Hello everyone,
weekly Wargaming radio show “Developer Hour”, where developers are talking about various matters, is here again. Today’s topic is “new motion physics” with community managed Roman Tabolin and project manager Roman Kunin. The show was kindly transcribed by VK WoT Express community.
- developers will balance new “camping spots” (lit. “crow nests”), that appear with the introduction of new physics. If such a spot is found to be too imbalanced, it will be fixed immediately.
- there will be several rounds of the physics test
- the most popular tanks of the current test are ELX and AMX-13/90
- graphic fixes of current collision models are not planned for near future
- new motion physics should minimize the amount of cases, where you get stuck on terrain features
- current round of physics test will last until 2.3.2015
- a tank will not tip on its roof when drifting (unless you are on a heavy slope and other conditions are met)
- physical models of tanks now have a whole bunch of new parameters under the new system
- “ground friction” is currently being set up, developers are working on it
- new physics do not influence shell trajectory
- developers are trying to “get rid of uncomfortable parts of current gameplay and to expand the borders for players”
- if you destroy enemy tank by turning it on the roof, you will be granted a kill. If multiple tanks help in tipping the opponent on the roof, the kill will go to the person who touched him last
- new motion physics does not influence FPS
- in the first version (iteration), a tank tipped on its roof had its ammo rack explode, but instead of the turret, it was the tank body that flew away
- it is now possible to “sit a tank on its belly” (SS: as in the terrain touching the bottom of the tank while the tracks are in the air and the tank cannot move)
- if a tank falls on another tank, it will instead of one large damage will work as “ticks”
- it was also possible very early on for tiny tanks to actually drive UNDER large tanks, but it’s not possible for now
- autoban system will be fixed to fit new physics
Serious question here: Tiger 2/E75/KV-5/Other rather tall & very heavy tank are rolling at 40km/h down a slope towards you for a ram. You blow their tracks off.
According to my limited knowledge on physics, at the very least the Tiger 2 & E-75 (since their center of weight is higher than the KV-5) should tumble over on the side of the destroyed track, right?
If anything it would be the other side.
Tank turns into the broken track, weight inertia is now in the direction of the working track
I’m not sure it would actually happen, from limited footage we’ve seen until now the answer is “probably no”. My guess? Center of mass will be lower than it phisically should be to avoid tanks like KV-2 tipping over when being even remotely inclined sideways.
Your limited knowledge of physics seem to be based on (bad) Hollywood movies. Most likely the tank will just keep moving forward without its track (path of least resistance).
Not really on Hollywood movies, but based on what’s happening in WoT already – a Tiger 2/E-75, when traveling forwards and getting tracked, already do a near-90 degrees spin
I must admit I should have specified I’m not asking what would happen IRL (although that would be…. interesting, as well), but according to WoT’s engine.
Ok, in WoT you are right. But I think, there will be no difference to the current system. The tanks will just spin as usual and stop abruptly. It’s (unrealistic) hard to tip a tank on its roof in the current test. Like a toast falling from a table, a tank should flip over falling off a sharp edge of a few meters height.
You obviously haven’t got a slightest idea how the tracks work.
You obviously fail to read what I wrote:
In WoT a Tiger 2/E75 that gets tracked while moving straight forward will make it turn its hull almost full 90-degrees.
I expect that will STILL happen with the new physics. However, I am simply asking what happens if that de-tracking happened while on a slope.
Wow. You just say I’m wrong without any explanation.
Why do people on the Internet have no idea how to argue?
Not you, PanzerScout.
Damned be the reply-lines…
Panzerscout’s comment is a rhetorical means to just stop another person dead in their tracks (lol) without offering any real argumentation. He is putting the burden of defending your position with good arguments on you. It’s just a shitty way of trolling other people. You can find that kind of argumentation whenever somebody wants to put another person down. Often used in business meetings or by superiors to harrass their staff.
TL;DR: You got trolled. Ignore the a*hole.
http://i.imgur.com/dOhUyEN.jpg
Must be photoshopped :)
Losing the tracks on one side does not mean that the hull is now touching the ground and you lose traction since the road wheels and the suspension are still working. What it means is that you no longer have propulsive force in the detracked side and the effect should be the same as if you were making a turn.
Not the abrupt spin that now happens but a turn nevertheless and the tank shouldn’t be able to keep moving in a straight direction until the tracks are fixed.
An imperfect analogy would be changing tracks on a tank. The tank can still move but not by its own power.
http://youtu.be/dTYlFJ5TlDU
Thats the reason i would love to see them implement movement during detrack.
Anyway, everything is 1000x better than before (normal vs test).
I love the tanks to move more naturally, some gear shifting while stopping would be nice, and also some realistic sounds.
Current test is really fine imo. I think we shouldn’t fear some realism in this game, as long as it is implemented correctly im fine with it.
Atm (test) if you dont use clutch you cant really tell the difference, it only feels more natural, fluent… soft (i dont know how to describe it. No more sharp turns and shit)
- new motion physics should minimize the amount of cases, where you get stuck on terrain features
FINALLY.
i really hated when I get stuck at neary-invisible humps.
I still remember when you could just get stuck on side of any hill everywhere :D
with IS3 i could´ve drive over an ELC AMX without doing damage to him.. but when he crashed into me, I was able to dmg him…
never happened on live server, so i think its some feature here on the test… someone else noticed it? :D
We mounted ELC sandwich tower – there were no dmg. Test purposes probably.
- it is now possible to “sit a tank on its belly” (SS: as in the terrain touching the bottom of the tank while the tracks are in the air and the tank cannot move)
Thats possible since 1st introduction of physics. Got stuck so many times on ridges…
Is there such a thing as a tank small enough to drive under another tank?
I can only think of the ELC, which is even smaller than an E-25.
Does the new physics implement recoil? Like, when a tank shoots while standing still, the recoil forces the hull to sway back and forth a bit?
Or, if you are the one that got shot, will there be ‘inertia’ when the shell hits the tank?
I remember once they said that you don’t get hit by a shell, but just that a hole texture appears on you tank, so no movement transferred by the shell to the tank, but it was a long time ago.
There is recoil sway, just check it on standing tank, preferably HD one. Tank is swaying and tracks are waving nicely.
I didnt noticed it. So i dont think it does
“most popular tank on physic test are ELC AMX and AMX 13 90″
http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2015/09/1425126367-shot-001.jpg
thats probably why you have so few tanks at that game
The ELC is now OP … I saw some manoeuvres that should destroy the suspension of that tank.
- it is now possible to “sit a tank on its belly” (SS: as in the terrain touching the bottom of the tank while the tracks are in the air and the tank cannot move)
thats already possible, just play siegfried line and drive over tank traps
you can also do that on windstorm bridges.
Yeap that is going to be a sort of new event :-)
Pingback: Vysílání rádia WG: Nová pohybová fyzika
Oh, wait? So for what purpose then Havok serves if tank physic is actually something completely different?
I am rather perplexed why have two different things when even tank behavior should be part of Havok physic????
IIRC Havok is particles physics as in shit flying around when hit. This is different, they are trying to make the tank move as close as possible to real life.
- in the first version (iteration), a tank tipped on its roof had its ammo rack explode, but instead of the turret, it was the tank body that flew away
I want to see that with Maus :D
- if a tank falls on another tank, it will instead of one large damage will work as “ticks”
GG. Now yoloing is not worth it anymore.. unless tank has very low hp..
I tested the new physics for at least couple hours, I think they are good enhancement, there is one aspect that I would like to comment, when doing a hull down attack, the suspension balance makes shooting a lot harder, I wonder if people mounting the vertical stabilizer should get a “smoother experience” when in the gunner/sniper view. And how bad is this going to be when putting together the new physics and the accuracy nerf?
If what you say is true then the accuracy will be nerfed without having to touch the formula. Working as intended.
About the maps …. they will have a lot of work, if we get the physics in 4 months or so, there is no way they will address map unbalance issues … want a bet? ;-)
lets come back when we can roll with 50b’s and 50m’s
- it is now possible to “sit a tank on its belly” (SS: as in the terrain touching the bottom of the tank while the tracks are in the air and the tank cannot move)
I think you mean high center, sounds better anyway