I think Wedgie messed up aiming again.

[Asym]

2 hours ago, Utt_Bugglier said:

I would think someone with your background would grasp that the battlespace would consist of only three dimensions, despite the addition of submarines: up/down(“depth”) is all one dimension, as is left/right, as is forward/ backward/fore/aft.

Really?  Let's see:  ships go left/right and forward and backward.  Planes occupy up and Sub occupy down.  In the most simplistic ways. 

Now, if we want to add complexity:  Planes really are Roll, Pitch and Yaw and Altitude.  Subs are Roll, Pitch and Yaw with Pressure.  Space craft are even more.....

Up and down are not the same thing either...since the game limits up and down because the game engine simply couldn't handle the calculations NOR, could players use either craft effectively... 

Here again, it's up to the analyst (usually a Six Sigma master agent) in charge to calculate "complexity" so as to define the baseline limits of the dimensions of use....  Darn laws of complexity sure do get a might "touchy" when advanced program systems assign "value" to changes....  Cause a change in dimension creates exponential balancing costs in process.  Oh gee, could it get more complicated !!  You betcha !!!

Imagine defining a human being (as a product), in terms of dimensions (complexity) - when taking on the Asymmetry (chaos theory) of Health Care systems....   Where 80% of all Quality of Life (QoL) treatments fail to improve Health Related QoL....  Ouch.(HrQoL).... 

[Utt_Bugglier]

9 hours ago, Asym said:

[snip]

You simply do not know what you’re talking about.

9 hours ago, Asym said:

Really?

Yes, really.

9 hours ago, Asym said:

Now, if we want to add complexity:  Planes really are Roll, Pitch and Yaw and Altitude.  Subs are Roll, Pitch and Yaw with Pressure.  Space craft are even more.....

You're not adding "complexity." You're adding misinformation.

I mean, just how many points of error can I find here?

One: pressure us not a “dimension”, not of a battlespace, nor of any space. Period. It is a quantity of force per unit area.

Two: you simply cannot be taken seriously if you’re going to call pressure a “dimension” (your erroneous term, not mine) of the submarine environment, and not identify it as such for an aircraft environment.

Three: you’re incorrectly separating up and down into separate dimensions: it’s two directions, but one dimension.

Four: You’re not even consistent: consistency with your take on up/down would dictate that left/right be separate dimensions, as would front/back, and space would consist of six dimensions, but we live in a universe of “three-dimensional space.” I mean, how has your thundering revelation that up and down are not the same thing, and therefor must be separate dimensions, eluded you with left/right or front/back?

Five: yaw, pitch, and roll are not dimensions, but are Degrees of Freedom (DOF). One way to express the difference is that if an aircraft rolls 380 degrees, its roll angle is only 20 degrees from where it began. Up/down, left/right, and front/back are also degrees of freedom, but they are also dimensions.

Six: your appeal to complexity falls flat because you are flunking at grasping simplicity, and reeks of simply evading your error with which I confronted you.

Before I go further, I should tell you that I have a masters degree in mechanical engineering, and my emphasis and thesis was on the subject of multibody dynamic simulation. (simulation of systems with multiple moving parts in a non-steady state (meaning accelerating, decelerating rotating, etc.)) environment. I have spent 20 years of my career working in that field, I'm pretty damn good at it. And I've worked with people better than me at it.

I have worked with vehicle dynamicists, aerodynamicists, aeronautic engineers, naval architects and naval engineers (yeah, both surface and submarine), reactor engineers, simulation programmers, etc., and not even one, not in any of their fields of endeavor, has ever said anything stating or even implying, "you  know, our simulations don't hold water because up and down aren't broken into separate dimensions.'

Not ever.

Nor has anyone ever said, "we need to get a 'six sigma master' to define the complexity of our system."

My system that I evaluated for my thesis had well over 100 degrees of freedom, complex by some standards, not so much by others, but it operated in three-dimensional, (but six-degree-of-freedom) space.

Now, I'm right on this, and you're, well, not.

Now, by virtue of my "forum wars" experience (which predates this forum by decades) I know that this discussion will go one of three ways:

1. You admit you're wrong. I'll even accept "you're right, I forgot" or even, "I did a real hack of stating my case here." (Pssst! they almost never go this way.)

2. You dig in deeper, and flee the original subject and try to change it, or try to expand scope to mask a lack of understanding. (You've done some of t his already.)

3. You disengage entirely.

Frankly, I have probably at most one more response' worth of desire to respond, and I might be the one to disengage thereafter (This bears all the telltale signs of going along Path #2). Reason: it takes a fair amount of effort and time to demonstrate in a meaningful way that someone is blathering a bunch of nonsense, but it is easy for that same someone to generate an unending mountain of nonsense, and I don't have the fire in my belly to demolish it all brick by brick any more; I have better and more important things to do with my time, and I'm at a point in my life where I don't have to prove myself to "the Internet" any more. (acknowledging that I have taken a brief departure from that position for this post.)

[Admiral_Karasu]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but water pressure is a zero factor when it comes to WoWS.

[Wolfswetpaws]

23 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I noticed that WG bots in Asymmetric would actively dodge shells the moment you fired them...of course, they did so in predictable ways.

So, Id fire one gun at them to induce the turn...then fire the rest where their slowing turn would put them.

Good of you to observe their behavior and use it against them.  

It seems to me that the 'Bots are emulating human behaviors, again.  🙂 

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 hour ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but water pressure is a zero factor when it comes to WoWS.

I think/believe/guess you're correct.

Example:  depth-charge explosions are not shperical in-game.  They are a cylinder, for game calculation purposes.
This is similar to H.E. projectile explosions forming a cube, for damage calculation puposes.

Edited June 12 by Wolfswetpaws

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 hour ago, Utt_Bugglier said:

You simply do not know what you’re talking about.

Yes, really.

You're not adding "complexity." You're adding misinformation.

I mean, just how many points of error can I find here?

One: pressure us not a “dimension”, not of a battlespace, nor of any space. Period. It is a quantity of force per unit area.

Two: you simply cannot be taken seriously if you’re going to call pressure a “dimension” (your erroneous term, not mine) of the submarine environment, and not identify it as such for an aircraft environment.

Three: you’re incorrectly separating up and down into separate dimensions: it’s two directions, but one dimension.

Four: You’re not even consistent: consistency with your take on up/down would dictate that left/right be separate dimensions, as would front/back, and space would consist of six dimensions, but we live in a universe of “three-dimensional space.” I mean, how has your thundering revelation that up and down are not the same thing, and therefor must be separate dimensions, eluded you with left/right or front/back?

Five: yaw, pitch, and roll are not dimensions, but are Degrees of Freedom (DOF). One way to express the difference is that if an aircraft rolls 380 degrees, its roll angle is only 20 degrees from where it began. Up/down, left/right, and front/back are also degrees of freedom, but they are also dimensions.

Six: your appeal to complexity falls flat because you are flunking at grasping simplicity, and reeks of simply evading your error with which I confronted you.

Before I go further, I should tell you that I have a masters degree in mechanical engineering, and my emphasis and thesis was on the subject of multibody dynamic simulation. (simulation of systems with multiple moving parts in a non-steady state (meaning accelerating, decelerating rotating, etc.)) environment. I have spent 20 years of my career working in that field, I'm pretty damn good at it. And I've worked with people better than me at it.

I have worked with vehicle dynamicists, aerodynamicists, aeronautic engineers, naval architects and naval engineers (yeah, both surface and submarine), reactor engineers, simulation programmers, etc., and not even one, not in any of their fields of endeavor, has ever said anything stating or even implying, "you  know, our simulations don't hold water because up and down aren't broken into separate dimensions.'

Not ever.

Nor has anyone ever said, "we need to get a 'six sigma master' to define the complexity of our system."

My system that I evaluated for my thesis had well over 100 degrees of freedom, complex by some standards, not so much by others, but it operated in three-dimensional, (but six-degree-of-freedom) space.

Now, I'm right on this, and you're, well, not.

Now, by virtue of my "forum wars" experience (which predates this forum by decades) I know that this discussion will go one of three ways:

1. You admit you're wrong. I'll even accept "you're right, I forgot" or even, "I did a real hack of stating my case here." (Pssst! they almost never go this way.)

2. You dig in deeper, and flee the original subject and try to change it, or try to expand scope to mask a lack of understanding. (You've done some of t his already.)

3. You disengage entirely.

Frankly, I have probably at most one more response' worth of desire to respond, and I might be the one to disengage thereafter (This bears all the telltale signs of going along Path #2). Reason: it takes a fair amount of effort and time to demonstrate in a meaningful way that someone is blathering a bunch of nonsense, but it is easy for that same someone to generate an unending mountain of nonsense, and I don't have the fire in my belly to demolish it all brick by brick any more; I have better and more important things to do with my time, and I'm at a point in my life where I don't have to prove myself to "the Internet" any more. (acknowledging that I have taken a brief departure from that position for this post.)

Bottom line?
The game calculations are a "simplified" or "modified for the convenience of the programmers and computer processing power" environment model?
 

[Utt_Bugglier]

10 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Bottom line?
The game calculations are a "simplified" or "modified for the convenience of the programmers and computer processing power" environment model?
 

That’s hard to say: a model can be oversimplified, too complex, or the basic physics equations/code just plain written wrong. 

 A part of WoWs that gives me concern in that department was the introduction of the ships heaving and pitching up and down due to wave action, with WGs statement at release that said it would not affect gameplay. Now we know that it doesn’t affect ship speed. To me, that is a “reasonable simplification” (albeit a departure from reality that aligns with “not affecting gameplay.” But considering it further: does the hitbox of the ship heave and pitch with those visual motions? “Probably.” If not, there would have been howls about phantom misses and phantom hits from Day 1 of introduction of that. A more thought-provoking question follows, though: Does the aiming platform move in response to the ship’s motion caused by the sea state? If it does you would see the aimpoint of the reticle move in response to the ship motions and we don’t. Also, because the ship is in a rolling motion, not just a rolled angle, the shell’s velocity vector in free space, as the shell leaves the barrel would not align with the barrel axis, but with the sum vector of shell motion along the barrel axis combined with the velocity the barrel itself has due to ship motion. Since we don’t see any of that kind of motion going on with our reticles, I gotta presume the aiming platform doesn’t move in response to the vertical motion state of the ship.

But that would lead to the question of what else about the motion state might be ignored in aiming?

What about kiting? Lots of folks like to kite away - man, you’re firing from beyond max range just staying dark, raining shells on that poor sucker who is charging your way. But should you be able to do that? Well, probably not to the extent WoWs lets you. Here: (let’s consider a sim environment for the moment not having aero drag on the shelks) When you’re sailing away from an  enemy ship, your barrels are moving away from that ship, which means they’re moving away from your aimpoint. So, if your ship is moving at 20 m/sec, and your muzzle velocity is 800 m/sec, and you’re kiting dead astern, your downrange velocity is only 780 m/sec. If you’ve got a 16km max range, those shells (if ship velocity is taken into account) ain’t never going to make 16km from your firing point. (If shell aero drag weren't modeled in, they would land 16km from where the ship is when the shells hit the ocean.) And the same goes for the following ship: if he’s sailing the same ship at the same speed, hus shells are getting downrange at 820 m/sec, and they can reach 16km from where his ship is when they hit the water as well.

So, what can we infer from that? Kiting (in a non-aero-incorporating simulation) with two equal ships, will have no beneficial effect for the forward (kiting) ship.

Now, if we turn the aero switch on, since it is advertised to be included in WoWs, we have to concede that the ship firing forward with 820m/sec shell velocity, will have more drag force on its shells than the kiting ship with its 780m/sec shell velocity, and that will accrue to some small range advantage for the kiting ship. That velocity difference at the muzzle is right at 5%, but those velocities will begin converging as soon as as the shells leave their respective barrels, and final range advantage is not going to be really huge.

But we can learn something definite in relation to WoWs from this shell thought process. Since:

1. WoWs shows that 16km max range at all times for the following ship, and not an iota more when aiming ahead of the ship

2. And it shows the unachievable same 16km max range aim point behind the kiting ship,

we can reasonably infer that WoWs isn’t including horizontal plane motion effects of the ship on shell range, (meaning, the instant you fire the guns, the ballistics calculation does its thing as if the guns are sitting dead still on the ocean surface, and not moving) and correspondingly, that ignoring this movement effect allows kiting to have a larger role in-game than it should.

So, does WoWs have oversimplifications? I’m certain that it does. I think, however that this demonstrated piecemeal application of physics is potentially a bigger problem, and that there is a lot that is “cross wired” (at best) under the hood, and probably a fair amount that is just plain wrong (at worst).

I think a colossal problem WoWs NA also has is that they suffered a huge “brain drain” due to the split: the sim coders & better analytical tools and intellectual property rights probably landed heavily on the Russian side of the split.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 13 by Utt_Bugglier
Addition for clarity.

[Wolfswetpaws]

7 minutes ago, Utt_Bugglier said:

That’s hard to say: a model can be oversimplified, too complex, or the basic physics equations/code just plain written wrong. 

 A part of WoWs that gives me concern in that department was the introduction of the ships heaving and pitching up and down due to wave action, with WGs statement at release that said it would not affect gameplay. Now we know that it doesn’t affect ship speed. To me, that is a “reasonable simplification” (albeit a departure from reality that aligns with “not affecting gameplay.” But considering it further: does the hitbox of the ship heave and pitch with those visual motions? “Probably.” If not, there would have been howls about phantom misses and phantom hits from Day 1 of introduction of that. A more thought-provoking question follows, though: Does the aiming platform move in response to the ship’s motion caused by the sea state? If it does you would see the aimpoint of the reticle move in response to the ship motions and we don’t. Also, because the ship is in a rolling motion, not just a rolled angle, the shell’s velocity vector in free space, as the shell leaves the barrel would not align with the barrel axis, but with the sum vector of shell motion along the barrel axis combined with the velocity the barrel itself has due to ship motion. Since we don’t see any of that kind of motion going on with our reticles, I gotta presume the aiming platform doesn’t move in response to the vertical motion state of the ship.

But that would lead to the question of what else about the motion state might be ignored in aiming?

What about kiting? Lots of folks like to kite away - man, you’re firing from beyond max range just staying dark, raining shells on that poor sucker who is charging your way. But should you be able to do that? Well, probably not to the extent WoWs lets you. Here: (let’s consider a sim environment for the moment not having aero drag on the shelks) When you’re sailing away from an  enemy ship, your barrels are moving away from that ship, which means they’re moving away from your aimpoint. So, if your ship is moving at 20 m/sec, and your muzzle velocity is 800 m/sec, and you’re kiting dead astern, your downrange velocity is only 780 m/sec. If you’ve got a 16km max range, those shells (if ship velocity is taken into account) ain’t never going to make 16km from your firing point. (If shell aero drag weren't modeled in, they would land 16km from where the ship is when the shells hit the ocean.) And the same goes for the following ship: if he’s sailing the same ship at the same speed, hus shells are getting downrange at 820 m/sec, and they can reach 16km from where his ship is when they hit the water as well.

So, what can we infer from that? Kiting (in a non-aero-incorporating simulation) with two equal ships, will have no beneficial effect for the forward (kiting) ship.

Now, if we turn the aero switch on, since it is advertised to be included in WoWs, we have to concede that the ship firing forward with 820m/sec shell velocity, will have more drag force on its shells than the kiting ship with its 780m/sec shell velocity, and that will accrue to some small range advantage for the kiting ship. That velocity difference at the muzzle is right at 5%, but those velocities will begin converging as soon as as the shells leave their respective barrels, and final range advantage is not going to be really huge.

But we can learn something definite in relation to WoWs from this shell thought process. Since:

1. WoWs shows that 16km max range at all times for the following ship, and not an iota more when aiming ahead of the ship

2. And it shows the unachievable same 16km max range aim point behind the kiting ship,

we can reasonably infer that WoWs isn’t including horizontal plane motion effects of the ship on shell range, and correspondingly that ignoring this effect allows kiting to have a larger role in-game than it should.

So, does WoWs have oversimplifications? I’m certain that it does. I think, however that this demonstrated piecemeal application of physics is potentially a bigger problem, and that there is a lot that is “cross wired” (at best) under the hood, and probably a fair amount that is just plain wrong (at worst).

I think a colossal problem WoWs NA also has is that they suffered a huge “brain drain” due to the split: the sim coders & better analytical tools and intellectual property rights probably landed heavily on the Russian side of the split.

 

Indeed.
"All of the above", and probably a few other factors which are internal company goings-on.

Side-note.  I've read the linked pdf file, "Fire Control Fundamentals".  https://maritime.org/doc/firecontrol/index.php
World of Warships is an "arcade game", as far as I can tell.
Fun, but definitely not a simulation.  🙂 
 

[clammboy]

Looks like another slow day on the news front and now over to Kimberly with a report on the best Tacos in New Mexico. 

[Wolfswetpaws]

3 minutes ago, clammboy said:

Looks like another slow day on the news front and now over to Kimberly with a report on the best Tacos in New Mexico. 

 😄 

[Asym]

3 hours ago, Utt_Bugglier said:

You simply do not know what you’re talking about.

Yes, really.

You're not adding "complexity." You're adding misinformation.

I mean, just how many points of error can I find here?

One: pressure us not a “dimension”, not of a battlespace, nor of any space. Period. It is a quantity of force per unit area.

Two: you simply cannot be taken seriously if you’re going to call pressure a “dimension” (your erroneous term, not mine) of the submarine environment, and not identify it as such for an aircraft environment.

Three: you’re incorrectly separating up and down into separate dimensions: it’s two directions, but one dimension.

Four: You’re not even consistent: consistency with your take on up/down would dictate that left/right be separate dimensions, as would front/back, and space would consist of six dimensions, but we live in a universe of “three-dimensional space.” I mean, how has your thundering revelation that up and down are not the same thing, and therefor must be separate dimensions, eluded you with left/right or front/back?

Five: yaw, pitch, and roll are not dimensions, but are Degrees of Freedom (DOF). One way to express the difference is that if an aircraft rolls 380 degrees, its roll angle is only 20 degrees from where it began. Up/down, left/right, and front/back are also degrees of freedom, but they are also dimensions.

Six: your appeal to complexity falls flat because you are flunking at grasping simplicity, and reeks of simply evading your error with which I confronted you.

Before I go further, I should tell you that I have a masters degree in mechanical engineering, and my emphasis and thesis was on the subject of multibody dynamic simulation. (simulation of systems with multiple moving parts in a non-steady state (meaning accelerating, decelerating rotating, etc.)) environment. I have spent 20 years of my career working in that field, I'm pretty damn good at it. And I've worked with people better than me at it.

I have worked with vehicle dynamicists, aerodynamicists, aeronautic engineers, naval architects and naval engineers (yeah, both surface and submarine), reactor engineers, simulation programmers, etc., and not even one, not in any of their fields of endeavor, has ever said anything stating or even implying, "you  know, our simulations don't hold water because up and down aren't broken into separate dimensions.'

Not ever.

Nor has anyone ever said, "we need to get a 'six sigma master' to define the complexity of our system."

My system that I evaluated for my thesis had well over 100 degrees of freedom, complex by some standards, not so much by others, but it operated in three-dimensional, (but six-degree-of-freedom) space.

Now, I'm right on this, and you're, well, not.

Now, by virtue of my "forum wars" experience (which predates this forum by decades) I know that this discussion will go one of three ways:

1. You admit you're wrong. I'll even accept "you're right, I forgot" or even, "I did a real hack of stating my case here." (Pssst! they almost never go this way.)

2. You dig in deeper, and flee the original subject and try to change it, or try to expand scope to mask a lack of understanding. (You've done some of t his already.)

3. You disengage entirely.

Frankly, I have probably at most one more response' worth of desire to respond, and I might be the one to disengage thereafter (This bears all the telltale signs of going along Path #2). Reason: it takes a fair amount of effort and time to demonstrate in a meaningful way that someone is blathering a bunch of nonsense, but it is easy for that same someone to generate an unending mountain of nonsense, and I don't have the fire in my belly to demolish it all brick by brick any more; I have better and more important things to do with my time, and I'm at a point in my life where I don't have to prove myself to "the Internet" any more. (acknowledging that I have taken a brief departure from that position for this post.)

Wow !  

Forum Wars Reply number #1.....      I was speaking in the simplest of ways.  I should have prefaced that.......

Honestly, I am discussing the non-technical side of the word(s).  Dimension in my professional world is an illustration of use.....not the technical definition.  We actually had jet models our R&D teams used to explain the costs associated to aerodynamic changes....  The business side used the words I have mentioned to simply illustrate the principle that small changes in complex systems generate exponential costs in many cases....  I talked to Presidents of Corporations whom simply wanted something new or changed and didn't understand the "complexity" of their request (or, the time, testing, conformity/configuration or qualifications necessary to use those changes...! And, why their bill was sooooo high !  BTW, we created an entire process that allowed the actual requesting customers to participate in new or change business requests.

My team did that in the simplest of ways....  Ask me about the Star Trek door mod one day.....

BTW, my Masters are in Innovation Design and Leadership (Military CGSC).....go figure...  I AM NOT AN ENGINEER !  GoD, forfend.....I hired them and worked with them everyday when I was working (retired now and, play golf with them every Tuesday)...... Smart folk......if a little focused too much....and, mostly can't speak in public without a translator.

"Dimension" is a dangerous word.  You've proven that in spades:   because,  in your world,  dimension is a technical representation of the actual forces and physics involved.  Those of us that have employed engineers, usually have some really fun conversations,  when we talk about change limits and costs... 

Didn't mean to trigger you !  Woooooo boy, that was an event ! 

mea culpa enough....

 

 

[Asym]

56 minutes ago, Utt_Bugglier said:

That’s hard to say: a model can be oversimplified, too complex, or the basic physics equations/code just plain written wrong. 

 A part of WoWs that gives me concern in that department was the introduction of the ships heaving and pitching up and down due to wave action, with WGs statement at release that said it would not affect gameplay. Now we know that it doesn’t affect ship speed. To me, that is a “reasonable simplification” (albeit a departure from reality that aligns with “not affecting gameplay.” But considering it further: does the hitbox of the ship heave and pitch with those visual motions? “Probably.” If not, there would have been howls about phantom misses and phantom hits from Day 1 of introduction of that. A more thought-provoking question follows, though: Does the aiming platform move in response to the ship’s motion caused by the sea state? If it does you would see the aimpoint of the reticle move in response to the ship motions and we don’t. Also, because the ship is in a rolling motion, not just a rolled angle, the shell’s velocity vector in free space, as the shell leaves the barrel would not align with the barrel axis, but with the sum vector of shell motion along the barrel axis combined with the velocity the barrel itself has due to ship motion. Since we don’t see any of that kind of motion going on with our reticles, I gotta presume the aiming platform doesn’t move in response to the vertical motion state of the ship.

But that would lead to the question of what else about the motion state might be ignored in aiming?

What about kiting? Lots of folks like to kite away - man, you’re firing from beyond max range just staying dark, raining shells on that poor sucker who is charging your way. But should you be able to do that? Well, probably not to the extent WoWs lets you. Here: (let’s consider a sim environment for the moment not having aero drag on the shelks) When you’re sailing away from an  enemy ship, your barrels are moving away from that ship, which means they’re moving away from your aimpoint. So, if your ship is moving at 20 m/sec, and your muzzle velocity is 800 m/sec, and you’re kiting dead astern, your downrange velocity is only 780 m/sec. If you’ve got a 16km max range, those shells (if ship velocity is taken into account) ain’t never going to make 16km from your firing point. (If shell aero drag weren't modeled in, they would land 16km from where the ship is when the shells hit the ocean.) And the same goes for the following ship: if he’s sailing the same ship at the same speed, hus shells are getting downrange at 820 m/sec, and they can reach 16km from where his ship is when they hit the water as well.

So, what can we infer from that? Kiting (in a non-aero-incorporating simulation) with two equal ships, will have no beneficial effect for the forward (kiting) ship.

Now, if we turn the aero switch on, since it is advertised to be included in WoWs, we have to concede that the ship firing forward with 820m/sec shell velocity, will have more drag force on its shells than the kiting ship with its 780m/sec shell velocity, and that will accrue to some small range advantage for the kiting ship. That velocity difference at the muzzle is right at 5%, but those velocities will begin converging as soon as as the shells leave their respective barrels, and final range advantage is not going to be really huge.

But we can learn something definite in relation to WoWs from this shell thought process. Since:

1. WoWs shows that 16km max range at all times for the following ship, and not an iota more when aiming ahead of the ship

2. And it shows the unachievable same 16km max range aim point behind the kiting ship,

we can reasonably infer that WoWs isn’t including horizontal plane motion effects of the ship on shell range, and correspondingly that ignoring this effect allows kiting to have a larger role in-game than it should.

So, does WoWs have oversimplifications? I’m certain that it does. I think, however that this demonstrated piecemeal application of physics is potentially a bigger problem, and that there is a lot that is “cross wired” (at best) under the hood, and probably a fair amount that is just plain wrong (at worst).

I think a colossal problem WoWs NA also has is that they suffered a huge “brain drain” due to the split: the sim coders & better analytical tools and intellectual property rights probably landed heavily on the Russian side of the split.

Yes, the brain trust left when the R&D team left the game because of the divorce...  But, the game is a greatly, massively over simplified version of reality....   Reality,  would be BORING.

On the SIM side (part of my first career no less), we used real world physics for SIMNET.  That's why it took two Main Frames to run the SIM in the 80's.  But, even with stabilized fire controls, what comes out of the tube isn't always going where you think !  All sorts of environmental clutter that bullet has to go through......to include buildings and all sorts of man made or natural terrain....  And, yes, SIMNET was about as fun a "PVP game" one could ever play......ever, ever play.  Until the match was over and your Commander's/School Technical experts hot wash after the match, which was shown with all that you did wrong....ouch. 

I was a Systems Automation Officer (21A then) as well as an Armor Officer (12A then) with several enlisted MOS's in my first career......

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 hours ago, Asym said:

Wow !  

Forum Wars Reply number #1.....      I was speaking in the simplest of ways.  I should have prefaced that.......

Honestly, I am discussing the non-technical side of the word(s).  Dimension in my professional world is an illustration of use.....not the technical definition.  We actually had jet models our R&D teams used to explain the costs associated to aerodynamic changes....  The business side used the words I have mentioned to simply illustrate the principle that small changes in complex systems generate exponential costs in many cases....  I talked to Presidents of Corporations whom simply wanted something new or changed and didn't understand the "complexity" of their request (or, the time, testing, conformity/configuration or qualifications necessary to use those changes...! And, why their bill was sooooo high !  BTW, we created an entire process that allowed the actual requesting customers to participate in new or change business requests.

My team did that in the simplest of ways....  Ask me about the Star Trek door mod one day.....

BTW, my Masters are in Innovation Design and Leadership (Military CGSC).....go figure...  I AM NOT AN ENGINEER !  GoD, forfend.....I hired them and worked with them everyday when I was working (retired now and, play golf with them every Tuesday)...... Smart folk......if a little focused too much....and, mostly can't speak in public without a translator.

"Dimension" is a dangerous word.  You've proven that in spades:   because,  in your world,  dimension is a technical representation of the actual forces and physics involved.  Those of us that have employed engineers, usually have some really fun conversations,  when we talk about change limits and costs... 

Didn't mean to trigger you !  Woooooo boy, that was an event ! 

mea culpa enough....

 

 

This exchange between the two of you, @Asym and @Utt_Bugglier, reminded me of a line in a Star Trek episode, "The Mark of Gideon".

Quote

Hodin : However, the only 'tool' diplomacy has is language. It is of the utmost importance that the meaning be crystal clear.

Full context available via this link.  https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708470/characters/nm0403588?ref_=tt_cl_c_5

 

Edited June 12 by Wolfswetpaws

[Utt_Bugglier]

3 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

This exchange between the two of you, @Asym and @Utt_Bugglier, reminded me of a line in a Star Trek episode, "The Mark of Gideon".

 

Scotty, in the episode, “A Taste  of Armageddon”: “The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank!”

[Utt_Bugglier]

5 hours ago, Asym said:

Wow !  

Forum Wars Reply number #1.....      I was speaking in the simplest of ways.  I should have prefaced that.......

Honestly, I am discussing the non-technical side of the word(s).  Dimension in my professional world is an illustration of use.....not the technical definition.  We actually had jet models our R&D teams used to explain the costs associated to aerodynamic changes....  The business side used the words I have mentioned to simply illustrate the principle that small changes in complex systems generate exponential costs in many cases....  I talked to Presidents of Corporations whom simply wanted something new or changed and didn't understand the "complexity" of their request (or, the time, testing, conformity/configuration or qualifications necessary to use those changes...! And, why their bill was sooooo high !  BTW, we created an entire process that allowed the actual requesting customers to participate in new or change business requests.

My team did that in the simplest of ways....  Ask me about the Star Trek door mod one day.....

BTW, my Masters are in Innovation Design and Leadership (Military CGSC).....go figure...  I AM NOT AN ENGINEER !  GoD, forfend.....I hired them and worked with them everyday when I was working (retired now and, play golf with them every Tuesday)...... Smart folk......if a little focused too much....and, mostly can't speak in public without a translator.

"Dimension" is a dangerous word.  You've proven that in spades:   because,  in your world,  dimension is a technical representation of the actual forces and physics involved.  Those of us that have employed engineers, usually have some really fun conversations,  when we talk about change limits and costs... 

Didn't mean to trigger you !  Woooooo boy, that was an event ! 

mea culpa enough....

 

 

So, is this hatchet all buried, then?

[Asym]

11 hours ago, Utt_Bugglier said:

So, is this hatchet all buried, then?

Oh my, I have no ill will from a spirited discussion....         I don't bury hatchets I throw them ! 

I throw tomahawks competitively when we have Muzzle Loading Rendezvous's or in our monthly matches !  I've even had an "engineering friend of mine" create a CATIA drawing for a small Buffalo Hunting Hawk so we could produce blanks on a CNC machine versus having even more friends I know pound them out at the local forge...  Yes, we have a local community, Historic Forge and shop that produced several smith's that were on the TV show Forged in Fire...  

BTW, all of the edges are razor sharp....  This picture is upside down.  The entire interior curve is a gut hook.

or, these..... 

One's a fighting tomahawk (with a coal oil soaked Osage handle that will never break !) and the other is one I threw for decades and it is retired....

We all come from different places and worlds and all of us are made up of unique and different parts.   

We're supposed to question each other ! 

[Utt_Bugglier]

46 minutes ago, Asym said:

Oh my, I have no ill will from a spirited discussion....      

We're supposed to question each other ! 

Man, I was filing my teeth all sharp, readyin’ to have some fun, and you had to go and be all gracious & all that downer stuff!!!

[Asym]

5 hours ago, Utt_Bugglier said:

Man, I was filing my teeth all sharp, readyin’ to have some fun, and you had to go and be all gracious & all that downer stuff!!!

Sorry Mate, I spent a lifetime learning to fight and I'm all fought out:  and, it's much better having a good conversation. 

[torino2dc]

A while back Potato Quality rage quit mid-match because what he thought was a kill-shot on a Petro resulted in overpens.

Watching the replay, it became apparent that he had aimed slightly high. Also the ship was turning towards him -- it was unlikely that we was going to get the devstrike he was expecting. 

All of which is to say: even for deep-purple players, micro errors in aiming and overly high expectations can lead to immense disappointment. To say nothing of those of us with less precise aim and less experience.

This is human error, not a problem with the game. So to return to the OP, if something feels off, it is most likely the player. To make a credible allegation that the game is at fault, we would need to see a replay. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 hour ago, torino2dc said:

To make a credible allegation that the game is at fault, we would need to see a replay. 

After so many bugs in aiming over the last few years...

It's pretty clear that a credible allegation doesn't actually need a replay to be considered possible.

The next step is always a replay to try to tease out what is actually happening...

But let's not buy the WG marketing lie that things are always working and we shouldn't look critically at the game.

Sadly, this is the reality of how WGs poor quality control has tarnished the games reputation.

Edited June 14 by Daniel_Allan_Clark

[Asym]

31 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

After so many bugs in aiming over the last few years...

It's pretty clear that a credible allegation doesn't actually need a replay to be considered possible.

The next step is always a replay to try to tease out what is actually happening...

But let's not buy the WG marketing lie that things are always working and we shouldn't look critically at the game.

Sadly, this is the reality of how WGs poor quality control has tarnished the games reputation.

One of the observed issues, reticle stuttering (as if the sight has Parkinson's disease) I'm guessing here, since I was a SIM Programmer a lonnnnnng time ago, is when the battlespace geometry used on the maps can't be rendered and the programming, as it tries to render, is repeating itself until you venture out of the map location affected when they added Submarines (the math to render the Islands boundaries under water conflicts with the original geometry !)  The stuttering is the programming attempting to animate your sight - over and over and over again.....

There are "boundary dead spaces" as well.  Ever shoot at a ship and no matter where or how high you aim, the shells fall short?   IMO, that one is yet another sub programming error because the game is using the "depth" analytics in a surface calculation....  Oooops !  That bullet can never reach the target and falls short.....   Again, a small, untested, dead space area I'd bet.

Oh gosh, there are dozens of "bugs" that were created when the added subs because the math to control the map's land boundaries started to conflict...  It's why we see enemy ships have a group hug when they collide just beyond the channels that lead into Caps....  Some of those ships are actually using sub data that assumes they can travel below those approaching ships....  And, you get a collision and tangled mess of bots....

The Island torpedoes.  We have a clan mate that, and this is no joke, seems to "attract the lone torpedo...."  If there are carriers and their torp planes are on the opposite side of a large land mass, the island in the computer's "vision" isn't there....  The plane dropped torps don't see the Island.  So, it seems, and this one player sees an awful lot of lone Island torps and get whacked out of no where;  because,  the game suddenly realizes those torps are inside of the Island geometry and then, appear in open water.....  Smack, and Oooops !

I forgot my favorite one since I play a lot of DD's and torp Cruisers:  you are exiting an Island channel to ambush an incoming BB.  You wait till you just clear the edge of the Island and fire and turn away.  Your torps simply diverge:  one set runs somewhat true and the other, takes a 30+ degree tangent into the open ocean behind the target.  Here again, the Island "mathematical boundaries" have corrupted spaces on some maps. 

As I said, we could go on and on.......   IMO, our host simply deployed subs without fully testing the battlespaces and, we are seeing where that lack of testing results in odd game play or game play tools that "just don't work....

 

Edited June 14 by Asym

[Wolfswetpaws]

7 minutes ago, Asym said:

One of the observed issues, reticle stuttering (as if the sight has Parkinson's disease) I'm guessing here, since I was a SIM Programmer a lonnnnnng time ago, is when the battlespace geometry used on the maps can't be rendered and the programming, as it tries to render, is repeating itself until you venture out of the map location affected when they added Submarines (the math to render the Islands boundaries under water conflicts with the original geometry !)  The stuttering is the programming attempting to animate your sight - over and over and over again.....

There are "boundary dead spaces" as well.  Ever shoot at a ship and no matter where or how high you aim, the shells fall short?   IMO, that one is yet another sub programming error because the game is using the "depth" analytics in a surface calculation....  Oooops !  That bullet can never reach the target and falls short.....   Again, a small, untested, dead space area I'd bet.

Oh gosh, there are dozens of "bugs" that were created when the added subs because the math to control the map's land boundaries started to conflict...  It's why we see enemy ships have a group hug when they collide just beyond the channels that lead into Caps....  Some of those ships are actually using sub data that assumes they can travel below those approaching ships....  And, you get a collision and tangled mess of bots....

The Island torpedoes.  We have a clan mate that, and this is no joke, seems to "attract the lone torpedo...."  If there are carriers and their torp planes are on the opposite side of a large land mass, the island in the computer's "vision" isn't there....  The plane dropped torps don't see the Island.  So, it seems, and this one player sees an awful lot of lone Island torps and get whacked out of no where;  because,  the game suddenly realizes those torps are inside of the Island geometry and then, appear in open water.....  Smack, and Oooops !

As I said, we could go on and on.......   IMO, our host simply deployed subs without fully testing the battlespaces and, we are seeing where that lack of testing results in odd game play or game play tools that "just don't work....)

 

If that ^^^^ is true, then it would indicate all the maps were "wonky" to begin with.
In other words, the maps were never a true 3D rendering of the area(s).
There was the "art" and then separately there was the "frame" or "skeleton" that the game used for performing trajectory calculations.
I'm guessing that the simpler model being used for trajectory calculations is because simpler calculations (and fewer of them) allow for better use of available internet bandwidth.

Speculation on my part, of course.  I don't have access to the proprietary information which could confirm, bust, or reveal an alternative I've not thought of.

[Asym]

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

If that ^^^^ is true, then it would indicate all the maps were "wonky" to begin with.
In other words, the maps were never a true 3D rendering of the area(s).
There was the "art" and then separately there was the "frame" or "skeleton" that the game used for performing trajectory calculations.
I'm guessing that the simpler model being used for trajectory calculations is because simpler calculations (and fewer of them) allow for better use of available internet bandwidth.

Speculation on my part, of course.  I don't have access to the proprietary information which could confirm, bust, or reveal an alternative I've not thought of.

Like you, if we had access to the code.........well, it'd take some time to translate it and seek the true meaning of their coding techniques......or, scribbling as the case may be.

Till then (never), we'll have patches of maps that are "wonky...." 

[torino2dc]

5 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

It's pretty clear that a credible allegation doesn't actually need a replay to be considered possible.

Most allegations are possible, but evidence is required for them to be credible.

5 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

But let's not buy the WG marketing lie that things are always working and we shouldn't look critically at the game.

Not at all. I am highly critical of the game. It has quite a few broken edge-cases, that WG has dragged their feet on fixing.

However, being a very complicated game with a byzantine internal logic, it is far more likely that a given player is ignorant of its weird-isms than that something is actually malfunctioning. 

In order to prevent an inflation of baseless accusations that "xyz is broken" we must insist on proof. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

23 minutes ago, torino2dc said:

Most allegations are possible, but evidence is required for them to be credible.

You don't understand how bad WGs reputation for quality control has become.