Bug/Inconsistency Thread.

User avatar
wargamer1985
Brigadier
Posts: 3305
Joined: Sat 4 May 2013 00:36
Contact:

Re: Bug/Inconsistency Thread.

Postby wargamer1985 » Mon 12 Dec 2016 20:08

HrcAk47 wrote:
wargamer1985 wrote:
HrcAk47 wrote:Nice find.

Funny how M-84 has all of these features, sans thermals, CCD camera and GPS.

So because the M-84 has some of the features present in more accurate tanks, it immediately deserves to be as accurate as them? Shoot, I guess I can start pushing for a 2275m 70% accuracy M551A1 TTS then!


Say no to common core education, kids. Reading comprehension is a vital skill.

Spoiler : :
Image
APPLY TO THE GLORIOUS CULT OF THE WARHAWK! LIBERATING NAZIS SINCE 1939!
Image

User avatar
Partibrejker
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun 22 Feb 2015 22:14
Location: Elektronska Industrija, Yugoslavia
Contact:

Re: Bug/Inconsistency Thread.

Postby Partibrejker » Mon 12 Dec 2016 20:09

delfo wrote:
nuke92 wrote:Actually yes this equipment makes quite the difference.

The more input of data you have the better a system can react to stuff. That's the way it is.
The gun can mechanically move in two dimensions. The tank can roll in a third.
Fire gating was allready explained.

M551A1 is the superheavy NORAD deserves, but not the one it needs right now :P


Implied stabilization via the tank rolling in the third not compensating for bumps. Talk it out between the two of you.


sooooo, you got little idea what is going on, but you are looking for the difference between the statements of the guy that came up with documents and ideas for the majority of the stuff behind Yugoslavia and the guy that knows some stuff, by trying to crossfire them, mhm, interesting observation and the idea.

Here you go for the effort:
http://ocdn.eu/pulscms-transforms/1/hpz ... As0B1gDCww
Spoiler : :

User avatar
HrcAk47
Colonel
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sat 3 May 2014 18:00
Contact:

Re: Bug/Inconsistency Thread.

Postby HrcAk47 » Mon 12 Dec 2016 20:11

delfo wrote:
nuke92 wrote:Actually yes this equipment makes quite the difference.

The more input of data you have the better a system can react to stuff. That's the way it is.
The gun can mechanically move in two dimensions. The tank can roll in a third.
Fire gating was allready explained.

M551A1 is the superheavy NORAD deserves, but not the one it needs right now :P


Implied stabilization via the tank rolling in the third not compensating for bumps. Talk it out between the two of you.


The "third" plane is the roll plane. Gyroscopes feed position data to FCS and other systems. How did he imply what exactly?

Edit: let's keep this thread for it's intended purpose, shall we?
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

User avatar
Frencho
Lieutenant
Posts: 1245
Joined: Thu 13 Aug 2015 19:40
Contact:

Re: Bug/Inconsistency Thread.

Postby Frencho » Mon 12 Dec 2016 20:33

Thank goodness the three yugo stooges are here, quality comedy gold due to bias left unchecked!

Don't you fellas know, the vintage M-84 is as accurate on the move as the K2 Panther!

XanderTuron
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 591
Joined: Thu 10 Mar 2016 23:17
Contact:

Re: Bug/Inconsistency Thread.

Postby XanderTuron » Mon 12 Dec 2016 20:37

Frencho wrote:Thank goodness the three yugo stooges are here, quality comedy gold due to bias left unchecked!

Don't you fellas know, the vintage M-84 is as accurate on the move as the K2 Panther!


This is why I like Finland.
My mouth is moving, but nothing relevant is coming out. Also I cannot guarantee that my research is perfect or even remotely accurate.

I have low quality Wargame Red Dragon casts on my youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/XanderTuron

User avatar
HrcAk47
Colonel
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sat 3 May 2014 18:00
Contact:

Re: Bug/Inconsistency Thread.

Postby HrcAk47 » Mon 12 Dec 2016 20:45

Frencho wrote:Thank goodness the three yugo stooges are here, quality comedy gold due to bias left unchecked!

Don't you fellas know, the vintage M-84 is as accurate on the move as the K2 Panther!


Go make a thread about it and write about it's stabilizer.
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

User avatar
Partibrejker
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun 22 Feb 2015 22:14
Location: Elektronska Industrija, Yugoslavia
Contact:

Re: Bug/Inconsistency Thread.

Postby Partibrejker » Mon 12 Dec 2016 20:46

Frencho wrote:Thank goodness the three yugo stooges are here, quality comedy gold due to bias left unchecked!

Don't you fellas know, the vintage M-84 is as accurate on the move as the K2 Panther!



good thing that the fourth one just checked in, so now can evolve into 3 musketeers. :lol:
Spoiler : :

delfo
Major-General
Posts: 3735
Joined: Wed 6 Aug 2014 19:57
Contact:

Re: Bug/Inconsistency Thread.

Postby delfo » Mon 12 Dec 2016 21:15

HrcAk47 wrote:
Frencho wrote:Thank goodness the three yugo stooges are here, quality comedy gold due to bias left unchecked!

Don't you fellas know, the vintage M-84 is as accurate on the move as the K2 Panther!


Go make a thread about it and write about it's stabilizer.


Let us go over your own inconsistent argument.

If the third gyroscope is adjusting for the speed and directional heading of the tank if you remove it could the tank fire on the move with accuracy ?

No.

Hence if you assume that only Yugo and Ger took into account do you assume no other tank in that time frame could fire with accuracy ?

You kinda do say that. No other tank accounted for that speed in your example. That's not the case.

Stabilization to fire on the move is adjustment of the gun for the move.

Stabilization in the third axis would be adjustment of the accuracy by moving.

Hence in no way does the addition of the third gyroscope imply a revolutionary tech or will remove your actual 2 plane limitation because your simplest solution again lies within two intersecting planes. Nor is it feasible to expect a made to fire on the move is not factoring the direction and speed.

The Leclerc and the K2 and all the others provide more precise controls to steady the speed hence accuracy increases over generations but assume speed is calculated.

Which is why I brought up dead reckoning. The only way you can actually add a third axis to use as stabilization is if you move the tank to increase accuracy via tank roll. Which is not a thing. Hence you're stuck with the plain old realistic 2 which sometimes can get sold as more.

Now make the tank consistent with it's contemporaries and try to beg or bribe for the 5% difference. That's all you got. That's all you've ever really had once people start murmuring how did this make it past testing. The rest was requisition points. You keep going the 3-4 of you this way you'll be eaten alive by people who'd not only bring up the sheets on the things you said but also do the math in front of you detail and dig up the materials used for construction of the shells.

No one including me would mind for long or too much if you call me names but you're in the middle of getting the pitchforks for you with this from the entire community. Read the room and listen. Or don't. It's your choice after all.

And drop the bloody Paras as special forces, you have six real special forces units to chose from in the case of the JNA till 1992.

User avatar
Frencho
Lieutenant
Posts: 1245
Joined: Thu 13 Aug 2015 19:40
Contact:

Re: Bug/Inconsistency Thread.

Postby Frencho » Mon 12 Dec 2016 21:36

Partibrejker wrote:
Frencho wrote:Thank goodness the three yugo stooges are here, quality comedy gold due to bias left unchecked!

Don't you fellas know, the vintage M-84 is as accurate on the move as the K2 Panther!

good thing that the fourth one just checked in, so now can evolve into 3 musketeers. :lol:


Who's the fourth? I only count HrcAk47, Nuke92 and yourself Partibrejker so far.

HrcAk47 wrote:Go make a thread about it and write about it's stabilizer.


Why should I bother, it's pretty evident by now you guys unwillingly admitted you were talking out of your asses.
Having a gyroscope on the hull does not stabilize it (third axis)... the data it's feeding to the FCS can only correct so much to account for bumps, breaks and speed changes etc... If the suspension is not top tier, if the sensors are not top tier, if the computing power is not top tier then it's not 3 axis stabilized.

Plus all these bold 97%/90% first shot accuracy on the move at 50 Km/h for the Leclerc and M1A2 are BS IMHO.
In every bone fide shooting drill/training exercise or actual combat footage I have seen, MBTs either slow to a crawl (10-20 Km/h) or briefly stop to shoot in order to consistently hit targets at long ranges.

Take the Strong Tank Challenge 2016 as reference.
Spoiler : :



Now tell me how well the M-84 fared against the competition...

Edit: Looks like Delfo beat me up to it. And by the way I'm not singling out just Yugoslavia, I'm still pissed about the Merkavas, it's cringeworthy the Merkava I has 65% accuracy...
Last edited by Frencho on Mon 12 Dec 2016 22:20, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
HrcAk47
Colonel
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sat 3 May 2014 18:00
Contact:

Re: Bug/Inconsistency Thread.

Postby HrcAk47 » Mon 12 Dec 2016 22:13

delfo wrote:Let us go over your own inconsistent argument.

If the third gyroscope is adjusting for the speed and directional heading of the tank if you remove it could the tank fire on the move with accuracy ?

No.

Hence if you assume that only Yugo and Ger took into account do you assume no other tank in that time frame could fire with accuracy ?


You seem to be confusing two separate stats of accuracy and stabilizer, and what belongs to each.

You kinda do say that.


Nope, did not say such a thing.

No other tank accounted for that speed in your example. That's not the case.


I claim for tanks for which I have good documentation handy. Documentation was presented in Yugo thread for the curious, and in greater detail, indexed, to Eugen.

Stabilization to fire on the move is adjustment of the gun for the move.


Correct.

Stabilization in the third axis would be adjustment of the accuracy by moving.


Incorrect. See my previous post, or google "cant correction in tanks".

Hence in no way does the addition of the third gyroscope imply a revolutionary tech or will remove your actual 2 plane limitation because your simplest solution again lies within two intersecting planes. Nor is it feasible to expect a made to fire on the move is not factoring the direction and speed.


It has its benefits, otherwise it wouldn't be there. All the tanks you mention feature it. What's so controversial about it?

The Leclerc and the K2 and all the others provide more precise controls to steady the speed hence accuracy increases over generations but assume speed is calculated.


Have I disputed that? For further reference, let's keep the discussion to ITF tanks (another thread, please).

Which is why I brought up dead reckoning. The only way you can actually add a third axis to use as stabilization is if you move the tank to increase accuracy via tank roll. Which is not a thing. Hence you're stuck with the plain old realistic 2 which sometimes can get sold as more.


Again, what? It seems you have some misunderstanding how and what stabilization does.

Now make the tank consistent with it's contemporaries and try to beg or bribe for the 5% difference. That's all you got. That's all you've ever really had once people start murmuring how did this make it past testing. The rest was requisition points. You keep going the 3-4 of you this way you'll be eaten alive by people who'd not only bring up the sheets on the things you said but also do the math in front of you detail and dig up the materials used for construction of the shells.


Yugoslavia was a multiple people effort, and I think you're giving me too much credit.

Also, all stuff was cross-referenced with contemporaries.

No one including me would mind for long or too much if you call me names but you're in the middle of getting the pitchforks for you with this from the entire community. Read the room and listen. Or don't. It's your choice after all.


I am somehow to be afraid of the gaming community? Or is that a veiled threat?


And drop the bloody Paras as special forces, you have six real special forces units to chose from in the case of the JNA till 1992.


Oh really? Name all six and let's talk about all six of them. Maybe I can learn something new. Maybe you will, who knows.

Preferably in a separate thread.
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests