaved exactly like that of Altai on the video.

    • I don’t have a problem with rocking over rails, that’s fairly realistic.

      What isn’t is when your tank drop between a pair of rails, and stops. dead.

      With tracks, even the momentum you have should take you over 2 inches of metal, with minimal loss in speed, I could understand it with wheels, and I guess that is why it happens, but the angled bit of the track should start ‘pulling’ the wheel up and over (actually, it should act like a mini ramp which smooths the bump slightly (elongates it) ).

    • The aiming in WoT is developed to be of this era, not that era and that is the problem (this is no simulator, anything except the tanks themselves is very much extremely modern) and yeah, there are more than one problems with rails in WoT.

  8. The tank in the video rocks much, much less than the tanks in WoT when crossing railroad tracks.

    Also, in WoT, you can get slowed down very much when cross a slight bump (start of a hill slope) with one track. The tanks also move up on one side in an unrealistic way when crossing a small elevation with only one track.

    One word about suspension physics and required server performance. If the server already does 10 suspension points per tank (5 left, 5 right) it cannot be so much harder to do fully independent road wheels. Or can it? If it does, that again would mean that the improved simulation code would be significantly more complex than what they are doing now – which would be another indicator of the current system being lackluster.

    As a conclusion what Storms says imo is nonsense. WoT’s current suspension simulation doesn’t cut it.

    • You fail at reading. The tank in the video was clearly rocking, and it has suspension way better than those used in WoT era tanks.

      • You fail at reading. I didn’t say it doesn’t rock, I said it rocks much less. Have you ever seen a WW2 Panther tank move over small obstacles? There isn’t much rocking either.

        Don’t tell others they cannot read if you can’t read yourself, idiot.

  9. im tired of getting stuck recently… dont know what they did in the last map changes, but when i try to go down froma hill or even little terraint and do if with my side, my track goes stuck inside the earth.

    • This. After 8.9 i have been stuck more than ever. If you drive on some V -shaped terrain, you are almost certain to get stuck. It feels like the engine lost its power suddenly.

  10. - apparently, tanks getting stuck on the anti-tank “dragon teeth” strip on Siegfried Line is sort of mixture of a bug and feature (Storm said that, Veider adds it’s simply a feature, after all the strips were designed to block tanks)

    Fast light weight tanks can jump over it.

    • Tested with MT-25 and AMX 13 75. But you need to be going at very high speed and hit it under the right angle, otherwise you just get stuck on top if it.

    • I don’t know why, but with the Flatpanzer i sometimes managed to reverse through them, I mean like, turned the tank around and went backwards against them … there are at least 3 points at which you can definatelly reverse through, one at each side of the “main gate enterance thingy”, about 100-120 meters from the gap in which the road is. the last one (and first one I discovered) is more inside the city, just south from the cap in encounter, few meters from the round bunker

  11. There should not be much rocking on Sand River at all if the sand were any thing like real dry sand because the surface of the sand should give a bit when the tank stops and crests a dune plus climbing, cresting and sliding down dune needs to be more realistic. At the moment it is just like a hard surface covered with 5cm of sand. Tanks have a real problem moving in areas of soft loose sand such as anywhere south of the area of the WWII desert campaign. It limited opportunities for flanking attacks

  12. I’m waiting for the solution to the last one. This thing annoys me the most since the implementation of physics.

  13. Traction is way too good at the moment. Physics has a lot of potential to add more sliding and skidding. This would also help light tanks and mediums recover some of the disadvanthey now have whfn up against heavy tanks and TDs.

  14. I’d really like to see the tank rocking when you take a hit (this is beautifully illustrated when you’re hit side-on in a Super Pershing). In some tanks this obviously wouldn’t happen, but in some of the lighter tanks with larger caliber shells, this makes a bit of sense.

    Also, I’d really like to see tank rocking when firing stationary. I think this is one of the reasons tanks like to fire perpendicular to the hull to minimize barrel hop to spread the recoil load over a broader set of suspension rather than from the front where it’ll rock forward/backwards quite a bit more since the way the suspension was designed to negotiate terrain laterally, not as much perpendicularly.

  16. I would like to see terrain “softness” somehow included.
    I just don’t understand why jumping on a pile of sand breaks tracks on my ELC AMX.
    It’s totally okay on concrete or other “hard” terrain though…

  18. Maybe if the peasants at WG actually looked at a tank going through some obstacles similar to those on WoT.

    Stuff like driving through a building etc.
    Also how about if you miss a shot on a tank and it hits the landscape you can see the effect, even if it’s just for a short time

  19. - Storm states that the way the suspension is modelled, it has five elastic points (that interact with the ground), that prevent it from behaving like a “ski” (SS: this is probably the reason why independent suspension will not change tank movement – the points, simulating the wheel movement, are already there)

    I think this is a lie, I’ve gotten stuck midair with tanks on several occasions, with the front and back part of the tracks touching ground, but not the middle. Couldn’t get out.

  20. - Storm states that the tank “rocking” when going over rails is realistic – as a proof, he shows this video, where even the Turkish Altay MBT is rocking when going over obstacles

    LOL it’s a turkish made MBT man, WW2 tanks were better…

    • Dont mess with us greekman, we know where you left your ex-American M1 Abrams..Didnt u remember?..

    • It is not fully Turkish tank,it’s just at it’s prototype stage and South Korea contributed too.So i really do not know how much do you know about “Tanks” actually.Because the sentence you just typed “LOL it’s a turkish made MBT man, WW2 tanks were better…” shows that you just judging vehicles,objects or inventions by their nationalities.

      Most countries do not digging holes over around their countries to get protected from their enemy at 21st century as someones’ country does :)

      I’m wondering what you gonna say about T90 and M1 Abrams,will they get pwned by the cavalries at WW1 ?

  21. Most annoying situation for me is when I’m driving parallel to a hill (mountain top is vertical to tank driving direction) with my uphill tracks on higher and steeper grounds. On a lot of occasions the tank stalls in the same manner as it would when trying to climb the hill directly.

    Letting the tank slide down a little bit would be ok but stopping the forward momentum results in too many unexpected deadly situations. (“That E100 has still 5-10s reload, just round that corner … oh fuck …”)

  22. 1. If you fall from a high elevation and land on a breakable (e.g. drive off a high bridge onto a breakable wall) you take no damage.

    2. Going over train tracks seems much more extreme with regards to slowing your tank than that video depicts.

    3. Please reimburse all costs for training rooms. This allows clans who use them to scrim to shoot gold and use premium consumables without draining their their credits.

  24. Stop spamming BS, that link is only a simple invite link…
    Which gives the owner 100 gold if the registered player reaches rank 3…

  25. “the way the braking works in the game (SS: whenever you release the “gas”, the tank immediately stops instead of rolling forward for a while on “neutral”) was specifically and intentionally made to make the gamplay easier”

    I would actually prefer this.

  27. They should do maps with more passable terrain and less useless filling like lakes and mountains. It’s pretty fucking boring that all the maps have around only 1/4 of terrain where you can actually place yourself and not get insta-killed by enemy tanks.

  28. they should turn of this redicolous (cant spell it) mechanism wich damages stacked tanks…. i would love to see a loltrack on the turret of a E100 :)

  30. “the fact that you cannot create a one-man training room is there to protect the server from being overloaded by too many “training rooms” (SS: creating one training room takes as many server resources as running a full battle)”

    Isn’t it the same case with the beginner’s training?

  31. What is my OPINION of their Physics?

    Well when I shoot a lightly armored French tank point blank range like 50 meters or less on the broadside (flat surface) with my German 128mm gun like in the E-75, Ferdinand, or JagdPanther II for example and do NO DAMAGE or not even track or get the infamous “Critical Hit” no damage shot I say go work on your physics. This has happened on WAY TOO MANY occasions.

    • Yep… I hear you and completely agree.
      I was just about blue with rage one day after “bouncing” at least 2 shots off a PZ38NA in my IS. If a 122mm shell hit that thing dead in the side it should go straight through the tank and create such a vacuum inside it would instantly turn it into a nice little compressed block of metal. But no. “critical hit”… and he isn’t even tracked… I have many many more memories of similar instances….

  32. As stated above from couple of posters, tank seems to stick on sides of hills when going in parallel with base more often than before.
    Also has any1 else experienced shells flying through tanks in 8.10 ? I seem to had a case or two..

  34. If the final independent suspension development ends up like what they showcased in the ASAP video, we are all good.
    That should solve all the railroad crossing rocking and sand dune standing problem.

    • You didn’t understand. This will only be eye candy. The server will keep handling tank movement the old way, and that will still determine how your tank behaves even on your client (computer), as the server controls the position and heading of your tank at all times.

  35. I love WOT but WT ground looks very very impressive.

    I really hope WOT steps it up because I do not want a game where I cant use mods or control anything as my game I migrate to because numbers on servers.

    Also from what I see its Air/Ground balance looks ok as well.

    They need to hurry and get in gear before to many leave WOT

    But I do have to say the amount of Dust and Smoke in RL battles and that WT are trying to do makes it much more fun to play WOT. In RL its hard enough to see, WT clips I have seen look just as bad….But the recoil of suspension is perfect.

    • Also, I want terrain softness to be more than speed loss but dmg and getting stuck . I want HUGE tanks to get stuck in mud and need help out. How cool would it be to lure an enemy into a bog and kill him…..Its like a Light Pirate ship going over a reef to have his attacker ground.

  37. - apparently, tanks getting stuck on the anti-tank “dragon teeth” strip on Siegfried Line is sort of mixture of a bug and feature (Storm said that, Veider adds it’s simply a feature, after all the strips were designed to block tanks)

    This is one of those times where one could say “working as intended” without any degree of sarcasm or irony. That’s not a bug, that’s “dragon teeth” doing EXACTLY what it was designed to do: stop tanks attempting to drive over them.