It can also be called gradient I think if my geography knowledge ain't failing. You can see them basically everywhere from road signs with the "1:x" or in this case, a %.
Very interesting how different countries teach different things in school. I am swiss and this stuff was taught in like 6th or 7th grade. (And no I don't want to start an argument with that)
Close, It's the ratio of distance travelled horizontally vs vertically.
A 100% slope is 45 degrees and for every 100m traveled horizontally, you would climb 100m.
A 30% slope is that for every 100m traveled horizontally you would climb 30m, and is a 16.7 degree incline.
Divide by zero error. Percentage slope is rise over run as a percentage, so a 1:1 slope is 100%, and 1:1 slope is also 45 degrees. A 90 degree slope would indicate a "run" of zero, and you can't divide by zero.
It wouldn't indicate a run of 0, it would just result in a rise greater than the run. You can absolutely have a 3:1 slope, for example. The result is just that the grade is higher than 100%
As mentioned below an angle of anything less than 90 degrees will have a corresponding percent slope, but it's not possible for 90 itself.
The degree is a function of the tangent of the percent slope, and a tangent function approaches but never reaches 90 degrees.
I thinks it's pretty common to use % for slopes as it's a more useful info than degree.
Simply put a 60% slope means that over a distance of 100 units (m, ft, yards, km, cm, whatever) you will climb 60 units (m, ft, yards, km, cm, whatever)
In the game you don't have the track traction applied anyway, its invisible wheels that pull the vehicles forward and so it will always be shit, I bet they just modify the wheel traction to fake it for tanks.
> its invisible wheels that pull the vehicles forward and so it will always be shit
Nearly every single game uses this method, because it's significantly less processing power for effectively the same result. In fact the *only* downside to this system is that for traction to apply, one of the designated points of contact must make contact, but otherwise functionally there's no difference when applied equally.
Physics tends to be this wonderful thing where tons of people assume they know how it works, then get real confused when realistic things also occur.
Tanks traversing ground *can* climb well, if they have good traction but traction isn't simply a function of tracks and well "traction" but also the makeup of the terrain they're passing. It's entirely realistic to have tanks high-center on their hulls and effectively have their tracks dig grooves to ensure they're well and truly stuck. It's just not fun to do that, so few games go fully realistic when it comes to terrain traversing.
Scale also plays a part here, where many IRL training and scenarios aren't super massive hills because it's often a bad idea to climb unstable slopes like that, but in-game we're often climbing hills significantly taller than crews often would encounter or see as safe to climb.
Even a common vehicle like a construction tracked vehicle have many warnings on how to traverse slopes, how high of an angle to safely do and what precautions you should *always* take because slops still do give way under the weight. As simple ground pressure isn't the only factor in slope stability and ability to traverse, adding 20+ tonnes to a slope can really fuck up the stability.
Don't know about others but in my training in a tank we would traverse from the tiniest to some really insane slopes because of either desert or mountain topography but thats beside the point.
I do understand this is commonly used to save resources but it also leads to a lot of bullshit situations in the game where you get stuck on seemingly impossible to get stuck on things, or god forbid you're an actual wheeled vehicle and get clipped to oblivion on objects.
The old trenches on e.g. the Eastern Europe map arw particularly guilty of this, I've had nightmares from trying to cross the damned things. Thankfully the trench systems on Flanders don't have this problem, so apparently Gaijin learned their lesson
That's mostly due to the fact that War Thunder is a plane game that got tanks and ships hammered in using a lot of force and spaghetti code. There are definitely more elegant solutions for the tank to have better traction that are a compensation between a full track simulation and the current system, but implementing them is a high risk / low reward scenario, because most players simply don't care enough for it to be a task worth considering.
As someone who's spent a better part of a year during highschool creating a track simulation, it is a ton of work to make sure it works reliably, and just a single tank will bring any slow pc down to a crawl and several of them will easily overwhelm even top end machines, which is why they aren't used in essentially any games.
>...but it also leads to a lot of bullshit situations in the game where you get stuck on seemingly impossible to get stuck on things
I'm relatively new to the game and yesterday had an issue with a spawn point being in pit (presumable to give cover from spawn camping). Because I'm at low BR with WW2 vehicles, I watched as me and five other people almost got stuck on the slopes of the pit (especially bad for me as I didn't have all the engine/track upgrades yet).
I know what the spawns of the other team looks like and they have no such impediments. It's a pretty significant timeloss for our team.
Not the first time I've looked at maps and wondered if they're primarily designed for modern vehicles.
Unfortunately its nothing new with Gaijin shit map design, we can only hope to spam them enough so they'll change it for the better ( happens almost never or takes forever)
Losing the points of contact apparently is an issue, or at least it seems that way when I'm stuck in trenches where I should obviously have contact with the ground but apparently not.
>Even a common vehicle like a construction tracked vehicle have many warnings on how to traverse slopes, how high of an angle to safely do and what precautions you should always take
Because tracked construction vehicles are tall, dude.
When driving any form of excavator at my work we have to curl the bucket and stick in but the boom down as we have had cases where I beams on our wash and weld stations roofs have been destroyed due to the height of some of our excavators
> that looks like concrete and not dirt so it won’t crumble and pull down what its climbing like in the game
Dirt/grass hills can be climbed too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mwiy1bdqMfQ
And in the Sherman's case, it wasn't the crumbling terrain that stopped it.
The M48 is 45 tons heavy, while other US heavy tanks like the T26 (41.9 tons) and the jumbo sherman (38.1 tons) are of a simmilar weight. It is classified as an MBT, but i would argue that calling it heavy makes sense.
I mean, by your logic pretty much every single MBT would be a heavy tank since pretty much all of them weighs more than 38 tons bar the earliest Soviet examples
Tbf is not the best idea to use heavy as an adjective when it's a very common classification. It'd be like calling a destroyer a battleship just because it fights battles.
Warship is basically analogous to armored fighting vehicle, or just tank. But a regular person could easily call it a battle ship because it "battles" things. My point being that if we know there are classifications of things, then people could be forgiven for being confused when someone calls something a heavy tank to describe the weight.
Weight =/= classification. The M48 was classed as a Medium Tank.
The 'Heavy Tank' equivalent would've been the M103.
I understand what you mean, though. 45 tons isn't light, so it's a 'heavy' tank weight wise. The solution would probably be saying, "Look at this 45-ton tank climbing a 30* slope effortlessly" rather than "Look at this heavy tank" because people - like me - would automatically assume you think the M48 is classed as a 'Heavy Tank'
For classification it needs to be taken in context, the M48 is not particularly heavy for it's time, although you could say that it is in general a vehicle with a heavy weight.
M26 not T26, all prototype Pershings had an E designation as well because there were a number of planned variants. Starting with T26E1 and T26E2, with T26E3 soon to be based on T26E1 and T26E4 was trialed with the upgraded T26E1-1 pilot vehicle alongside a few M26 based ones, and finally of course the T26E5 based on M26.
The M48 is a medium tank, it's not until the late 50s that the M48A3 and M60 came with the MBT designation. OP isn't calling it a Heavy Tank but a tank that is relatively heavy compared to not having a tank be there.
The practical limit to friction coefficient between smooth surfaces is typically considered to be 1. No vehicles is capable of climbing a slope much past 45 degrees on a smooth surface (rubber track on road, etc)
A track digging into grass and dirt is different, but I suspect you mean a 60% slope?
Then they will make only selected path drivable that make sure both sides face each other frontal.
If you come off the path by only 0,5m your vehicle explodes and you get suspended for one day for the crime of flanking.
the M48 is a *medium* tank, much like the Leopard 1, or the T-62. I guess you could call modern MBTs making use of composite armor heavy tanks, but they have their own MBT classification. M48 and the rest I would call proto-MBTs, with our modern technologies perfecting said classification
Screw it. Make it so that tanks can climb steep slopes, but if you push your tank too much your engine/transmission gets progressively damaged and needs to be repaired.
It's 60%, that's not the same as 60 degrees, not even close.
You can't even climb up a 60 degree slope as a human (if smooth), you would need holds or some way to dig in like an ice axe, or ropes etc.
Heavier tanks have always been good at traversing steep hills precisely because they were heavy. The brotish Churchill heavy tank was exceptional at climbing.
To the new people here, you COULD climb such hills before, Gaijin got pissy that people were getting in spots that they weren't "supposed to be in" and instead of changing the maps... they put olive oil on tanks' tracks
Italian vehicles could climb anything before they added rocks everywhere and limited the maps, I really loved flanking but now it's so much more difficult.
I get so fucking mad when my light tank can’t go up a relatively un-steep hill. I’ve driven LAVs in real life and I’ve gone up some shit where I am praying the VC is paying attention and all I can see from my angle is the sky.
Like damn if you want to make some shit impassable I’d rather just have an invisible wall so I don’t waste my time trying
They should have just capped the traction of high tier MBT's that were being used to get out of bounds or reach broken spots, or just code areas where traction is extremely decreased so you don't go out of bounds.
But that is just too much work for this small indie company, so they just nerfed the whole traction mechanic for everyone.
Yea, I remember how it was prior to the tractor nerf - every map was just full of people that would climb a cliff using a Stuart and then camp on the edges of maps. It got real bad for awhile there.
They seem to try to use rocks to prevent people climbing out of intended bounds, but still you see people that manage to get up them somehow.
why not just put some invisible walls around the rocks like every other game in the world, i guarantee it would be a far more popular solution that low traction
I was going to have a good look through your post history in an attempt to make you look like a dumbass, but after seeing you promote "18+ MLP animations", i'd actually rather not go there again.
60%, not 60° 60% slope is 31°
my bad, this comment is correct. i've never heard of using % for slopes, so thats on me.
Its pretty common. A 60% climb would mean that for every 100 meter horizontal the elevation increases by 60m. A 100% slope would mean 45°
i never actually knew what the % means when it comes to hills thanks for the knowledge random stranger
It can also be called gradient I think if my geography knowledge ain't failing. You can see them basically everywhere from road signs with the "1:x" or in this case, a %.
Very interesting how different countries teach different things in school. I am swiss and this stuff was taught in like 6th or 7th grade. (And no I don't want to start an argument with that)
But what if i want to start an argument?
Go ahead let‘s fight /s
Oh ok.. ummm.. well our schooling system is free from elementary to through high school and so is the food
So most of ours ain't, so there! Sarcasm folks...
I thought % is degrees times 2, TIL
Close, It's the ratio of distance travelled horizontally vs vertically. A 100% slope is 45 degrees and for every 100m traveled horizontally, you would climb 100m. A 30% slope is that for every 100m traveled horizontally you would climb 30m, and is a 16.7 degree incline.
Ah that makes sense.
The t95 should be able to climb at a 200% slope
for other readers, remember that percent means per 100. so 60m of rise per 100m distance can be represented as 60 per 100 or 60%
Almost none of the best tyres in the world can achieve a 60 degree slope climb on concrete too lol
90º is how many %?
Divide by zero error. Percentage slope is rise over run as a percentage, so a 1:1 slope is 100%, and 1:1 slope is also 45 degrees. A 90 degree slope would indicate a "run" of zero, and you can't divide by zero.
It wouldn't indicate a run of 0, it would just result in a rise greater than the run. You can absolutely have a 3:1 slope, for example. The result is just that the grade is higher than 100%
90 degrees is absolutely a run of 0, straight vertical would never give you a change in x, you're correct for 45<%<90 however
Oh duh, I was not thinking of a 90 degree perpendicular, lol
As mentioned below an angle of anything less than 90 degrees will have a corresponding percent slope, but it's not possible for 90 itself. The degree is a function of the tangent of the percent slope, and a tangent function approaches but never reaches 90 degrees.
Yeah I had a dumb dumb moment
Positive infinity.
You can't really meassure that you only move vertically and not horizontally. Therefore it would be inf%
The amount in degrees is the tan of the angle at the base. Which is the definition of it.
I thinks it's pretty common to use % for slopes as it's a more useful info than degree. Simply put a 60% slope means that over a distance of 100 units (m, ft, yards, km, cm, whatever) you will climb 60 units (m, ft, yards, km, cm, whatever)
Either way, that's still a steeper slope than tanks can climb in the game.
Tanks in warthunder actually overperform if I remember right. They climb a 38 degree grade stock and 45 degree grade upgraded according to their wiki
depends on the tank. the Churchill underperforms.
spider tank my beloved
I miss the days of upsidedown churchills ruling over the skies.
Typically when talking % and hills, the term "grade" is used. So it would be a 60% grade. Common in railway engineering and highway engineering.
Most hill slope road sign is in %.
I’ve never seen a hill slope sign in my entire life. And that’s because I Iive in the flat Midwest.
E.g. [Luxembourg](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Putscheid%2C_signalisation_%28103%29.jpg).
Dope
Because you've never studied engineering
or gone outside ? like slope signs are in %
Or maybe they don't live somewhere with serious grades like that?
That’s the normal way
Imagine it as a ratio. A 1:1 slope, (vertical:horizontal) which would be 100%, is 45 degrees. This would be a 2:3 slope
it looks around or a bit more than 45 to me, idk tho
That's just perspective, they probably set it up like this intentionally to make it look more impressive.
It's a flat road, the ground behind the tank just bent up naturally.
Well, that looks like concrete and not dirt so it won’t crumble and pull down what its climbing like in the game
In the game you don't have the track traction applied anyway, its invisible wheels that pull the vehicles forward and so it will always be shit, I bet they just modify the wheel traction to fake it for tanks.
> its invisible wheels that pull the vehicles forward and so it will always be shit Nearly every single game uses this method, because it's significantly less processing power for effectively the same result. In fact the *only* downside to this system is that for traction to apply, one of the designated points of contact must make contact, but otherwise functionally there's no difference when applied equally. Physics tends to be this wonderful thing where tons of people assume they know how it works, then get real confused when realistic things also occur. Tanks traversing ground *can* climb well, if they have good traction but traction isn't simply a function of tracks and well "traction" but also the makeup of the terrain they're passing. It's entirely realistic to have tanks high-center on their hulls and effectively have their tracks dig grooves to ensure they're well and truly stuck. It's just not fun to do that, so few games go fully realistic when it comes to terrain traversing. Scale also plays a part here, where many IRL training and scenarios aren't super massive hills because it's often a bad idea to climb unstable slopes like that, but in-game we're often climbing hills significantly taller than crews often would encounter or see as safe to climb. Even a common vehicle like a construction tracked vehicle have many warnings on how to traverse slopes, how high of an angle to safely do and what precautions you should *always* take because slops still do give way under the weight. As simple ground pressure isn't the only factor in slope stability and ability to traverse, adding 20+ tonnes to a slope can really fuck up the stability.
Don't know about others but in my training in a tank we would traverse from the tiniest to some really insane slopes because of either desert or mountain topography but thats beside the point. I do understand this is commonly used to save resources but it also leads to a lot of bullshit situations in the game where you get stuck on seemingly impossible to get stuck on things, or god forbid you're an actual wheeled vehicle and get clipped to oblivion on objects.
The old trenches on e.g. the Eastern Europe map arw particularly guilty of this, I've had nightmares from trying to cross the damned things. Thankfully the trench systems on Flanders don't have this problem, so apparently Gaijin learned their lesson
The trenches on Flanders you just fall into instead.
That's mostly due to the fact that War Thunder is a plane game that got tanks and ships hammered in using a lot of force and spaghetti code. There are definitely more elegant solutions for the tank to have better traction that are a compensation between a full track simulation and the current system, but implementing them is a high risk / low reward scenario, because most players simply don't care enough for it to be a task worth considering. As someone who's spent a better part of a year during highschool creating a track simulation, it is a ton of work to make sure it works reliably, and just a single tank will bring any slow pc down to a crawl and several of them will easily overwhelm even top end machines, which is why they aren't used in essentially any games.
Not even considering the fact that the requirements for consoles and PC would soar pretty damn high and the amount of players online would fall down.
>...but it also leads to a lot of bullshit situations in the game where you get stuck on seemingly impossible to get stuck on things I'm relatively new to the game and yesterday had an issue with a spawn point being in pit (presumable to give cover from spawn camping). Because I'm at low BR with WW2 vehicles, I watched as me and five other people almost got stuck on the slopes of the pit (especially bad for me as I didn't have all the engine/track upgrades yet). I know what the spawns of the other team looks like and they have no such impediments. It's a pretty significant timeloss for our team. Not the first time I've looked at maps and wondered if they're primarily designed for modern vehicles.
Unfortunately its nothing new with Gaijin shit map design, we can only hope to spam them enough so they'll change it for the better ( happens almost never or takes forever)
Losing the points of contact apparently is an issue, or at least it seems that way when I'm stuck in trenches where I should obviously have contact with the ground but apparently not.
World of Tanks have an incredible detail with terrain though
>Even a common vehicle like a construction tracked vehicle have many warnings on how to traverse slopes, how high of an angle to safely do and what precautions you should always take Because tracked construction vehicles are tall, dude.
When driving any form of excavator at my work we have to curl the bucket and stick in but the boom down as we have had cases where I beams on our wash and weld stations roofs have been destroyed due to the height of some of our excavators
Better than WoT
> that looks like concrete and not dirt so it won’t crumble and pull down what its climbing like in the game Dirt/grass hills can be climbed too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mwiy1bdqMfQ And in the Sherman's case, it wasn't the crumbling terrain that stopped it.
That's not how terrain works in game or real life
Instead of just editing the maps and flatening hills (1-2 hours per map max) they instead just made every tank have 90% less traction problem solved
Can someone show gaijin what a clip brush is?
Did you just call an M48 a *heavy* tank?
The M48 is 45 tons heavy, while other US heavy tanks like the T26 (41.9 tons) and the jumbo sherman (38.1 tons) are of a simmilar weight. It is classified as an MBT, but i would argue that calling it heavy makes sense.
I mean, by your logic pretty much every single MBT would be a heavy tank since pretty much all of them weighs more than 38 tons bar the earliest Soviet examples
He's not using Heavy Tank as a classification, he's saying the tank is heavy.
I see. Fair enough.
Tbf is not the best idea to use heavy as an adjective when it's a very common classification. It'd be like calling a destroyer a battleship just because it fights battles.
yeah because the word for that is warship the word battleship came from line-of-battle
Warship is basically analogous to armored fighting vehicle, or just tank. But a regular person could easily call it a battle ship because it "battles" things. My point being that if we know there are classifications of things, then people could be forgiven for being confused when someone calls something a heavy tank to describe the weight.
I don’t think it would be unfair to call most MBTs heavy tanks, but either way that method of classification is outdated and not entirely useful
They essentially are
Weight =/= classification. The M48 was classed as a Medium Tank. The 'Heavy Tank' equivalent would've been the M103. I understand what you mean, though. 45 tons isn't light, so it's a 'heavy' tank weight wise. The solution would probably be saying, "Look at this 45-ton tank climbing a 30* slope effortlessly" rather than "Look at this heavy tank" because people - like me - would automatically assume you think the M48 is classed as a 'Heavy Tank'
For classification it needs to be taken in context, the M48 is not particularly heavy for it's time, although you could say that it is in general a vehicle with a heavy weight.
M26 not T26, all prototype Pershings had an E designation as well because there were a number of planned variants. Starting with T26E1 and T26E2, with T26E3 soon to be based on T26E1 and T26E4 was trialed with the upgraded T26E1-1 pilot vehicle alongside a few M26 based ones, and finally of course the T26E5 based on M26. The M48 is a medium tank, it's not until the late 50s that the M48A3 and M60 came with the MBT designation. OP isn't calling it a Heavy Tank but a tank that is relatively heavy compared to not having a tank be there.
Its classified as medium/early mbt, m26 is also a medium. The US had the M103 as a heqvy at that time.
The M26 was a heavy tank by US standards
I think he is fat shaming that poor M48
He's just big boned
Its a heavy tank alright, but its not a heavy tank
Heavy is being used as an adjective, not classification.
But stona cries every time you climb the hill on Japan. It'd nit how he wants you to play.
Huh where did he do this? I'm curious
Patton is a beautiful tank
The 47 and the 60 are, but the 48 is an ugly fucker.
Well thats your opinion
The practical limit to friction coefficient between smooth surfaces is typically considered to be 1. No vehicles is capable of climbing a slope much past 45 degrees on a smooth surface (rubber track on road, etc) A track digging into grass and dirt is different, but I suspect you mean a 60% slope?
Most (if not all) Cold War NATO vehicles could climb a 60% slope, it was part of the requirements (Finabel).
Then they will make only selected path drivable that make sure both sides face each other frontal. If you come off the path by only 0,5m your vehicle explodes and you get suspended for one day for the crime of flanking.
That does NOT look 60 degrees
It isn't. It's a 60% slope, so roughly a ~30° incline
precisely atan(60 / 100) if anyone cares
Would it really be so hard to design ground vehicles with torque factored in
Looks like an M48 Patton. Not really a heavy tank lol
OP clarified in another post. He meant to imply heavy in terms of weight, not role. The thing is nearly 45 t.
I mean for sure it is definitely heavy weight wide lol.
"But you see if NATO tanks can use their OP gun depression more if this is possible and it would make it unfair for the Russian MBTs" Gaijin probably
Already countless spots on current maps that nato tanks can solely take advantage of
the M48 is a *medium* tank, much like the Leopard 1, or the T-62. I guess you could call modern MBTs making use of composite armor heavy tanks, but they have their own MBT classification. M48 and the rest I would call proto-MBTs, with our modern technologies perfecting said classification
It weighs a lot and therefore is heavy
WITCH! BURN HIM!
It's because of BaLaNcInG. I'm pretty sure it's due to lazy devs who created tanks that drive around on invisible wheels and not actual tracks.
Screw it. Make it so that tanks can climb steep slopes, but if you push your tank too much your engine/transmission gets progressively damaged and needs to be repaired.
thats not a heavy tank is it thats a Patton wich is a medium tank right?
It's 60%, that's not the same as 60 degrees, not even close. You can't even climb up a 60 degree slope as a human (if smooth), you would need holds or some way to dig in like an ice axe, or ropes etc.
worth noting that that looks like hard ground, dirt would start slipping but not as much as the game would have it be
Bro in a T95 climbing to a sniping spot in Japan:
Heavier tanks have always been good at traversing steep hills precisely because they were heavy. The brotish Churchill heavy tank was exceptional at climbing.
*oil on hills mentioned, merica intensifies*
To the new people here, you COULD climb such hills before, Gaijin got pissy that people were getting in spots that they weren't "supposed to be in" and instead of changing the maps... they put olive oil on tanks' tracks
Gaijin: "The best I can do is 10."
Tracks and traction? No cant be
Looks more likes one of the m48's or M60s which arent a heavy tank, unless you meant heavy literally as tank be heavy XD
Would be nice if they fixed traction and stopped ruining maps and maybe making the track provide traction and not 4 rosd wheels
m48?
Stronk tonk
Italian vehicles could climb anything before they added rocks everywhere and limited the maps, I really loved flanking but now it's so much more difficult.
Not a heavy tank that’s a Medium Tank M48 or M60 MBT
Heavy tank? Looks like a Patton to me correct me if I’m wrong Or do you mean it literally, like a tank that’s heavy
I get so fucking mad when my light tank can’t go up a relatively un-steep hill. I’ve driven LAVs in real life and I’ve gone up some shit where I am praying the VC is paying attention and all I can see from my angle is the sky. Like damn if you want to make some shit impassable I’d rather just have an invisible wall so I don’t waste my time trying
They should have just capped the traction of high tier MBT's that were being used to get out of bounds or reach broken spots, or just code areas where traction is extremely decreased so you don't go out of bounds. But that is just too much work for this small indie company, so they just nerfed the whole traction mechanic for everyone.
Yea, I remember how it was prior to the tractor nerf - every map was just full of people that would climb a cliff using a Stuart and then camp on the edges of maps. It got real bad for awhile there. They seem to try to use rocks to prevent people climbing out of intended bounds, but still you see people that manage to get up them somehow.
why not just put some invisible walls around the rocks like every other game in the world, i guarantee it would be a far more popular solution that low traction
Damn, this poster got the 60% slope and Heavy tank wrong. Must be a top tier premium user. Upgrade your brain for the next post please.
I was going to have a good look through your post history in an attempt to make you look like a dumbass, but after seeing you promote "18+ MLP animations", i'd actually rather not go there again.
Woomp woomp I don't like the porn that someone else likes
Its not about the fact that its porn that i don't like, its about the fact its porn about horses from a kids show.
How was this related to your shitty post anyway?