Well in-game it’s showing 1.1 when aiming at T-series HHRA, & sadly you can’t aim at UFPs due to the composites/air gaps.
You were going with a standard multiplier for normalization rather than finding the normalization angle your test round uses.
Then applying that angle to the armor in calculations.
Cause the problem with using a multiplier is it’s multiple layers.
Getting a standard angle from testing on a known non-composite like Maus armor, gets you a solid reliable number to use.
It is not, they use 1.2, the thing is that there seems to be something else going on on here as using this modifiers you would get a normalized value of (150·1.2+60·0.45)/(cos(68)x1.17)=472mm, which is in line with the values for the t80ud (450mm), not really shure what is going on, could be some armour duplicity which wouldnt be the first.
This should be the same for every modern APFSDS round. So I don’t see issue with it. It’s defined in the files and can be tested against as I’ve done.
Note it’s missing a 1.15 multiplier somewhere, this may be hidden to simulate the composite but not sure.
We can see there than textolite is 3x what it should be.
Note I dont think that the textolite should have the same modifier on the 3 layers hull than on the 5 layers, the impact isnt really the same.
Perhaps, perhaps not, the impact of that can be simulated by using a global composite modifier like they seem to be doing. Instead they have some sort of modifier PLUS Textolite is better than it should be.
That begs the question of why the HHRA on T-80U for example has 1.1 everywhere else.
& it sadly can’t be confirmed on the UFP itself.
Beats me, not sure if they had different grade of steel, which could be the case, but from what i can see the rest of the hull is have the 1.1 or no modifier
That modifier seems to be really the case, check on the t80ud the protection i game is much closer the modifiers on the files (135·1.2+60·0.45)/(cos(68)x1.17)=431 than with the t80u, still slightly over tho like 4-5%
Note, it’s missing the line “format version = 2” line right?
it is there
Ahhh, no idea how it’s happening then that’s my theory out the window.
Note how ridiculous the textolite modifiers are… the whole point is improving chemical protection… and yet it’s barely any different.
Not sure, but on the files the t64a have a wopping 0.001 modifier
Yep, because they didn’t change the RHa modifiers when fixing it, they decided to just make the textolite non existent
Thats something that confuses me
Textolite is basically not there on the tank yet somehow the tank is minorly overperforming
the 80mm plate uses a 1.123 modifier and the 20mm a 1.2 for some reason, which does matches the in game protection (180·1.123+20·1.2)/(cos(68)x1.17)=260, gaijing truly is consistently inconsistent, if i have to guess all of this is due to them copy and pasting the hull of the original 80u hull, since the t80ud hull is different they didnt carry on the same error
why cant they just do it correctly?
just illogical
I aint no armor designer, but your calculations seem to ignore that the “sandwhich” layout including order and individual thicknesses of the components matter.
As in comparing t-64a with steel-textolite-steel and t80u that has steel-textolite-steel-textolite-steel might be dubious. Doubt that the designers were making the complex layering just for funsies.
I am not certain that the t80u we have in game has correct armor model but the assumptions in your calculations make me not so certain that it indeed overperforms
Those assumptions are the same that Gaijin must surely use for all composites ultimately - NATO / PACT / Whatever.
The issue is not so much the layering or ordering of layering. It is that some materials (mainly those employed by the RU Tech Tree) are very much an outlier. If you have some dodgy figures in one of your many layers of armour - you will ultimately compound the error as you simulate more and more layers.