Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'shell mechanics'.
Found 2 results
Before we start, special thanks are given to: TTaro (SEA server) for bringing the various discrepancies and the reverse engineered code to my attention as well as testing the USN 5" max ranges. warabi99 (SEA server) for helping me implement the updated model. @CVsNTCsmolRUBBPay2Rico19 for testing and corroborating some of these cases before hand. In summary: Based on reverse engineered code (found in this EU forum post) from earlier an World of Warships client, we were able to piece together the formulae and methods used to generate a ballistics model that closely matches the one seen in game. This new model is able to accurately predict shell behavior in numerous situations where even the previous model failed. Note: the previous model refers to the model first created by fnord_disc on EU [more info on Reddit] and is used on most penetration implementations Model Performance: Cases where the new model out performs the previous model [all of which are reflected in game]: 1. The new model correctly predicts the maximum range of Yamato HE - previous model predicts a maximum range of ~29km; new model predicts a range of ~32km 2. The new model requires a time multiplier that is nearly identical to the stated in game time multiplier of 2.61 - previous model used a time multiplier of 3.1 3. The new model correctly predicts the distance at which ships like North Carolina begin to and consistently "deck pen". - tested by @CVsNTCsmolRUBBPay2Rico19 4. The new model correctly predict the maximum ranges of USN 5" Shells Implementation differences: The previous model contained a linear drag component partially determined by the caliber of the shell. [code here] L44 - 45 for drag implementation The new model only contains a quadratic drag component - that is partially determined by total velocity. [code here] L206 - 211 for drag implementation [note: cw_2 is 0] This causes shells in the new model to be considerably faster which also contributes to the lower impact angles at a given distance. Remaining questions: Penetration Formula: In order to make penetrations work properly (due to the higher impact velocities) I had to generate a new equation regressed from WG Armada data which is as follows: Raw Penetration(mm) = 0.00046905491615181766 * V(m/s)^1.4822064892953855 * D(m)^-0.6521 * M(kg)^0.5506 * K/2400 R²: 0.9955230522916081 While the regression performs well, the lack of data outside of the range [5km, 15km] means that the prediction is less certain when outside of these bounds. Deck Penetrations: According to previous testing, deck penetrations do not work at expected ranges for Minotaur even with the new model. - tested by @CVsNTCsmolRUBBPay2Rico19 There are some theories ranging from deck penetration may not be correctly applied properly for ships with improved autobounce to height compression. But no evidence currently points to or excludes either. Viewable Implementation: Currently you can view an implementation of this new ballistics model here at: https://jcw780.github.io/wows_ballistics/ Additional Notes: - The previous model graphs are generated from a local instance of the website that I use for testing purposes - the site originally used that model. - In the spirit of full disclosure, I do actually run wows_ballistics and maintain a library that models this. - pardon me for the spaghetti code though :) - This post is not meant to bash the original model or author(s) - I actually use fnord_disc's post-penetration velocity formula on my site and if it wasn't for his work I probably would not have gotten so far into this and gone to create the updated model. - If you have any additional questions feel free to ask me in this thread or join this discord server: https://discord.gg/fpDB9y5
The following is not included in WOWS with regards to AP shell damage Fire For more proof on the fire effects AP shells cause look at what happened to the Bismarck in the final battle. The fires on the Bismarck were caused by exploding AP shells not by HE shells which would do little to no damage. Flooding When an AP shell hits the armor belt AT or BELOW the water line it should generate flood damage. In WOWS no shells either AP or HE generate flood damage. See this excellent article on the effects of underwater/waterline AP penetrating hits--> http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/Kirishima_Damage_Analysis.pdf Revised Citadel Mechanic AP Citadel hits at or below the water line for all classes damage generates flooding AP Citadel hits on the magazine generates auto detonation for all classes AP Superstructure Hits AP Superstructure hits generate fire for all classes except when the armor values exceed the shell caliber. RNG can be used to balance if a penetrating shell starts a fire or not In other words if your 5 inch DD shell penetrates the thin armor plate on a BB superstructure then it should start a fire. If the 5 inch shell does not penetrate the superstructure then no fire is started. In other words if your 5 inch AP shell cannot penetrate the turret armor it does not cause a fire. If the above 2 are properly implemented the Remove HE shells from the game as they are not needed Remove the IFHE bonus Captain Skill but replace with Captain Skill 5% reduction in dispersion bonus or 5% Gunnery Accuracy Bonus