Not a member yet? Why not Sign up today
Create an account  

  • 1 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
Rifled barrel

#11
(2017-12-15, 07:25 AM)Richard Dastardly Wrote: http://www.fromthedepthsgame.com/forum/s...?tid=28445 , glad someone else agreed. I'm not sure you really need to get quite so complicated as the post a couple up from here though, just have some method of picking twist & an ideal twist for a particular shell given by the ammo processor ( have a look at the labels in the ammo processor sometime btw ) - if you fire a shell that wants a different twist to be ideal, then take the accuracy hit.

As I said in my own thread, I'd like the rail assist accuracy pulled if this happens though, that is a rather odd idea unless the rail magnets are spinning the shell up... either that or you can have one or the other.

I'd prefer the simpler system I proposed with "rifling" determined automatically by the first shell loaded and locked to that shell's ideal rifling for the duration of that ammo load. Sure, it would give us magical self changing rifling, but it's preferable to using the atrocious UI to set up precise values. Sliders and text boxes in this game are an absolute pain to use for precise numbers and I like to avoid them whenever possible. I agree that rail assist shouldn't work with rifled barrels, but should still work with smoothebores. Also, railguns shouldn't really work with rifled barrels at all, given that all current large railguns use a saboted projectile and the excessive speed would most likely wreck the rifling.

As for the complicated information about rifling, that was to give some sensible background for the shell accuracy mechanic based off of real world physics as opposed to pulling a silly game mechanic out of thin air.
Reply

#12
I would agree that stock accuracy is far too low and barrel lengths are far too high.

If you think about a game like World of Tanks, which in itself is a very unrealistic game with inaccurate guns, they have an average inaccuracy of around 0.35m/100m. In from the depths you'd need an accuracy of 0.2 Degrees to achieve this, so a stupidly long barrel is required.

I don't think the accuracy needs to be buffed too much as tanks ships are a lot bigger than tanks so hitting them is a bit easier, but an inaccuracy of 0.5 degrees in from the depths is a dispersion diameter of 0.87m at 100m, 8.7m at 1000m and 22m at 2500m. For aesthetic purposes my shorter barrels have an inaccuracy of around 1 degree, so 17.5m at 1000m, 44m at 2500m. That's far too high and basically explains why having huge fire rates over big shots wins the game. Halfing the inaccuracy seems good to me.
Reply

#13
That 0.35 accuracy in WoT seems more like.5° lol Big Grin
There is always a weak-spot if you search Hard enough.

If you fire enough AP at that shield, at some point you're going to come through.

There is no "best" I wouldn't even say there is anything universally good, Good is subjective, I find everything bad even if it's in theory good against this or that.

Reply

#14
(2017-12-15, 10:39 AM)Skyer Wrote: That 0.35 accuracy in WoT seems more like.5° lol Big Grin

Haha yes but tanks are tiny remember! Just several metres across.
Reply

#15
(2017-12-15, 10:29 AM)Shaun Wrote: I would agree that stock accuracy is far too low and barrel lengths are far too high.

If you think about a game like World of Tanks, which in itself is a very unrealistic game with inaccurate guns, they have an average inaccuracy of around 0.35m/100m. In from the depths you'd need an accuracy of 0.2 Degrees to achieve this, so a stupidly long barrel is required.

I don't think the accuracy needs to be buffed too much as tanks ships are a lot bigger than tanks so hitting them is a bit easier, but an inaccuracy of 0.5 degrees in from the depths is a dispersion diameter of 0.87m at 100m, 8.7m at 1000m and 22m at 2500m. For aesthetic purposes my shorter barrels have an inaccuracy of around 1 degree, so 17.5m at 1000m, 44m at 2500m. That's far too high and basically explains why having huge fire rates over big shots wins the game. Halfing the inaccuracy seems good to me.


You have to keep in mind that WoT uses a health based system that applies for the vehicle as a whole. A penetrating hit in one place is just as good anywhere else.

In FTD we want to hit very specific parts at that have their own individual health pools, are quite a bit smaller than the entire vehicle,are much better protected, and from much further away. 17.5m at 1000m is a pretty large dispersion, considering a significant portion of FTD aircraft have a much smaller size on any one side on top of spazzing around like crazy. This dispersion is also signifigantly taller than almost every ship in the game by a significant margin. If you're settling for such terrible accuracy, no wonder you have to spam to damage anything.

I'm just tired of having to stick 25-30+ meters of barrel on my 100mm dual purpose guns to get any sort of usable accuracy outside of knife fighting(and CRAM cannon) range when 100mm antitank guns guns in real life where getting along just fine with a mere 6 meters and with a significantly higher muzzle velocity as well.
Reply

#16
(2017-12-15, 11:26 AM)Full_Metal_Jacket Wrote:
(2017-12-15, 10:29 AM)Shaun Wrote: I would agree that stock accuracy is far too low and barrel lengths are far too high.

If you think about a game like World of Tanks, which in itself is a very unrealistic game with inaccurate guns, they have an average inaccuracy of around 0.35m/100m. In from the depths you'd need an accuracy of 0.2 Degrees to achieve this, so a stupidly long barrel is required.

I don't think the accuracy needs to be buffed too much as tanks ships are a lot bigger than tanks so hitting them is a bit easier, but an inaccuracy of 0.5 degrees in from the depths is a dispersion diameter of 0.87m at 100m, 8.7m at 1000m and 22m at 2500m. For aesthetic purposes my shorter barrels have an inaccuracy of around 1 degree, so 17.5m at 1000m, 44m at 2500m. That's far too high and basically explains why having huge fire rates over big shots wins the game. Halfing the inaccuracy seems good to me.


You have to keep in mind that WoT uses a health based system that applies for the vehicle as a whole. A penetrating hit in one place is just as good anywhere else.

In FTD we want to hit very specific parts at that have their own individual health pools, are quite a bit smaller than the entire vehicle,are much better protected, and from much further away. 17.5m at 1000m is a pretty large dispersion, considering a significant portion of FTD aircraft have a much smaller size on any one side on top of spazzing around like crazy. This dispersion is also signifigantly taller than almost every ship in the game by a significant margin. If you're settling for such terrible accuracy, no wonder you have to spam to damage anything.

I'm just tired of having to stick 25-30+ meters of barrel on my 100mm dual purpose guns to get any sort of usable accuracy outside of knife fighting(and CRAM cannon) range when 100mm antitank guns guns in real life where getting along just fine with a mere 6 meters and with a significantly higher muzzle velocity as well.

To be fair, I like the lower muzzle velocities in the game because it; a. allows you to fire over friendly ships and b. makes the world feel bigger.

The inaccuracy suuuuuuucks though. I think this is an oversight to be fair; back in the day From the Depths was very close-quarters and broadside-y.

I think the CRAM cannon accuracy is fine. When those things do hit, they do DAMAGE, and the larger the gauge the more accurate it is, which is vice versa for APS.

I'm gonna have to add a new suggestion cos I've just found out some crazy stuff.
Reply

#17
UI issues should be dealt with at a UI level, not by choosing a mechanic to avoid using a UI. This is an alpha-stage game, we could get an entirely new UI at any point. Picking rifling based on the first shell will screw you if you load multiple shell types & the gun decides for some reason it's going to fire an uncommon one first. Also, that precludes me from picking a rifling value of my own for tuning reasons.

Much of the complaints could be fixed by tying accuracy to propellant burn better. Not only would that make barrels a more sensible length, but it'd also give something of a limit to inaccuracy reduction that'd mean noodle barrels are progressively more pointless.
Poke my boat! mostly pre-2.0 learning & catalogue thread - Update: Heavy & light tanks 07/04/18 for 2.1. 6 ships made 2.0 aware. No more post-processing! finally! but now I can't read the forum.
Reply

#18
(2017-12-15, 07:45 PM)Shaun Wrote: To be fair, I like the lower muzzle velocities in the game because it; a. allows you to fire over friendly ships and b. makes the world feel bigger.

The inaccuracy suuuuuuucks though. I think this is an oversight to be fair; back in the day From the Depths was very close-quarters and broadside-y.

I think the CRAM cannon accuracy is fine. When those things do hit, they do DAMAGE, and the larger the gauge the more accurate it is, which is vice versa for APS.

I'm gonna have to add a new suggestion cos I've just found out some crazy stuff.

This was a suggestion for advanced cannons only anyway and CRAM cannons are a topic unto themselves.

I can see why the lower muzzle velocities would make the world seem bigger, but when enemy faction vehicles become progressively faster,smaller, stronger, and overall more sophisticated while the base game mechanics remain the same punishes the average player quite a bit for trying to build one of the few main and arguably most complex weapons systems.

Needing to fire over your own ships is a bit of a symptom of the AI silliness that may never be fully ironed out.

The recent speed cap increase and armor buff also significantly reduced effectiveness of projectile based weapons as a whole. It's a lot harder to hit fast moving aircraft in the first place, and when those aircraft are moving a significant portion of your shell velocity it is quite frustrating to get a decent AA gun set up if it works in the first place.
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)