allied m3 coasting

[delems]

Just watched allied HT M3 coast 500m or so -- how is that possible?

And it was completely silent till like 100m from me - before turning engine off.

[tater]

3 minutes ago, delems said:

Just watched allied HT M3 coast 500m or so -- how is that possible?

And it was completely silent till like 100m from me - before turning engine off.

Seems like any HT should stop inside a truck length or two if power is off.

[delems]

Logged out, not sure I'll be back.

This kinda stuff has to change;  does axis HT coast 500m?

And is it silent?

[jwilly]

CRS has made a lot of screwball modeling decisions over the years.

Quote

Seems like any HT should stop inside a truck length or two if power is off.

Yes, and ditto for trucks, off road. On pavement, maybe five or six vehicle lengths from normal speeds. Or if separate values can't be coded, just use three vehicle lengths for all terrain types. And, never silent...even on pavement. The greatest amount of sound power from a moving vehicle on pavement is from ground contact, i.e. tires or track links. Off road there are a lot of contributors, but under no conditions is vehicle movement ever silent.

Edited September 25, 2022 by jwilly

[undercova]

tbh ... i have no idea what the QA team here is/was doing over the last few years. ive seen so many "bugs" and abnormal things getting through onto live server ... where i started to think .. did they ever test this ?? are they just spawning in once ... shoot 1 round and then say it is fine ??

there need to be way more critical testing ... trying to break things ... do "abnormal" stuff ... see how equipment behaves when under fire ... lost components like tracks/wheels ... on fire ... blowing up .... audio when like 1k away ... when engine off ... coasting ability ... and so on

initial deployment into game is the most important one. the M3 HT is the perfect example how it can f*ck up a game completely. axis 251s are more or less a simple copy/paste of the existing model and behaviour. slight changes ... that's it. the M3 was a complete new model ... and therefore had more attention. but in the end most of the new equipment easily overperforms the old equipment ... because "normally" things get modelled better and more logical ... while they dont touch the old stuff ... because hey ... it has always been like this

 

so i can only demand again ... that CRS and their team should work on old models ... fix them ... update them ... overhaul them ... because they are the things the players use on a daily base. the shiny new equipment comes in later ... and can only be played by a few subscribers. but the old buggy stuff is the stuff that is the backbone of this game. most sorties ... most TOM. and when ppl keep spawning in or spawning out with unrealistic and buggy equipment ... every sortie ... after all these years ... i can tell you for sure the willingness to pay $17.99 per month is decreasing rapdily.

[tater]

Particularly HTs. The clanking noise are the tracks moving, not the engine.

[delems]

Quick tests only, this is what I found.

Both the 251 and M3 HTs can coast about 1k+ on road.

200m ish open ground.

Edited September 25, 2022 by delems

[drkmouse]

17 minutes ago, delems said:

Quick tests only, this is what I found.

Both the 251 and M3 HTs can coast about 1k+ on road.

200m ish open ground.

damb that is some   oilsed trackes.... least boht sides have teh same beni bug, but is needs tobe fixed, if possible

[derfflingr]

M3 HT have rubber tracks with internal steel cables, so their noise level will be less then a 251 or Universal Carrier. But it should not be totally quiet either.

 

[jwilly]

9 hours ago, undercova said:

tbh ... i have no idea what the QA team here is/was doing over the last few years. ive seen so many "bugs" and abnormal things getting through onto live server ... where i started to think .. did they ever test this ?? are they just spawning in once ... shoot 1 round and then say it is fine ??

there need to be way more critical testing ... trying to break things ... do "abnormal" stuff ... see how equipment behaves when under fire ... lost components like tracks/wheels ... on fire ... blowing up .... audio when like 1k away ... when engine off ... coasting ability ... and so on

initial deployment into game is the most important one. the M3 HT is the perfect example how it can f*ck up a game completely. axis 251s are more or less a simple copy/paste of the existing model and behaviour. slight changes ... that's it. the M3 was a complete new model ... and therefore had more attention. but in the end most of the new equipment easily overperforms the old equipment ... because "normally" things get modelled better and more logical ... while they dont touch the old stuff ... because hey ... it has always been like this

 

so i can only demand again ... that CRS and their team should work on old models ... fix them ... update them ... overhaul them ... because they are the things the players use on a daily base. the shiny new equipment comes in later ... and can only be played by a few subscribers. but the old buggy stuff is the stuff that is the backbone of this game. most sorties ... most TOM. and when ppl keep spawning in or spawning out with unrealistic and buggy equipment ... every sortie ... after all these years ... i can tell you for sure the willingness to pay $17.99 per month is decreasing rapdily.

I don't think it's correct to pillory the QA team. My view is that almost all the "bugs" found in the game are intentional design features, designed-in to shape gameplay in some specifically intended manner. Irrespective that they break realism and immersion.

QA's job is to test that the game's elements function per their specs and design intentions. If the design intention is X that's grossly unrealistic but that someone thinks is going to result in the gameplay they want, then that's what QA should verify is how X works.

Similarly, it wouldn't be fair to slam the coders, and the builders who actually create the game-world and the object models. My understanding is that their job is to build what the game architects tell them to build...whether or not that includes unrealisms and immersion-breakers, included because the architects want a particular gameplay effect. A coder or builder who pushed back on doing what he or she was told to do because he or she thought the result would be unrealistic or un-immersive, would get fired.

[lovewing]

most every online game has a beta testing server for people who want to test can join and submit bug reports without needing to sign nda or get special passes. QA can do what they do but would it not be helpful to have the community check this shid out and find anything that may have been missed?

Is it not easier to fix a bug when the content is still fresh in the minds of the guys who coded it?

[MWHITMAN]

If you are just wanting to test things, use the training server. It's set up identical to the live one. And report anything you find in the testing forum or use the .bug command.

 

As for open betas. CRS has run several over the years when there have been big changes that need stress testing. However what I've always noticed was after a day or two the number of people logging into them dwindles to a few.

 

And as for the QA team, there are 7 of us in total, although a couple of those also have other commitments at CRS. 

With real life stuff going on, and real life work commitments, there is often only 2 or 3 of us available to test stuff at anyone time.

Do some issues get missed and get out into the game, sadly yes. Both production & QA  have been re-assessing some of our work flows that should reduce these issues in the future.

 

To give you some perspective, QA is currently testing 2 clients. One of those is about to create a lot of very time consuming work that is expected to be done in a very short space of time.  I currently get home form work, grab some food then am testing until I have to grab a few hours sleep, day after day after day.  

So there is a reason I rarely get to play the game I love.

 

Now, if you want to help, there are two ways. One is to test stuff out on he training server and post us a tread in the testing forum about any bugs you find, or just use the .bug report in game (I get the joys of reading all those).

The second is to volunteer. We can always use more help in QA.  Quality Assurance - Volunteer Questionnaire Survey (surveymonkey.com)

 

But if you have any questions about testing, send me a message in the forums, or if you want to talk about something let me know and I can jump on discord to discuss things.

[MWHITMAN]

Can't speak for the testing of the M3 as that was introduced before I came back, but I would seriously doubt that ANY vehicle has ever been tested for its coasting distance. It's just not something you would generally test.

You test they perform to the stated specs, top speed, etc. That any armour, surfaces are correct thicknesses & materials, that it takes damage correctly to crew and any components. That any weapons work, have the correct ammo etc.

 

Are the distances that all vehicles coast correct, most likely not. Is an audit of all of them to correct that likely? Possibly, but I doubt it will be any time soon.

 

And as for the accusation that somehow certainly vehicles are the way they are because of some perceived CRS side bias is total rubbish.

Given that there are only 2 people who do the models, I'd love to know which of those you think is biased.

 

If somehow any of the rest of had the magic ability to change a vehicle, then all 3 Fairmile's would be invincible and have unlimited ammo!  

[Dre21]

14 hours ago, MWHITMAN said:

Can't speak for the testing of the M3 as that was introduced before I came back, but I would seriously doubt that ANY vehicle has ever been tested for its coasting distance. It's just not something you would generally test.

You test they perform to the stated specs, top speed, etc. That any armour, surfaces are correct thicknesses & materials, that it takes damage correctly to crew and any components. That any weapons work, have the correct ammo etc.

 

Are the distances that all vehicles coast correct, most likely not. Is an audit of all of them to correct that likely? Possibly, but I doubt it will be any time soon.

 

And as for the accusation that somehow certainly vehicles are the way they are because of some perceived CRS side bias is total rubbish.

Given that there are only 2 people who do the models, I'd love to know which of those you think is biased.

 

If somehow any of the rest of had the magic ability to change a vehicle, then all 3 Fairmile's would be invincible and have unlimited ammo!  

Well let's see which vehicles had infinite coasting ability,  Laffy ,Morris and now the M3 HT , do you see a Axis vehicle in the bunch ? 

I sure don't. 

Odd how all 3 were only on 1 side but nothing to see here , come again,  or you gonna delete that post too?

BTW nothing side bias here just facts and makes one wonder.  Only CRS can put BIAS speculation to rest by doing their volunteer job the right way , I sure can't put them in a good light .

Edited October 2, 2022 by Dre21