Cannon barrel collision :)
2 Likes
I would love to see this, even if it was only active in Sim battles.
I do play a lot of RB though and would love to see it there. It would require the players to really think about their surroundings.
Also, will stop hugging of targets as the gun would be in the way, but could also be used against a target with a longer barrel.
1 Like
Lorraine 155 had realistic barrel colission but it got “fixed” at some point, now its like any other barrel.
4 Likes
Just saw a video describing the lorraine and bkan 1c being the only two with barrel collision, cant remember ti have seen the last one with barrel collision
The video was from 2 years ago
2 Likes
omg, just go and read my posts above. It was not a realistic barrel collision. I did check the the lorraine 155 through wiki link when people stated that it had it implemented, but it’s not a realistic barrel implementation.
You guys keep asking for the devs to solve unstoppable train vs indestructible wall problem with how the physics engines are working, and if they were to implement it correctly, you’d be crying that the game runs like crap and stutters all the time because someone is trying to peek through the window in a building.
1 Like
I’d love this, it would also give inherent buffs to shorter barreled vehicles in CQB, such as the BMP-1, BMP-2, PBV-501, Bradly, and a bunch of others, and would make you have to strategically plan your position in urban maps.
2 Likes
Should do a trial server with it like how the ARH missiles were tested
1 Like
i did read your post and of course its not a realistic barrel collison in your test drive you had done in the past few days since it got FIXED a while ago.
Read my Post again and you would notice that i wrote in the “PAST” form about the realistic Barrel collision (had=past, got=present).
I also stated that it behaves now like any other tank barrel
I did not ask or suggestet RL Barrel Physik should be a thing, so you could have saved these words.
I played the 155 back when this suggestion was on the old forum and checked it back then and it wasn’t realistic. It was the same way of implementation as it is now, it just had few more cases handled.
Also my post is not from past few days, but from almost year ago…
this is True but i didnt looked at the Date, my bad.
And when reading it i thought you testet it just recently over wiki link since i thought this was a new topic and not one over a year old.
From my Memory the barrel collision looked like this PSA: The Bkan 1C has a physical barrel which interacts with the environment. : r/Warthunder (reddit.com)
Also i remember that i read in a Changelog from gzsabie that the barrel collison from the Lorraine 155 and Bkan got removed.
I guess i didnt remember well enough and fell to peer pressure since almost everybody said it had a realistic Barrel collision wich is just half true.
Well i wish you a nice day then after we talked it out o7
1 Like
Yeah, and some time after someone linked this video on the old forums, I checked the 155 because that video you linked didn’t show what happens if you start turning the gun or the tank where the gun was supposed to hit something. And while I could do those things like this, if I put the gun next to something and turned the gun or the tank, it would get into it without the problem sideways.
And the original suggestion was for the gun collision to prevent you from turning the turret around in a forest or if you peek through a hole in the wall, or if you’re too close to your enemy to aim at him because your barrel will hit his turret.
What 155 and Bkan had was that the gun barrel had a rigid body that you could use to push through as the part of the whole tank when hitting other rigid bodies in the simulation, but once you’d want to both keep those requirements that things block each other + want to turn the turret, decide when to block the turret from turning because of the collision etc, it’s a completely different level of problems where you have to keep track of multiple layers of things acting on each other.
Anyway, it boils down to a problem of cost of servers and our systems performance and cost of figuring out something in the middle between realistic simulation and something ergonomic for the battle where you don’t get annoyed because you can’t turn around just because there’s some brick wall that doesn’t have added destruction by the barrel to it. Because once you want to add the realistic collision, you have to have all levels have perfect collision and destructibility where it makes sense.
One thing that I’d ask for before barrel collision - why not ask for being able to climb one tank onto another? Like Strv 103 acting as a ramp? Also sliding on slopes where you should be able to climb? If you try to climb onto these, even in some significantly lighter vehicle, you’re slide off because it’s not actually full proper simulation, but just simple bodies pushing away each other, so they work well against the level collision which is static, but between each other not so much.
That’s why if you’re touching another tank, some tanks will keep springing their suspension because the simple physics wants to push those physics bodies away because they are actually overlapping. And to make it more lightweight, you make it so that they can overlap a lot, but the more they overlap, the more repulsion/pushing away you get so one doesn’t fall into each other. That’s why you can squeeze some of the smaller vehicles in between some big ones, and that’s why you’ll slide off a vehicle that you should be able to climb/ride onto.
The game doesn’t have full fledged physics simulation for movement. For ballistics and penetration - yeah, but this is something that can be isolated and simulated almost statically. Movement physics of multiple objects being able to move - not that easy nor cheap performance-wise.
With that said - I’d really love if we’d have a proper movement collision allowing us to do ramps for wheeled vehicles with strv 103 or climb onto another vehicle, like a heavy tank, with something tiny like wiesel - it would be really fun to do some things like that.
Cheers o7
2 Likes
I don’t think the people who are clamoring for this are thinking it through. This would change urban maps dramatically, and urban maps seem to be Gaijin’s fetish right now.
This is definitely an example of why realism isn’t always such a good idea for War Thunder.
3 Likes
With how poor the hitboxes on things like rocks are I wouldn’t trust them to be able to implement something that precise.
1 Like