kareca

K/D matilda tier x panzers

111 posts in this topic

Would it then be possible to just model all tanks that used power turret drives to require the engine to be on in order to rotate the turret? That would at least be more realistic than it is now with engines on and off constantly. 

Edited by raptor34
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, raptor34 said:

Would it then be possible to just model all tanks that used power turret drives to have the engine on in order to rotate the turret? That would at least be more realistic than it is now with engines on and off constantly. 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, raptor34 said:

Would it then be possible to just model all tanks that used power turret drives to require the engine to be on in order to rotate the turret? That would at least be more realistic than it is now with engines on and off constantly. 

Yes please, will also stop this ninja tank nonsense AND is realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/11/2018 at 4:46 PM, Capco said:

Then all of a sudden the Tiger turret speed gets jacked to a non-historical rate and their numbers double (or more in the case of armor flags/HQs).  It was a classic case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".  

From what I've read, it actually only takes about 18-19 seconds to rotate a Tiger turret 360 degrees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rule303 said:

From what I've read, it actually only takes about 18-19 seconds to rotate a Tiger turret 360 degrees.

Huh. I thought the traverse speed was dependant on the engine RPM's. At a dead stop, it would be harder to rotate than moving in other words. Dead stop i thought i lt was more like a 60 second full turn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how Engine RPM makes a difference, let alone would be irrelevant if it were true because you can thereotically just max out the RPM by putting the engine in neutral. Also interesting to note though that a Tiger can still pivot on the spot in neutral unlike many other tanks, and was a lot easier to steer thanks to using a steering wheel rather than twin brake levers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rule303 said:

I don't see how Engine RPM makes a difference

hydraulic pressure - is my guess.

tiger turret was intended to have two gears, one low for 1000rpm and one high gear for 2000rpm. likely then the RPM is what was required to generate enough hydraulic pressure to move the turret in their respective gears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, rule303 said:

I don't see how Engine RPM makes a difference,

WWII tanks with power turret drive used one of three systems; 

1. Electric drive off the main (engine starting) battery set, with energy replenishment by the main engine generator. Generators, unlike post-WWII automotive alternators, required engine RPM of typically twice idle before their output voltage was high enough to provide charging, so with the engine off or running at idle the batteries ran everything...until they were discharged, at which point the main engine could not be electrically restarted and required manual cranking if such a system was provided, or a jump start from another vehicle. Examples: French B and S tanks.

2. Electric drive off an auxiliary battery charged by an auxiliary ("donkey") engine which drive a generator and was governed to run at a single rpm high enough to always provide charge. Example: German PzKpfW IV.

3. Hydraulic drive off a hydraulic pump driven by the main engine. Since storage of significant energy is not practical in hydraulic systems, the pump had to be running to create pressure. The advantage of such a system is that much more HP can be applied through a small hydraulic motor, compared to the same amount of turret turning force from an electric system of the same volume and weight. The disadvantage is that the hydraulic pressure is linearly proportional to engine RPMs, so the hydraulic motor runs very slow at idle, goes like crazy at redline, and is zero with the engine off.

Quote

 

let alone would be irrelevant if it were true because you can thereotically just max out the RPM by putting the engine in neutral. 

 

Yes, exactly. But revving a tank engine to create more hydraulic rotation speed makes the exhaust sound much louder than at idle, and of course much louder than when off.

Quote

 

Also interesting to note though that a Tiger can still pivot on the spot in neutral unlike many other tanks

 

Correct modeling of different transmission types and thus hull pivot turn capabilities is another "opportunity for improvement" for CRS.

Quote

and was a lot easier to steer thanks to using a steering wheel rather than twin brake levers.

That's inherent to using a continuously proportioning hydraulic transmission, not a separate design choice.

in any case, tank drivers had a job to do, and whatever controls they were provided with was how they did that job. If their tank had a mechanical transmission, they got to be good with brake levers and other controls if they had the aptitude. 

Obviously hydraulic transmissions were the wave of the future. They however were vastly more expensive to build. Was it a good idea for the Germans to design future-tanks if it meant they could only build a quarter as many of them compared to a hypothetical alternate design that was only as engineering-sophisticated (which is to say, crude but effective enough) as their key opponent's tanks? Were the Germans fighting a war, or were they engaged in an engineering-elegance contest? That's been a question for the historians. :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, raptor34 said:

Would it then be possible to just model all tanks that used power turret drives to require the engine to be on in order to rotate the turret? That would at least be more realistic than it is now with engines on and off constantly. 

Sounds reasonable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Merlin51 said:

Why does this keep being said?
If you go spawn a tiger and measure its rate of rotation for a full 360 degrees you will see it is much slower that it was fully capable of in real life.
It is capable of rotating faster.

You have 2 choices with the tiger since NO VEHICLE can equate its rotation to its engine state.
1) Pick a medium rate which is neither minimum nor maximum
or
2) Set it to manual rotation in which case the guy will be spending 15 minutes trying to point the gun, depending on which set of cranks he is using.

And to add to that.
Matilda II's have no powered rotation without the donkey running.
Spawn a Matty and move to gunner, Do you hear the donkey running?
No, it is not, it is not even present, yet the turret moves.

French tanks need the engine running to spin the dyno to power the turret ring motor
but ours do not.

Shermans run the hydropack eternally on limited battery power.

Etc.
Everyone is getting a free pass on auxillary power requirements on some unit or another.


 

I think what pissed ppl off like me and I had a personal discussion with Xoom about this.

1. The Turret rotation speed was done when:

a. Parity with the S76 and parity of the M10 and StugG.

b. Correcting the M10 sites from 5x to 3x.

AT the very least it was very poor bedside manner.  Xoom expressed that there where 3 reasons for upping the turret rotation speed.

1. Arbituary decision.

2. To deal with the Rpat and Sapper

3. More in line with parity but they overlap.. The Tiger was NOT as effective as it was historically... (see arbitruary reasoning)

 

The allies most likely would not have cared so much about the M10 or rotation speed increase IF we had gotten something that positively effected our side.

That would have been another S76 and more M10s to offset the negative effects of lopsiding the balance issue. It has FURTHER been aggravated because the parity issue has been around for over a year and when discussing the entrance of the Firefly that THEY would be extremely limited as if to adhere to a historical rarity to be played out with its entrance into the game.

Appearances are EVERYTHING in marketing, and this game has always appeared to put an enfaces on not red vrs blue but a unique balancing of equipment.

We have strayed so far from that mandate and by several of the Staff selling the idea of putting a strict historical aspect to equipment as to date entrances seems to paint the future of even more balance issues.Like it or not the only way to overcome those issues lay in the realm of military disapline and numerical superiority plus some of the historical advantages that are just not present in the game to offset equipment balance issues.  This games balance is rather simple. Its equipment and population, all efforts to keep ppl logged in on both sides and a true equipment balance (key to numbers) is where the time and attention to detail should take priority.  All the other BS does not serve the betterment of the communities opinion about the game.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, raptor34 said:

Would it then be possible to just model all tanks that used power turret drives to require the engine to be on in order to rotate the turret? That would at least be more realistic than it is now with engines on and off constantly. 

It is just code so the short answer would be Yes.
But, the long answer is that the function does not exist, so not just a quick matter of throwing in an IS ENGINE RUNNING check.
I am not a coder so i can not really comment on the difficulty involved.
The fidelity would definitely be cool though.
 

7 hours ago, choad said:

Huh. I thought the traverse speed was dependant on the engine RPM's. At a dead stop, it would be harder to rotate than moving in other words. Dead stop i thought i lt was more like a 60 second full turn?

The Tiger uses a direct engine driven hydraulic pump (Like a garbage truck, or backhoe)
So at a dead stop, engine off, there is 0 psi and the hydraulic motors do nothing.

The tiger has 2 sets of hand cranks, the gunners are of very low gear ratio, and the commanders traverse handle is slightly higher ratio
It takes a very very long time to spin the turret around by the gunners crank.
It is a heavy turret.

The faster you run the engine, the faster the hydraulic pump turns, and the faster the turret power traverse can move.
at 3000 rpms it can actually move it really quick, but due to worries of various issues with the Maybach engine, it was taught not to exceed 2500 rpms, which still rotates pretty good, about 25 or 30 seconds for 360 degrees.
Off idle at minimal hydraulic pressure, about 60 seconds.
Fully manual? How long will it take you to order and pickup a pizza and come back?

The Tiger also has 2 different drive gear ration for the pump, but to be honest i am not sure of the exact reason or advantage of it being they do have hand cranks to fine tune, and can vary engine rpm to vary powered speed.



Tanks like a Sherman on the other hand that are hydraulic use a hydro/electric pack.
(Some Shermans do have simply straight electric drive because of availability reasons)
It uses an electric motor to drive the hydraulic pump at a mostly constant rate.
You can run engine off for a bit, albeit with a hideous whining noise going on constantly, but you will sap your 1940's tech batteries with your 1940's tech
brushed DC motors if you just leave the thing sit there running constantly.

 

7 hours ago, rule303 said:

Also interesting to note though that a Tiger can still pivot on the spot in neutral unlike many other tanks, and was a lot easier to steer thanks to using a steering wheel rather than twin brake levers.

Yes it can.
Kind of a case of the technology being farther ahead than the materials and manufacturing techniques were able to provide reliably.
The B1 bis also has an advanced system for it's time, both could be prone to issues and failures, but when they were in working order functioned very well.
In the Tiger it was perhaps not truly needed, but in the B1 it allowed for very good aiming of the hull gun.
In the Tiger, perhaps it simply allowed for better maneuvering of the large tank in tight quarters?

Now days, it is simply the norm, but back then it something special, even if it broke a lot.
Now days you have a track vehicle that can reverse a track and spin in a circle and it's just meh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.