I haven't gotten too deep into IFL yet, mostly learning to use the tanks in a practice map. In your experience so far, have you had many engagements at historically accurate ranges (800 - 1200 meters)? Also, the aiming reticle seems to not line up when you are using a zoom-able gunsight. Was this historically accurate to your knowledge? As far as you guys know, can you use the ticks and strich on the gun sight to calculate range? Or are the reticles largely cosmetic?

The game so far seems like it has amazing potential for tank sim fans. I'd love to see created (or create) large scale matches in which one team has to defend a dug in position against attackers.

Thanks!

I think the strongest part of the game is the tank combat, the advanced damage model and features like the adjustable gunsight reticles work great. The longest range I've personally seen a tank battle take between the AI is at 600-700m which isn't bad, but this all varies on things like the skill settings of the AI and the surrounding terrain which influences the time it takes for them to detect an enemy.

I'm not sure which gunsights you are referring to. So far I've spent time playing missions in the Panzer IV H and the T-34/76 and both tanks had adjustable reticles that worked historically and were accurate as well.

Edit: Ah I see what you are getting at. I noticed in the King Tiger when you zoom to the second magnification level the point of focus changes and the sight didn't really seem to line up correctly. That could be a bug, I'll report it on the offical Iron Front forum.

Funnily enough i wss doing some testing of the gunnery last night. I noticed the some thing too, but noticed that the range on the sight corresponded with the true range more on the zoom than non-zoom.

A couple of the sights though don't seem to be calibrated and you have to use an in idicated range far less than the actual range.

Had great fun with the king Tiger though, engaging russion tanks at 1500 meters

Just found out that the non zoom is just for locating targets and the zoom is the only one to be used for range finding and targeting, so it would appear that the misalignment of the non-zoom view is not an error.

On the SimHQ tank battles map yesterday, another human player and I both spotted each other about 1200 metres away. At 1000 metres, we started exchanging blows. The zeroing system works really well - it only took two or three shots before I had the range dialed in. We slugged it out for what seemed like a minute or two. At this range, the rounds were not penetrating frontal armour and so no real damage was incurred, which, from my brief research, seems to be realistic. I'm not sure how long we could have gone on like this, but I was eventually flanked by a tank destroyer and killed by it at close range.

But yes, the whole system works very well, and it's a lot of fun.

I did some practicing with a Panther and noticed that the range "calibration" seemed off at longer ranges. I put an IS-2 1200 meters away (as indicated by the 'space bar' range finder) and when I dialed that in, my rounds were falling way short. I had to dial in 1400 meters before they landed on target.

Thanks for the responses guys.

Great thread here on range estimation using German sights. Really helpful if playing on a server that doesn't allow range aids, if such a server exists or you can take that feature away. Or just great if you want to try it out for a little more realism in your gaming.

I didn't agree with the assessment of the 'calibration mark' being used for the zero of sub-calibre rounds - that sounded 'unlike calibration' and impossible physically - at zero range all rounds (SpGr/PzGr39/PzGr40/HlGr39) should impact in the same place.

The 'correctly scaled' image 'for PE-X' also looked wrong, as the ticks were equally spaced. They should match the proportions of the super elevation required - i.e. small at short range and steadily increasing in gap with longer range.

I thought this thread title was Engagement Rings and other tank questions... which didnt make a lot of sense unless you were calling your fiancée a tank...

Makes more sense now that I read it though lol.

(Should have quoted... meh - the smart ones will figure it out )

As you would not necessary hit at exactly the same place with a rifle on a rest, shooting bench, etc...

The same parameters are at play with a tank, multiplied by the size of the canon, the size of the slug, heat, mechanics.

On another hand, a turretless TD is more likely to be more accurate due to the lack of mechanism of the Gun Turret, it is a more stable gun platform.

This is WWII Technology.

Moreover, this is NOT BF3.

What you see is what you get, be happy they did not reproduce ammunition malfunction, shortage of ammunition, fuel, constant break down of transmissions, Lack of replacement parts, lack of training of young crew, wear and tear etc... in the King Tiger, Panther, etc...

This is 1944, Germany has it's industry bombed day and night, human slave are working on assembly lines and sabotaging quality as much as they can. Be aware of Parachronism!

LOL!...When you zero in with a scope on the rifle, you ellevate the scope!....When you zero in, in a panzer, you dont ellevate the scope, you ellevate the gun!....Go to the range, rent for an hour a high power rifle with a scope, a shooting bench and experiment!...

Yup we are all fully aware of that Gunny. Just discussing the accuracy rather than the precision. The precison of the tank guns in game is actually extremely high, probably a little too high actually.

Edit: sorry gunny this was in response to your post about WW2 tank guns etc, not the post you just posted

I know how the zero/elevation/sight picture works...

The outer ring is rotated, mechanical linkage depresses the reticle appropriately, the reticle is laid back on the target, with suitable correction for lead and the weapon is fired. This is the same as the T72 sight, and very similar to that in the Leopard's Auxiliary Sight.

When the range is very short, all rounds fired will approximately impact directly in front of the muzzle... Don't give a hoot what the projectile weight/aerodynamics/material/function is, the round fired at minimum range will hit in the same general area - a five degree 'offset' between PzGr40 and PzGr39 as suggested in the document is ludicrous beyond all measure.

Please entertain us if you think it is supportable, I'd enjoy hearing the explanation.

It is possible that the '1300m' mark represents a 1500m or 2000m range, if PzGr is retaining velocity reasonably well, or where the PzGr40 and PzGr39 trajectories cross if PzGr40 slows more quickly... but it has nothing to do with the muzzle condition, or the start of the range scale etc. I could check my papers - I know I have some sample trajectory data for these rounds in one form or another, that would give some kind of indication.

Don't forget that I posted that link for the information on range finding etc that they'd taken from actual documents. The rest of the information on that page is for people making mods for a different game and coming up with their own ideas etc. The 'ingame' shots and reticules etc are from an entirely different game, and were posted in 2008.

Engine off, on?...What type of terrain?....Tank on a shooting bench?...How far from the muzzle of the gun is your target?...If too close, did the blast damage the canon?...Which tank?...the recoil starts when the projectile is still in the barrel-How long is the barrel?...where is placed your scope? (right above the gun as on a rifle, aside, how far? Did you notice how the optic moves on a StugIII?), Parallax error?...How much of that energy is absorbed by the recoil of the barrel, then the vehicle?...You reload with a different ammo = you have moving pieces that influence the trajectory.

Then again have you ever shoot a projectile from a Panzer and measured up the result?....That is the problem with simulation. If programmers could just translate what the reality is it would be fine. Yet, how many panzer are left in the world and tested for ballistic on a regular basis (like yesterday)?...And your record of data dating of an era where recording was not as accurate as today.

So, parachronism again!...

I would not worry if I was you because if you play the game long enough you will correct it automatically and will enjoy the game. If they made a mistake they will fix it and you will have to adapt to the new data to enjoy the game again.

If everything I said failed to entertain, I am gonna quote Buddha in regard to the secret of happiness: "All you have to do is to accept what is unacceptable to YOU". Don't resist, the fear of being wrong should not stop you from enjoying this wonderful day!

I feel blessed to be alive to feel the happiness that now I have a more decent WWII armor sim!

Who was that in response to Gunny?

Gunny. I like your style.

So, you really think that a 5 degree difference in trajectory is supportable, and that any questioning of this is 'out of the context of time'?

I can't be bothered arguing the point further. I read the document, saw several 'facts' and 'interpretations' that made no engineering sense, and commented on them. Go ahead and prove black is white, but be careful using Zebra crossings.

OK more testing and found that the ranges reading on the panther sight are completely wrong, i think. It seems that the range marker is too condensed. You can hit at 500 meters without touching the sight, if you set it at 500 it goes way over, and for a target 1200 meters away you need a range of 2200 on the sight. It'd be cool if they could get them all calibrated so that we can use them.

You did the test using the zoomed in gun sight, right? Because the zoomed out version is a wider field of view for spotting purposes, it doesn't line up with the rangefinder.

Yup, zoomed in.

In my test, it seemed accurate until about 1200 meters, then the rounds fell short and I had to dial in 1400 to get them to hit. Either way, I think it needs some calibrating.

I'm having a serious problem with range-finding in IFL. I created a custom mission with dummy tanks at about 750 and 1400 meters. When I use the auto rangefinder, it shows correctly about 750 meters, but I have to dial in almost 1400 meters to hit the target! To hit the targets at 1400 meters, I have to dial in almost 2200 meters. And forget about using the strich, when I place a head on t34 so it fills the center triangle, it should be right at 750 meters. But I still had to dial in almost 1400 meters again. The ticks and strich seem purely cosmetic and not usable for rangefinding. I hope I'm wrong and just doing something very wrong, but it doesn't look good for the realism in IFL.

Charon, does your custom mission have you and the dummy targets on the same elevation? If you are firing at a target higher or lower, it must be compensated, IIRC.

very closely the same, yeah. I also tried in the prepackaged mission that has a bunch of empty tanks in it. I drove a panther across a flat field until the auto range-finder said 800 meters to my target. (ignoring the fact that at that range the head on target should have been a little bigger than the center triangle in the gunsight and it was 3 times as big, rendering the triangles useless for ranging). I dialed in 800 and the rounds fell way short, I had to dial in about 1200 meters before they hit.

This is the problem i was talking about Charon. I wonder whether they can patch the sights?

I really hope they do, because gunsight accuracy is vitally important from a sim perspective. As it is now, it seems just cosmetic, and not a working gunsight. Has anyone from the developer ever commented on gunsight accuracy?

Wow!...How are you going to do on Iron-Front's Monday Military Op. when it is going to be time to shoot your rifle in combat and a retired Drill

Sergeant with a charming personality looking over your shoulder?...Are you going to count beans, push paper clips, and invoke the

inacuracy of your rifle sights?....Or are you just going to Adapt, Improvise, and Overcome?

I'll probably do ok.

Can't we discuss these features? I don't understand why it's a problem discussing that we'd like to see some of the tank sights.improved because at the moment a couple of them really do seem just superficial. I can do just fine without them being accurate but there's no haem in us wanting them to be functional.

Of course you can discuss them!...I am just getting to know you guys!

I don't mind a little "historically accurate" inaccuracy. But the sights now just aren't modeled in a way that makes them at all usable. The devs should look to games like TvsT and SF42 for reference on creating accurate, fully use-able gunsights.

I agree that the sights are all over the map. charon, I see you posted this on the Iron Front forums. The devs frequent those forums and respond to posts often, so hopefully we'll see some action on this.

Yea, fatty and I looked this over. I built a test range mission and calibrated ranges and altitudes for a "level ground" engagement out to 3km. For both of us, ranges past 1km begin to increasingly deviate from the reticle numbers, or so it appears. Would be great to get a resolution.

Thanks for taking the time to test this, guys. At least I know I'm not crazy. I hope it gets resolved, accurate sights is a must in my opinion, lest this turn into world of tanks.

How often do you shoot at something beyond 1000m? Most of the tanks I'm shooting at are 500m or closer.

That does seem to be the case. Some tanks are clearly working better than others though. In testing I found the Panther and SU-85 were undershooting significantly, and the Panzer IV was actually overshooting. All other tanks were fairly consistently hitting the target though (which was 1.4km away).

I am with you Helfish, the theatre of operation is not an endless flat plain, far from it.

Besides, 3 Km for a non moving target might be just fine, but for a moving target, when slugs get stoped or deviated by tree trunks. At 3 km, chances to miss are increased as much as revealing your presence.

What was the average distance of armor engagement in 1944 in the European theatre?

Now, lets imagine that a weather dimension will be introduce in the game with the next patch, such as wind, fog, rain, snow, etc...

It is like stating that my Sniper rifle does not shoot well over 1.5km when I am planning to use it under 500 yards in a vacuum.

It becomes an acedemic debate.

Gunny and Hellfish, indeed I started to post the same. I've yet to engage a hostile beyond 800m or so. Every encounter for me thus far has been playable and winnable.

In any case, if there is hope of the developers making some improvement in the future, it is all the best.

And they will as they always did in the past with OFP, VBS1, ARMA, VBS2, ARMAII. I agree with you!

Guys, just saying "so what if the site's broken, just get close" is not acceptable. The average engagement in WWII was 800-1200 meters. IFL is supposed to be a somewhat realistiic armor sim, and this is just plain unusable. It's vital to be able to calculate range and having the range dial work. On the Panther it's broken at any range. I dialed in a target on a flat plain 700 meters away, carefully adjusted to 700 meters on the zoomed site, and the round hit the ground about 2/3 of the way there. The T34/76 site seemed to be working pretty well though.

I think this is a bigger problem than some realize. You have to have a working gunsite to engage an enemy, at any range. This isn't just about long shots, it's necessary at any range. It's a little concerning that most engagements happen at 500 meters, I was hoping for a game that would battles at proper ranges.

PzKpw IV seems to be working, haven't gotten out past 1500m yet though. Not sure how the StuG sight works, so can't comment on that.

It's ok Charon, just remember if the sights do get fixed and we spot a tank at 1200 meters and dial in the range correctly and take them out with the first round, riemind people if this thread

With your visibility set at a decent range there are plenty if places where you can spot a tank at 1500 meters, and when using the king tiger, how's sights do work quite well, you can hit a moving tank at that range, and not only hit it but destroy it.

Listen up!
Here is a Tip to dial in the "BROKEN" scope of your armor:
Shoot at your intended target and see where the round lands. Where the round lands, dial it as zero, or put the top of the triangle on it. It might take a couple of shot or three or four for the novice to finally hit the intended target, and that works just fine, no one will ever (at least at SimHQ) point a finger at you, there is no shame to it, it is a learning process.

BTW, this method is part of the Russian doctrine to evaluate where their rounds will land, by shooting one shot with their co-axial as an indication- up to a certain distance, where their rounds would land then make the necessary correction and shoot the big gun for the final touch.

Anyone who has shot a rifle (in the real world) with a scope knows how to zero in a scope or a sight, there is no magic involved!... The easy part is that in IF44, people shoot in a vacuum. The same round's behavior is repeated indefinitly. Then since the round behavior is predictable, smile, it is easier.

In real life your round's behavior might slightly differ each time and your patience might run short which also happens here!...So I guess, Virtual and Real overlap somewhere!

Enjoy the game, that is the only reason you bought it!

Yup I know how to do that, and yes i've shot plenty of real guns. We just want the sights fixed that's all. Oh I give up.

"Its not broken its a feature!"

Hah. Righty-o.

The fact some tanks work better than others means something is wrong.

Well in that case, why have any gunsite? Just fire away and hope one hits.

Remember a working gunsite helps to acheive the old armor credo: "Spot first, engage first, hit first..."

You want that first round to connect. And I don't realistically expect to engage past 1500 meters, but 1200 would be nice.

So I did some non-scientific testing with targets at about 750 and 1400 meters. These were my results:

SU-85 - WAY OFF. Target was auto ranged at 1400 meters, I had to dial in 2400 meters before the rounds hit. something very wrong.
King Tiger - pretty good, a little short at 750 and 1400.
PzIV - beautiful! Nice and accurate at both ranges.
Stug III - very accurate.
IS2 - also beautiful at both ranges. very accurate.
T34/76 - again beautiful. nice and accurate at 750 and 1400.
T34/85 - very good. Not quite as accurate as the 76.
Panther - WAY OFF. just like the SU-85 I had to dial in twice the indicated range.

A separate issue is that the markings on the optics don't seem to be modeled correctly, you can use them to calculate range manually.

Wonder if it is the larger caliber shells trajectory instead of the optics, it seems a lot of the tanks are modelled well (maybe not perfect)? Perhaps certain calibers, I'm not that versed in which guns all the above have (my fav tank of all time is the Pzkfpw III, but I'll play a IV for now).

No way. I always use AP shells for these tests. A target reads 1400 meters away and I have to dial in 2400 meters to hit it? And just with two tanks? Somethings very wrong there.

I've read that in the ArmA 2 engine, at least with the guns, to align the sights correctly to a particular bullet round you have to play around with the zoom level for the sight. Perhaps it could be something similar, if so it could be easily fixed if the developers just tweak the config to adjust the zoom level for the gunsight so it aligns properly.

Interesting. Have you posted that on the dev bug forum?

I did. As far as I know, there hasn't been any comment on any of the optics issues.

Have you made tests yet with the other ammo types? Wonder if they built the gunsight per historical models, but "dialed-in" only 1 ammo type.

To compound this, it appears that range adjustments for the PaK 40 are completely ineffectual on a multiplayer server. Testing the airfield defence mission on the SimHQ server, my PaK fired at the same point regardless of what range the sights were adjusted for.

I just did the test again, with a Panther, using all ammo types and both magnifications on the gunsite, and it was way off using all methods. It's worse than I thought actually, when I had a target at 750 meters, I had to dial in 2000 meters to get the shells to hit center mass.

Thanks, I haven't figured out how to make missions yet, didn't know how to test. Just reinforces my selection of the Pzkpfw IV as my favorite tank!

Me neither, I basically just plopped down a bunch of empty tanks and started lobbing shells.

The PzIV is really nice.

How do you know the distance to the target?

If you aim at them and hold right-click, it designates them as a target and tells you the range.

A quote from a dev in the official forum:

"The situation is that after some engine calibration, the system stopped working correctly. We are aware of the trouble, know how to fix it, and will try to sort it asap. "

huzzah!

Oh great!...Did they talk about the "AutoAim" feature?

autoaim? what's that?

U don't know?...It is a feature from World of Tanks!...I thaught u wanted to turn IF44 into WOT.

Oh good god no! My comment was meant to convey that I was afraid of IF44 turning into WoT. I want my sims to stay sims.

Hehe, lest vs lets strikes again!

You have an impressive combat record on WOT.

1232 Battles
555 Victories (45%)
651 Defeats (53%)
348 Battle survived (28%)

And no known affiliation.

So, how the IS compares from WOT to IF44?

WoT is fun, but the ballistics and the game style are completely unrealistic. I've recently switched to Steel Fury and T34 vs Tiger, and of course IF44, all of which I'm enjoying much more.

Steel Fury is one a the great armor Sim, yet is there a multiplayer module in it?

Where do you play on line TvT?...Do you know a group?

I just do the single player missions for both games. Sometimes removing other humans from the equation is for the best.

Well if you are ready to play on line any armor, i am your man!

cool! I'm hoping to get in on the Saturday SimHQ IF44 game. I just have to figure out teamspeak...