Volumetric needs to go

As the title states. It needs to go. again 0 patches to any of the million of bugs this thing has. I never had a single game where it did not break. Not one since it was introduced.
It is simply not working

12 Likes

I don’t think they have to remove it, since it is a realistic thing, the bullets have a diameter and are not a pixel, what happens is that they have to completely modify how those volumetric bullets interact with the armor, what if they hit any area? of armor on the side of the bullet is rebounding slightly, penetrating the flat plinth that you were aiming for, and above all, eliminate the bullets stopped senselessly due to the poor programming of the volumetric bullets. Don’t remove them but correct them once and for all.

2 Likes

I’ve never had a bug in relation to volumetric at all this year. Can’t speak for my memory of years prior.
All the issues I’ve had, all unrelated to volumetric:
Armor plates meeting.
Multi-plate armor perforation simulation.

And shots that were just me having skill issue:
I hit roof armor, and length-wise track thickness. Obviously they bounced as they would IRL.

The issue isn’t volumetric, the issues are elsewhere.

1 Like

No need. Volumetric exist irl, so it should in game

3 Likes

Volumethicc is fine, you are just bad

3 Likes

T-34 optics still frequently eat rounds that would otherwise one-shot them. I’ve had the 128mm APHE bounce off of T-34-85 optics in more than one occasion.

Day before yesterday, Ru 251, I had the HESH round due to the ammo bug - the game replaced my HEATFS selection with HESH instead, and I got a ricochet. How does HESH ricochet? How is that physically possible?

Then, there’s KV-1 tracks magically eating rounds aimed broadside and suffering no damage, even to the track itself. What about the bugs to HE? I hit a Swedish T-34 in the turret cheek with the KV2’s HE shell a few days ago, it destroyed the barrel and nothing else.

I hear that Panther gun mantlets are a similar volumetric hell, though I haven’t tested it myself. I’ve certainly had my fair share of M-51 gun mantlets magically bouncing the long 88’s APHE or the 128mm APHE.

Yesterday (I think) I got killed by a milk truck on Finland, after snapshot-hitting its driver cabin broadside with the Sturer Emil. Yes, yes, naturally it’s overpenetration, fuze didn’t trigger, no spalling… but that shell is cross-sectionally almost as large as the driving compartment, there’s no room for the driver and shell to be in the cabin at the same time! Isn’t that exactly what volumetric is supposed to represent? :P

Needless to say, he suffered no damage, and shredded me.

WT’s damage model is one of the things we all get addicted to, as it becomes impossible to take games with simplified damage models seriously anymore. At least when it comes to this niche. But it’s also broken af in ways that I experience on a daily basis. Let’s not even pretend otherwise. In a game with such fine margins, being unable to trust that your ammo will work consistently is a major handicap.

3 Likes

So they should have made it so that projectiles are not a pixel instead of this nightmare of volumetric armor.

3 Likes

Their light and unarmored vehicle damage model is so bad, the fact that milk trucks will survive more than any Leopard, Abrams or even a T-80 will ever do is comical… we’re just used to this low standard.

2 Likes

The problem is not the volumetric armor, the problem is the volumetric bullets, which are not well implemented and cause bullets that should pierce to ricochet or be stopped by the armor without any sense.

Exactly. Anything that goes towards more realism (assuming it’s correctly implemented) should absolutely stay in the game.

Yea. But the volumetric irl and the one in game share absolutely nothing in common. In fact the one in game actively does things real volumetric discourages.

What we have is sth called volumetric, but not volumetric behaviour

Calling the curren system “Volumetric Shells” is like calling a Deer a Whale. They hjave next to nothing in common.

And you are just irrelevant for the world.

These two issues are related to volumetric… Volumetric is everything regarding armour and Shells behaviour. A Shell not penetrating where two plates meet? Volumetric fucking up. A Shell penetrating 2m of side skirds at a 1° angle and still penetrating your side armour (another 50mm or so)? Volumetric fucking up.

Explain to me. What to you is volumetric. And I can then tell you how wrong you are.

Well yea those should not pen… but they do occasionally when Volumetric fucks up. I mean just yesterday an IS 6 penetrated my m103 at a 12° angle. His shell went for over 1m through my mudguard/sideskirt top and then penetrated my side at an ridicoulus angle. That is volumetric fucking up.

No the issue is volumetric/ a part of volumetric.

2 Likes

No, armor plates meeting is a perforation simulation & armor simulation issue, not a volumetric one.
And the other is obviously perforation which exists no matter how wide the projectile is.

IS-6 penning is the in-game APHEBC properties, not volumetric. Would’ve penned you regardless of it being volumetric or not.

Which is fully handled by volumetric armour. Which has to work in conjunction with volumetric shells. Hence why I did not say volumetric shells.
It is still a matter of volumetric fucking up/being not correctly implemented.

In the described case he should not have penned if volumeteic would actually work. The shell would have deviated from its course and not gone in a straight line, causing it to hit my turret or lower side at a different angle. But volumetric shells and armour do not interact like that in the game. Ahells can only fully bounce or go straight, they can not deviate from their course in any other way. Which is the main reason why you would want an overall volumeteic system. To calculate such things.

Again, I am not against Volumetric. I just consider what we have to not be it and I also consider it to be inferiour to the older system in most regards.

We need a few things for proper volumeteic implementation.

  1. Shells need to have unique characteristics depending on their design rather than type. A soviet APHEBC should not behave like a soviet APCBC or german APHE upon impact with the armour. Right now they do just that, the onky difference is that gajin tells the game how much armour to ignore upon impact. (Which is btw the main cause of bugs with the shells, most of the rest is simply missing entirely)
    2 Volumetric armour needs to be properly modeled on all vehicles.
    3 Volumetric armour needs to properly interact with shells, meaning deformation of the shell depending on speed, angle and shape of the head (It does not have to be permanent deformation of armour, that would eat to many resources for almost no gain in gameplay)
    On top of that armour needs to be calculated for all of the impact area and not set to a fixed amount. Right now gajin fixed the “overlapping armour doubling” issue by simply telling the game to calculate for the thicker part and ignoring the thiner part. In a proper implentation it would have the shell deviate into the thiner part of the armour depending on how close the hit was.
    In case of hitting an air gap between two armour plates (gap between the turret mantle of Tiger 1 and the turret ring for example) it should not calculate “penetration” of the plates at all, just reduce the speed of the projectile accordingly. Calculation of the penetration shoudl happen on the second plate in case of the tiger 1(the actual turret ring) right now you can not pen the turret ring of a Tiger 1 with anything but a high powered small projectile unless you somehow manage to not hit the mantlet at all. If you hit the mantlet your bullet will calculate the penetration and damage effect, never reaching the ring, essentially removing one of the biggest weakpoint of the tank.

There are more points, but I assume you get the picture.
Right now, we have shells with size but no physics and realism and armour with meaningless values and no real interaction with the shells. And neither really interact with the other.

All of this is not news. It should have been implemented yeara ago, yet the last major change to volumetric years in the past. Gajin apparently seems satisfied with their half baked chocolate cake without chocolate.

4 Likes

This has been the result of doing things hastily and without testing them first, to implement such complex things you have to model the armor well, then model the volumetric bullets well and then correctly model how they should interact with each other, so that the bullets that hit a extreme rebound angle maintaining much of its energy, deflecting slightly and piercing if the plate is not enough to stop that bullet.

Quantity of vehicles is their clear priority over this.

No, I think that for them the priority is to do events more and more frequently, because it seems that it is the only thing that keeps people in the game.

I love it when a T-55 manages to survive my OFL 105 F1! This is actually historical and completely based, volumetric has absolutely zero flaws!

Link:

Good! So we are keeping volumetric!

Volumetric is absolutely an improvement to the pixel shells we had before, even with whatever occasional bugs/issues it has (as with any system). Any specific issues should be bug reported, naturally.