Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

N-L-M

Forum Nobility
  • Content Count

    575
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Reputation Activity

  1. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from Lord_James in Competition: Californium 2250   
    Yes.
    If you end up with negative numbers when doing this it means the sandwich defeated the threat.
  2. Funny
    N-L-M got a reaction from Zyklon in Competition: Californium 2250   
    Shaving cream is Haram, as it is a reminder of the days of Patriarchy and toxic masculinity.
  3. Funny
    N-L-M got a reaction from Sturgeon in Competition: Californium 2250   
    Shaving cream is Haram, as it is a reminder of the days of Patriarchy and toxic masculinity.
  4. Funny
    N-L-M got a reaction from That_Baka in Competition: Californium 2250   
    Shaving cream is Haram, as it is a reminder of the days of Patriarchy and toxic masculinity.
  5. Tank You
    N-L-M reacted to Lord_James in Competition: Californium 2250   
    First 2 armor arrays completed. I changed around some thicknesses, and had to completely remake the first array: 
     
    Lower Front Hull Array: 
     
     
    Front Right Hull Array: 
     
     
    New LoS thicknesses are : 
     
    Lower Front: 980mm 
    Front Right: 976mm 
     
    Will work on KE and CE thicknesses. 
  6. Metal
    N-L-M reacted to Xoon in Competition: Californium 2250   
    I think I am done with my suspension, for now:

     
    It comes out at roughly 350 kilograms. I would say probably closer to 400kg though. 
     
     
     
    On the hull:

  7. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from Lord_James in Competition: Californium 2250   
    @Lord_James
    Alright people, it's time for M A T H. For convenience's sake, all the units in this post are going to be SI, MKS.
    Today's episode: external ballistics and differential equations!
    So, we know that the force of drag is roughly proportional to the velocity squared (not entirely true, but we'll get back to that later).
    Drag equations take the following form:

    Where Rho is the air density, a is the reference area of the projectile (for shells and rockets, the convention is that the reference area is the cross sectional area of the projo), and Cd is a dimensionless drag coefficient.
    Additionally, we know from Newton's second law that F=m*a, which can be rejiggered to a=F/m.
    And we know that acceleration is by definition the derivative of velocity by time.
    Combining the above, we get the following differential equation:

    Where m is the projectile mass.
    Solving this diff eq, (and the one for velocity being the time-derivative of speed), we get:

    Where x0 and v0 are the initial position and velocity, and ln is the natural logarithm.
    We now have almost everything we need, but where are we going to get drag coefficients for 155mm shells at this time of day?
    Why, DTIC of course!
    DTIC has helpfully provided the complete measured drag curve for the shell,155mm, HE, M101 (The precursor to the M107, with different driving bands but otherwise identical): https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/209134.pdf
    Consulting the graph so helpfully provided, we note something odd about our previous assumption:

    The drag coefficient isn't a nice constant value, but instead varies with velocity! this is an outrage!
    Except it only varies fairly mildly, so we can assume it to be quasi-constant, and we don't have to solve the diff eq for a velocity-dependent Cd (or Kd in the DTIC paper).
    So assuming a M101 equivalent shell, launched at 800m/s, a Cd of 0.1 seems reasonable. Solving the above equations with the following constants:

    I suggest shoving the above values and the equations found for velocity and range into Excel, and solving both by t, before observing the velocity as a function of range.
     
    We get that for a range of 3000m, we have a ToF of 3.86 sec, at the end of which we have a terminal velocity of 755 m/s - A fairly significant residual velocity, I think you'll agree.
    We then go on to note that throughout the flight, the velocity remains over Mach 2.5, and that therefore the choosing of 0.1 for Cd is reasonable, as at no point in the flight would it be any higher.
     
    For those planning shells other than 155mm, note that drag coefficients are constant for similar forms, regardless of scaling, but the reference area and mass scale with S^2 and S^3, respectively.
    For those considering the drag coefficient plots for more optimized projectile shapes, I suggest consulting @Sturgeon regarding drag coeffs.
  8. Funny
    N-L-M reacted to Whatismoo in Competition: Californium 2250   
    Thoughts on the Proper Use of Mechanized Forces in Defense Against the Probably Enemy to the West,  Military-Scientific Thought, Summer 2250
     
    Inspired by the current procurement of a new armored vehicle, the author has briefly made a closer study of the terrain on our axes of probable deployment, based in their experience of war in the former Nevada.
     
    The elevations in the Northern Theater of Military Affairs, excepting the Columbia Plateau on the former Oregon-Washington border and the Snake River Basin, tend towards above FL040 and in fact are often above FL050.
     
    In the Eastern Theater of Military Affairs, the terrain is likewise often above FL040 or FL050 throughout northern Former-Arizona, Former-New Mexico, and Former-Utah. Much of the terrain is above FL040, even the valleys between ridgelines in Former-Nevada, where the remnants of pre-war road networks, arid unforested scrub, and relatively flat ground allow the dushman toyota cavalry to utilize their greater tactical mobility. Worse still would be an engagement in one of the open dry lakes which dot these valleys, where their greater on road/salt flat/lakebed speed enables them to decisively outmaneuver nearly any conceivable tracked vehicle, and attack the sides/rear with their powerful anti-tank means.
     
    The peaks which separate these valleys are dominating terrain features, often rising above FL100, however the limited engagement ranges of current fire control systems mean that the ability to observe often the entire >10 mile width of the valley (weather permitting) is hampered by an inability to engage the targets observed, at the least with tank gun fire. An interesting conundrum, no doubt. It is conceivable that the very high caliber guns being pursued by the various parties of this competition may be able to engage such targets, using fire by direct aiming to deliver HE-FRAG, VT, or DPICM against the lightly armored opponents.
     
    On the other hand, this job could be better accomplished by heliborne light infantry with long-ranged ATGM and a light, airmobile SPH of c.4.75" caliber able to fire shells to 10 miles (15 with RAP), and effective aviation support (fixed or rotary wing). The low "footprint" of the light infantry soldier, in comparison to the heavy mechanized unit, would reduce sustainment needs relative to armored forces, and reduce the effectiveness of enemy ISTAR means. A mission-tailored task grouping based off of an airborne infantry regiment could take any point in the whole of the Newark and Diamond valleys to the East and West under fire, and direct air and artillery fires against throughout Eureka, White Pine, and Elko counties. A lower profile force could be used, consisting of a network of observation posts with long-range radio systems to plot enemy movements, and use rotary or fixed wing aviation to "herd" or channelize the zealots into coordinated fire-strikes using high power artillery or the weapons of our illustrious rocket-missile troops.
     
    Indeed, we need a unique kind of vehicle to support this style of warfare. Tentatively termed "4th Dimensional" (three dementions+3D cross domain personeuver) warfare. While past authors have spoken of similar needs for high speed tracked vehicles for this purpose, due to their higher cross country ability and greater protection than wheeled death traps, their suggestions, derived from the pre-war M113 Gavin APC, would be hopelessly outclassed by the toyota cavalry of the mormonhideen. Thus, inspiration should be taken from the pre-war Combat Vehicle (Recconaissance) Tracked series of vehicles. Of particular note are:
     
    FV101 "Scorpion" light tank, so named for the 'sting' of its 76mm gun
     
    FV-107 Scimitar Reconnaissance vehicle, armed with a 30mm cannon and named for the famous sword of the Medieval Arab cavalryman who's descendants perfected the toyota cavalry concept.
     
    FV105 Sultan Command track, allowing the 4th Dimensional personevuer commander to keep pace with their subordinates even in the highest tempo actions
     
    FV102 Striker ATGM carrier, able to sling lethal highly maneuverable missiles from outside enemy gun ranges
     
    FV103 Spartan Armored Personnel Carrier, as light and maneuverable as the light infantry inside, with low ground pressure and good power to weight allowing it to be far more of a 'go anywhere do anything' vehicle than the "jeep" of WWII
     
    However, the modern requirements of today require a new approach, and some new vehicles. The Light Tank would need increased lethality compared to the pre-war 76mm, for example, and a 4.75" howitzer motor carriage would be required. Further additions may include an engineering vehicle, Anti-Aircraft gun motor carriage, and a mortar carrier.
     
    Armed with these new vehicles, light infantry forces would be able to move faster, across, through, and over worse terrain, with heavier weapons, than the mormonhideen. The efforts of the Armored Branch to continue investment in over-complicated expensive vehicles is indicative of the decadence, sedentaryism, and intellectual lethargy which has arisen within the Armored Branch. One might reasonably expect such simple-minded solutions from the robotic money-grubbing degenerates in Cascadia or insane religious fanatics of the tribes who inhabit the Eastern wastes. To see such behavior within the PAF Armored Branch is beyond the pale. Instead of thinking of new ways to skin cats, our fellow officers might best be thinking about how to herd them.
     
    -Colonel Miguel Chispas, 1st Tactical Studies Group (Airborne)
  9. Metal
    N-L-M got a reaction from Xoon in Competition: Californium 2250   
    @Lord_James
    Alright people, it's time for M A T H. For convenience's sake, all the units in this post are going to be SI, MKS.
    Today's episode: external ballistics and differential equations!
    So, we know that the force of drag is roughly proportional to the velocity squared (not entirely true, but we'll get back to that later).
    Drag equations take the following form:

    Where Rho is the air density, a is the reference area of the projectile (for shells and rockets, the convention is that the reference area is the cross sectional area of the projo), and Cd is a dimensionless drag coefficient.
    Additionally, we know from Newton's second law that F=m*a, which can be rejiggered to a=F/m.
    And we know that acceleration is by definition the derivative of velocity by time.
    Combining the above, we get the following differential equation:

    Where m is the projectile mass.
    Solving this diff eq, (and the one for velocity being the time-derivative of speed), we get:

    Where x0 and v0 are the initial position and velocity, and ln is the natural logarithm.
    We now have almost everything we need, but where are we going to get drag coefficients for 155mm shells at this time of day?
    Why, DTIC of course!
    DTIC has helpfully provided the complete measured drag curve for the shell,155mm, HE, M101 (The precursor to the M107, with different driving bands but otherwise identical): https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/209134.pdf
    Consulting the graph so helpfully provided, we note something odd about our previous assumption:

    The drag coefficient isn't a nice constant value, but instead varies with velocity! this is an outrage!
    Except it only varies fairly mildly, so we can assume it to be quasi-constant, and we don't have to solve the diff eq for a velocity-dependent Cd (or Kd in the DTIC paper).
    So assuming a M101 equivalent shell, launched at 800m/s, a Cd of 0.1 seems reasonable. Solving the above equations with the following constants:

    I suggest shoving the above values and the equations found for velocity and range into Excel, and solving both by t, before observing the velocity as a function of range.
     
    We get that for a range of 3000m, we have a ToF of 3.86 sec, at the end of which we have a terminal velocity of 755 m/s - A fairly significant residual velocity, I think you'll agree.
    We then go on to note that throughout the flight, the velocity remains over Mach 2.5, and that therefore the choosing of 0.1 for Cd is reasonable, as at no point in the flight would it be any higher.
     
    For those planning shells other than 155mm, note that drag coefficients are constant for similar forms, regardless of scaling, but the reference area and mass scale with S^2 and S^3, respectively.
    For those considering the drag coefficient plots for more optimized projectile shapes, I suggest consulting @Sturgeon regarding drag coeffs.
  10. Metal
    N-L-M reacted to Datengineerwill in Competition: Californium 2250   
    I've been stalking this for a while and decided to start up my own submission.
     

    Currently working in Onshape so everyone can go in and poke around the assembly if they want.
    I still got a long way to go but it's a start.
    Next up is finishing the powerpack, inserting the turret blockout, designing the autoloader, modeling the sponsons, skirt armor, suspension.
    I'll Probably be done with most of that by Monday.
     
    As a side note a lot of the parts in the assembly don't have the correct mass as of yet...
  11. Metal
    N-L-M reacted to LoooSeR in Communist tracked boxes with pancake turrets: don't you dare to confuse GLORIOUS T-80 battle tank with Kharkovite T-64 tractor that doesn't work.   
    T-64BV added.
    Also added spoilers to make page a bit shorter, faster to scroll.
    This was the last vehicle that this guide will cover, BTW. So yes, after several years it is finally done!
    @Scolopax
    @N-L-M
    @Collimatrix
    @Ramlaen
    @Lord_James
    @Zyklon
  12. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from Lord_James in Competition: Californium 2250   
    Sounds reasonable.
  13. Sad
    N-L-M got a reaction from Collimatrix in Upgrading tanks that have steel armor   
    There are, however, some amusingly impractical ones:

  14. Funny
    N-L-M reacted to Whatismoo in Competition: Californium 2250   
    Report from Lt. Col. [REDACTED] People's Auditory Forces Directorate of Political-Moral Reliability, Auditory and Political Officer for SNVZ and Military-Industry Liaison Officer for RFP "New Battle Tank"
     
    Today, exaltedly equal comrades of multitudinous genders, or none at all, I have wonderful news! We will be discussing the ammunition and developmental armor schemes for the SNVZ AFV-50 project. First the ammunition types. 
     
     
    High Explosive-Fin Stabilized The primary general purpose support round for the vehicle, equipped with a standard and super quick fuse setting M/V in excess of 500m/s 6.32kg of TNTe filler High Explosive-Fin Stabilized-Urban A “supercharged” HE-FS round designed for short range demolition work 19.88kg TNTe filler Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Capped-Fin Stabilized The Primary Anti-Armor kinetic energy round Using highly energetic bursting materials, we have achieved devastating beyond armor effects Meets or exceed armor penetration requirements Armor Piercing High Explosive-Fin Stabilized Base Bleed A long range anti-armor round Base bleed reduces drag (and thetan level) throughout the projectile’s flight to ensure optimal retention of auditory capacity. [AUDITED] [AUDITED] [AUDITED] [AUDITED] Chemical Effects-Anti Tank An anti-tank projectile which generates its armor penetrating effects from chemical energy (explosives) within the round Multi Chemical Effects Shell A heavy chemical effects shell with improved explosive qualities at the expense of range and velocity to improve the numbers of use cases.  
     
    These shell types will allow the AFV-50 to engage and defeat all known and planned enemy combat vehicles should they foolishly decide to attack the peace loving peoples’ republic. They are effective at all combat ranges, allowing the gun tank to decisively deconstruct aggressions, micro and macro, and fulfill its combat tasks.
     
     
     
    Secondly for today, the SNVZ collective would like to discuss the early development of our armor schemes. While it is a capital offense to shame for weight, it is important to note that later design iterations have exceeded initial goals. Truly SNVZ and the AFV-50 program have been blessed with the bounty of L Ron Hubbard Thought and it is important to recognize that our vehicle is healthy at any size.
     
    Recognizing the threat posed by CE warheads, the design team initially investigated the use of large volumes of Glass Textolite, alongside steel. (Fig.1) Unfortunately the thicknesses required were rather extreme, and resulted in deep inefficiencies. 
     
     
    Fig.1
     
    To compensate for these deficiencies the ratio of steel to textolite was increased, however this also increased the weight. The integration of layers of ceramic and High-Hardness Steel was investigated, however the density/areal density of these packages was deeply unsatisfactory. (Fig.2)
     
     
    Fig.2
     
     
    At this time the collective investigated various arrangements of so called “Special” or “Composite” armor arrays. They were found unappealing due to the large volumes needed to contain them, and the angles required for best performance. (Figs. 3, 4, and 5)
     
    Fig.3
     
    Fig.4
    Fig.5
     
     
    At this time it is unclear what growth potential the Cascadian tandem-HEAT warhead may have, and/or the Mormohideen 2”/4”. These high lethality threat systems may not be able to be defeated without elaborate and economically infeasible exotic armor schemes, in the view of the SNVZ design collective. At this time the SNVZ collective is pursuing further armor concept development, but it appears that the weight and size of tanks must increase drastically before adequate levels of protection are possible. Therefore it appears that the medium tank as it is known, cannot be survivable on the modern battlefield.
     
    The Cascadian introduction and adoption of the <<Norman>> series appears in hindsight to be a drastic misstep. The current service variation (NORMAN-A) appears to utilize conventional steel armor materials in a relatively novel layout. However, this is hopelessly outclassed by modern tandem charge CE technology. The Cascadians appear mindless stooges of chauvinist revanchism and warmongering, however despite their perfidy, they are not stupid. They are likely to be investigating the potential for equipping a derivative of NORMAN-A with exotic “special” or “composite” armor systems. They are fools for doing so! To defeat modern tandem-shaped charges would require far too much volume and weight of armor to fit in a traditional “medium” size tank. But the Cascadian dogs have made their bed, and so they shall sleep in it. They may as well have introduced the kite shields and chainmail of its namesake, for the good it will do them. In the modern threat environment, where tandem charge ATGMs outrange the ability of armor to detect and engage them prior to, or even after, launch, the Medium Tank is dead!
     
    For this reason, the SNVZ AFV-50 designs have blossomed through the iterative process, between 20 and 25% over the initial predictions. Fortunately there is historical precedent for such a matter. Ancient pre-war historical texts speak of a mightily effective Main-Battle Tank, the first of its kind. During the Second Great War it was created, and grew through its design process it grew to just over 1.25x the initial design goal. The Tank Struggle Vehicle Mark 5, or “Panther”, was widely regarded by the ancient sages of the “AxisHistory” forum as the best tank of this second of the great wars, with armor, mobility, and firepower an order of magnitude above the delicate, vulnerable, underarmed and expensive Medium tank M4 "Ronson". Clearly in light of this the weight gain of the AFV-50 is not of much relevance. Collective efforts of SNVZ to improve armor protection continue, and appear to be reaching some success. The DPRC, guardians of the people and L. Ron Hubbard Thought, as well as our most eminent and wise leadership, the most Gracious and Serene Majesty Queen Diane Feinstein the VIII, require cheap winners, like the TSV Mk.5 "Panther" of old, rather than "expensive losers" like the "NORMAN" or "Ronson"! On this matter, I assure you that the shock-engineers of SNVZ will deliver!
  15. Funny
    N-L-M reacted to Toxn in Competition: Californium 2250   
    Speaking of which, wouldn't it be great if this competition ended being decided by a RAP battle?
     
    I'll see myself out now...
  16. Metal
    N-L-M reacted to Toxn in Competition: Californium 2250   
    So I think I just T-72'd myself.
     
    The backup is looking really, really good.
     
    Edit: really, really, really good





    It developed from the same philosophy that informed the Big Buoy tank concept, so it's been provisionally dubbed 'Lil Buoy after the pre-war mythological figure.
     
    So far the weight estimates have it at 71mt fully loaded, with the same 133mm gun and stretched AVDS-derived engine as the Brick (2950kg dry mass, 1205HP). This gives it a power-to-weight ratio of just under 17HP/mt, which should bump it over the minimum requirements in that department. It also has the same autoloader setup as the Brick, with 20 complete rounds in left side of the turret and another 10 in the left front ammo rack. If needed, the turret crew can now manually serve the gun (although this would obviously only be in case of emergencies or malfunctions).
     
    The gun itself fires AP-FS, HE-FS and various types of HEAT-FS. The AP-FS can comfortably exceed the new penetration requirements, to the extent that it can penetrate the turret armour of a Norman-series tank from the front at 2000m.
     
    133mm ammunition:
    Common: seperate propellant and warhead stages, semi-combustible cases. The propellant stage is 150x1000mm and has a steel case stub. The warhead stage is 133x1000mm bottlenecked to 150mm at the base. Warhead stages may have extra propellant. AP-FS: 34kg, 960m/s, 265mm RHA penetration at 2000m (130mm BR-482B used as reference) HE-FS: 35kg, 835m/s, ~45-50mm RHA penetration HEAT-FS (single, steel cone): 35kg, 835m/s, 430mm RHA penetration HEAT-FS (tandem, copper cone, improved explosives and pressing, higher cone precision, wave shaper, improved detonators etc): 35kg, 835m/s, 230/615mm RHA penetration
  17. Metal
    N-L-M reacted to Toxn in Competition: Californium 2250   
    *Casually chats about the weather after we 'happen' to bump into each other outside in the park (on a suitably windy day) until I'm certain that nobody else is nearby*
     
    I'm fully aware of that. Which is why my 133mm gun, which is what I'm actually putting on my tank right now, does 360mm from 2000m. Which most certainly can kill a Norman, and can probably kill an uparmoured one from a bit closer to even with full-bore stupidity rounds. If you look at my other gun (the 150mm piece) it is and was always optimised for HEAT and the AP round we lashed together barely punches through 200mm on the flat at distance. And even that took a painful redesign of the gun and its cartridge.
     
    I'm making other people aware of the minimum level of gun needed so they can go about their day unmolested and then say 'whoops, guess what we just happened to have lying about' when a certain someone succumbs to her increased stress levels and ever-harder-to-hide amphetamine addiction and we can all use finned sabot again.
     
    Barring that, a 122mm gun slinging our most up-to-date tandem HEAT-FS can do 200/500mm. Meaning that it will go through a Norman with bolt-on ERA like butter until such time as the perfidious Cascadians add in a NERA interlayer.
     
    Finally; if you run the numbers on a fully upgraded Norman (ie: with the bolt-on RHA removed and NERA/ERA added all over the shop) you'll find that nothing short of 550+mm of KE or something like a 190mm diameter tandem HEAT shell has any hope of killing it from the front. Which means that either you sling APFSDS and damn the consequences, or resign yourself to throwing artillery shells at the thing and hope that Her Serene Majesty won't notice that the turret got pulled off by explosive mass rather than any sort of armour piercing effect.
  18. Funny
    N-L-M reacted to Collimatrix in Competition: Californium 2250   
    *Looks around carefully to make sure that no auditors are in the room*

    *Checks the room carefully for SeaOrg bugs (which are easy to locate because they are clearly labeled "SeaOrg")*
     
    OK, just pointing out that if you make a gun that just barely meets Her Serene Majesty's requirements, it can't actually kill the Norman.  Her Gracious and Serene Majesty doesn't actually know anything about tanks.
     
    Per the OP, the Norman has 330mm of protection against KE, and per the final post from the previous competition, that was clearly intended as an interim and easily removable armor array to be used until a proper composite armor array could be supplied instead.
     
    For 330mm of penetration at combat distances with full caliber AP, you're looking at something a bit more powerful than the M58, and ideally with better-designed shells.
  19. Tank You
    N-L-M reacted to Xoon in Competition: Californium 2250   
    I might run with such a suspension design, seems more leak proof than a vane motor. 
     
    Honestly, I might be putting way to much time into the suspension unit, but hey, at least I know how pretty much all the hydropneumatic suspension units work in AFVs. 
  20. Metal
    N-L-M reacted to Lord_James in Competition: Californium 2250   
    Update on the SH-1T: 
     
    Mock-up of turret
    Extended sponsons 
    gun created (and roughly placed within turret) 
     

     
     
    weight thus far is 48.27 Mg; length is 10.74m from barrel tip to rear storage; autoloader can fit 24 155mm x 800mm shells, but I designed it for 900mm long shells, so might fit 22 or so. 
     
    Turret Armor Cavities: 
     
    Front: 45mm RHA + 515mm array + 90mm JPA at 30o. 751mm LoS from dead front. 
    Front Sides: 45mm RHA + 255mm array + 63mm JPA. At 45o, LoS is 513mm (covers turret crew up to 60o). 
    Rear Sides: 35mm RHA + 101.5mm array + 45mm RHA. 257mm LoS at 45o. 
     
    Gun is the 155mm C4B Mod.3 naval cannon. The B version of the C4(x) is an L/44 (C4A is a L/52), and the Mod.3 is modified for army use. It has a bayonet locked barrel for quick changing, and can fire up to 900mm long projectiles, but the chamber is limited to 800mm long propellant charges. Operates at 61,000 psi (421 MPa) and has a 500mm recoil stroke. 
     
    Crew is estimated at 5: 
     
    Driver 
    Loader 
    Gunner
    Commander
    Ordinance operator / Assistant loader (I plan to add a remote 107mm mortar, which this crewperson would use) 
     
    I found that I can increase head room / lower the floor if I remove the 6th pair of road wheels, revise the floor armor,  and drop the autoloader into the space. Should give back ~100mm. 
     
     
    To do: 
     
    H. Mantle armor 
    I. Add spaces for stuff to go into sponsons 
    J. The engine and transmission 
    K. Turret roof armor 
    L. Additional weapons (coax, 107mm mortar, commander armament, etc.) 
  21. Funny
    N-L-M reacted to Toxn in Competition: Californium 2250   
    I don't have access to my primary computer for a while, so I've been dicking around on my laptop:

    This is Big Bouy, which has two AVDS engines, a 200mm gun, and an exceedingly low likelihood of being a sensible weight.
  22. Tank You
    N-L-M reacted to Xoon in Competition: Californium 2250   
    Been refining the suspension, currently done with the suspension arm:

     
    Next on the agenda is the suspension mount:

    Currently work is progress. 
     
     
     
     
    This is all I am going to do today, its waaay to late:

  23. Tank You
    N-L-M reacted to LoooSeR in What are we playing?   
    After all that Far Cry spam it is obvious that review is coming. 15 years after release, i'm between "retro" and "modern" with this one.
     
       Review of Far Cry.

     
       This art cover basically explains what 2004 Far Cry was all about - action game set in jungles of a tropical island where player will sneak to places and wreck havok with explosions and lots of bullets. Far Cry was developed by Crytek (all others were done by other studios) and it was their first game. FC is a first person shooter set in near future, where main hero (Jack Carver) gets "involved" in Dr. Krieger's experiments with creating mutants. He should fight through organisation of ruthless mercenaries and mutated creatures to get to Dr. Krieger and get out of island. Far Cry was very well received by journalists and by players when it came out, it was released in same year as Half-life 2 and DooM 3 but managed to avoid direct competition by being first to release (early summer IIRC). Still, i found it to be better than DooM 3, in some parts - better than HL2 (heresy!)
     
       Visuals
       For 2004 Far Cry had top-notch graphics and tech in general, even compared to DooM 3 and HL2. Over a 1 km render distance of it's gorgeous jungles, big number of objects on a screen per frame, extensive use of physics engine, partially destructible terrain, dynamic lighting and shadow casting, water effects/reflections, bump mapping, use of shaders, drivable vehicles with working suspension simulation, build-in editor with ability to seamlessly play level directly from editor. All this allowed Far Cry to impress players back in 2004 and in some areas it was ahead of DooM 3's Id tech engine and HL2's Source.
       Althout game itself didn't used this tech potential for 100%, majority of indoor levels have bland art direction (just grey concrete/metal combined with brown colors) and there are very few indoor locations that are memorable. Outdoor parts of Far Cry are pretty good, but i think most of this positive feeling towards jungles are result of humans being hardwired to like nature.
     

     
       Here is a "vertical slice" of Far Cry's visuals. 
     
       A bit more on other features of Cryengine shown in Far Cry:
     
     
       Gameplay
       Far Cry is linear action game with sandbox elements - levels are generally linear, but they are broken into "arenas" connected sometimes by more than 1-2 paths between each other. Player usually can choose how he will approach each place/camp/etc - from which angle, with what tactics and so on. FC AI supports stealth, hardcore action and other playstyles - player is free to choose how to deal with baddies and all parts of Far Cry's gameplay feels natural.... until we get to indoor maps.
       All player freedom is almost completely forgotten by level designers when they were making indoor levels. They feel like CoD/generic shooty game levels. Think of 2nd part of Crysis, how different and limiting it was for players after great amount of freedom of action in first part. Far Cry is basically that, but indoor levels are mixed with outdoor, so this is not as much "concentrated" problem as with Crysis.
       When outside, number of game mechanics are used to make things easier for a player - gamer have detection meter, which will alert player if he is being spotted (even by enemies player never saw), binoculars with build in microphone (allow to hear dialogues/sounds far away) and "tagging" system that puts markers on your radar of enemies spotted through binos and their condition (triangle show where they are facing, color - their "alert" level). Enemies can be tagged once and then radar will magically track tagged enemy actions in real time until he is dead. IMO binoculars are kind of cheat, but you can see that after FC many other open world games used same system (MGS5 for example).
       Gameplay variety come mostly from terrain, type and placement of enemies, avaliable weapons and how player wants to approach given situation. Player can carry up to 4 guns, almost all weapons in Far Cry have very different use (each gun have it's own + and -, they dictate how and in what sitaution it is effective). AI is mostly not scripted (with exception of reinforcements and vehicles attacks/car chases), so doing something in Far Cry may not result in exactly same reaction from enemies everytime you do it, which gives it replayability and a small risk of things not goign as planned even if you do same actions.
     
       Here is "vetical slice" of gameplay in Far Cry:

     
     
       Plot
       In Far Cry plot is generic - evil doctor Evilness is working on evil green goo that turns living creatures into evil monsters and you need to fight evil mercs to get to evil doctor and fight him in evil volcano. Positive thing that during actual gameplay plot is not getting much in the way. There are few boss fights against main baddies (like.. 4 of them that i remember), 1 of which was done by accidental grenade kill, 1 was ended with single bullet (kek). 2 others were rather standart "MY HP BAR IS BIGGER THAN YOURS!" type of bullet-spongy boss fights. 
       All "characters" in Far Cry are forgettable and in fact i don't remember name of radio voice that was talking mission objectives at me whole game and who turned out to double cross us or something like this.
     

     
     
       Sound
       Usually i don't bother with it, but in this case i noticed that Crytek cheaped out on sound. Lots of stock sounds used for guns and enviroment. Sound of walking through bushes is basically somebody rubbing plastic bag. Overal nothing bad that make your ears reconsider their current owner, but not exactly very immersive or high-quality. 
     
       AI and enemies
       Far cry gameplay lays rather strongly on AI because of it unscripted nature and freedom of action of player, so it is worth mentioning that for 2004 AI in FC was one of the best in "AAA" shooter. AI in general feels like a multiplayer arena shooter bots. In game files you even can turn on ability of mercs to pick up health and armor (although AI don't have needed code to actively hunt for them AFAIK). All enemies have vision system and hearing system that detects actions/objects, they don't magically see player through objects and know exactly where he is (HL2 *cough*), so all decision that AI takes are based on what it can collect using vision and hearing systems and what he remember. All this makes each AI agent to be percieved (at least by me, not sure about rest of players) as separate decision-making entity, instead of script-following mindless actors like in CoDs. Hell, even their movement system is same as player's, thats why AI sometimes can get to places where AI isn't supposed to go just by using abilities of their "bodies" (i'm not speaking about glitching through, in fact i never saw them to glitch through things) AI in Far Cry can make mistakes, can be confused in way that can be possible only for enemies that don't have full information about game world state.
     
     
       Mutants for the most part are pretty boring, they are dumb and straight forward. Fatties are big HP pool and big damage, but slow, monkyes are quick and have lower HP and so on. Several of them have guns, 2 of them are not as boring as others - 2 humanoid mutants. One can turn invisible, another can jump long distances (but only on scripted places).
     
       Mercs are more interesting and better developed enemies, with more nuances to learn and use. First is that there are multyply types of mercs AI "characters" such as Cover, Scout, Rear Guards, Guards (indoor), Leader, Specialist, Grunt and so on. Each have different behavior, like Scout trying to sneak, flank player (uses bushes, "chain" them to get to your flanks and similar), while Cover like to... cover others mercs using... covering fire. lol. AI also can dodge your aiming circle (only certain types of enemies or if this ability was turned on by level designer for specific baddies) and move rather often (IIRC in editor it is "energy" rating). AI also can find cover pretty easily in jungles even without waypoints/cover nodes (for indoor parts waypoints and cover nodes are mandatory). 
     
       Interesting thing is that those AIs when assembled in groups will perform differently, but as a part of a group. For example Rear guards (from what devs wrote in editor manual) will try to take positions in rear of their group. Cover guys work well with other cover mercs (when pushign forward they can perform bounding overwatch) or with Scouts, covering scout's flanking attempt. So when in groups those guys have level of synergy. Indoor guards are closest to multiplayer bots - they are moving around frequently, running long distances, and because of body armor and helmets they can survive some beating to live longer than usual grunts and show off some of their abilities.    
     
       Most interesting AI type is Leader unit, who will command mercs in his squad. This commander works outdoors, that is probably why you don't see many of them indoors. They understand flanks, can move parts of his team (2-3 mercs) to attack player. Mercs behavior changes when under command of Leader - they are no longer move around randomly, move in groups, provide suppressive or covering fire (including at last known position), they can start to fire at "suspicious" sounds and so on. Although squad behavior is not fully-realised, they are areas not covered by it (which should have been, but i suspect it is part of unfinished AI abilities, leftovers of which can be found in code).
     
     
       Overal AI was designed to approach wide number of situations, thats why their overal tactics was "generalised" to fit different geometry of levels/layout of area. This lead to situations when AI act not too smart - this "generlised" tactics don't fit every situation possible and don't take into account some of things that can make a some difference. Their searching for player routine is also not very good - go to LKP and look/walk around randomly after SWAT 3 looks kind of dumb. 
     

       Let's fuck up player's day! 
     
     
       Conclusion
       Even 15 years later Far Cry can still generate fun gameplay. I installed a mod to freshen gameplay (changes in weapons, damage and AI) and still play it. Far Cry have better gameplay (at least for me) than both HL2 and Doom3, and as time showed "attack a camp of bad guys in sandbox enviroment" games have their apeal because of players relative freedom. Far Cry's design was used to build Crysis few years later. This type of games have a flaw that some players don't like - you need to create your own fun by trying different things and not many players like to do that. But i would still recommend to try it out as it is fun (with appropriate difficulty chosen).
     
  24. Tank You
    N-L-M got a reaction from Lord_James in Competition: Californium 2250   
    Looking good, everyone!
  25. Tank You
    N-L-M reacted to Lord_James in Competition: Californium 2250   
    More picks of the SH-1T, now with road wheels and 2 new armor cavities! 
     
     
    Weight is up to 35.86 Mg, with the suspension and wheels taking up 8.6 Mg by themselves (steel torsion bars with 850mm diameter aluminum wheels). 
     
    New Armor cavities: 
     
    6. Engine Compartment Roof: 30mm RHA + 60mm array + 30mm JPA at 7o. 992mm LoS 
    7. Crew Compartment Roof: 25mm RHA + light NERA + 36mm JPA. might reverse angle the NERA or change the material, as I'm getting disappointingly low numbers for roof protection. 
     
    I also raised the crew compartment floor, so no one can trip over the autoloader, though this reduces the head room from 1.45m to 1.26m. 
     
    near future: 
     
    A. mock up turret and carousel loader. 
    B. extend the sponsons backwards to make space for a rear idler, additional cover for the rear door, and rear aesthetics. 
    C. place ammo racks (the current front space can fit 42 charges). 
    D. armor arrays and side skirts. 
     
    later: 
     
    E. Upgrade kits 
    F. front dozer blade (a la T-72)
    G. alternate turrets/vehicles 
×
×
  • Create New...