bug Weight offset calculation issues

[filmaty98]

I'm not sure, bu it looks like, there's something wrong here. Both, front main guns and front tower are placed de facto in the middle of the ship, and rear tower and rear battery are almost sliding off the aft, and there's still fore weight offset. After removal of the casemate guns the offset value is 15,3% for aft. For such placement it still looks somehow wrong. 

[RedParadize]

Yeah, I have the impression that all of the hull weight is applied at its center.

[Adm. Tom]

I don't know what they've changed now - but, yes, weight and balance seem to be oddly off since the last update(s). You can now move massive 5000+ tons 20" triple turrets back and forth a long way at bow or stern of a BB and it hardly seems to affect the 'weight offset' at all any longer. Just fractions of percentage.

However, add two 100 ton torpedo launchers way more back towards midships at the aft section and weight and balance all but suddenly changes massively. It seems that the devs have really lost track of their coding; updates and 'hotfixes' frequently break already working features and when they're finally restored something else is broken.

I really wanted to like this game as something more realistic than the overly arcadey WoW but I'm more and more losing my faith that this will eventually evolve into something mature. So far it's definitely been a bad case of 'overpromise and underdeliver'.

[Littorio]

13 hours ago, Adm. Tom said:

I don't know what they've changed now - but, yes, weight and balance seem to be oddly off since the last update(s). You can now move massive 5000+ tons 20" triple turrets back and forth a long way at bow or stern of a BB and it hardly seems to affect the 'weight offset' at all any longer. Just fractions of percentage.

However, add two 100 ton torpedo launchers way more back towards midships at the aft section and weight and balance all but suddenly changes massively. It seems that the devs have really lost track of their coding; updates and 'hotfixes' frequently break already working features and when they're finally restored something else is broken.

I really wanted to like this game as something more realistic than the overly arcadey WoW but I'm more and more losing my faith that this will eventually evolve into something mature. So far it's definitely been a bad case of 'overpromise and underdeliver'.

Ehhh, it just needs some time. Mines will come, subs will come, balancing will come. As far as barebones campaign alphas go, this one isn't bad. Better to iron out the worst of the balancing issues and bugs in one campaign/theater than open up a huge world map with all countries only for it to crash. This is one of the few alphas/betas I have ever played that (knock on wood) has been completely stable and not crashed on me. Hell, plenty of "finished" games do that depressingly regularly. Plus...it seems to run very well for me. No real lag, stuttering, etc. Just clean fun.

[Adm. Tom]

Sorry, the last patches just seemed to have wreaked more havoc in the W&B section. So I really fail to see where this is actually improving at all when it comes to the very, very basics of game(play). And it's not that this game has been in this kind of early access status just since the day before yesterday.

Try to build a torpedo boat of the 1900-1910 era now. Just putting the main tower on the bare hull immediately causes a 100% forward weight offset on most hulls. Even if you move it back to the geometrical center of the hull, which has been in perfect balance before, there's still a massive forward weight offset of around 70+%. This doesn't make any sense. If some weight is added exactly at the geometrical center of something like a seesaw it should not have any W&B impact at all, if anything maybe changes to speed rate changes, oscillation dampening, etc. - but definitely not at the weight balance of the seesaw as which we can figure the ship in this instance. Once again something broken that wasn't even in need of fixing by (a) recent patch(es).

IMO things when it comes to ship editor/designer were quite OK until Alpha 12, but ever since then things have gone downhill pretty fast.

For now I'm definitely holding back on committing to this game any further in terms of playing time as it just doesn't cut it right now. There are still unresolved or newly surfaced core gameplay issues such in the ship designer, formation keeping, command system, etc. while the campaign still looks more like an RNG created sequence of incoherent battles where the player has no opportunity whatsoever to actually impact the strategic course of matters.

Edited December 15, 2021 by Adm. Tom
typo, grammar

[Fangoriously]

Weight and balance in the ship editor, all the way back since the patch that added the campaign, is totally jank. Secondary guns started having an unbelievably huge effect on fore, aft and I suppose side weight offset, I can move them one increment fore or aft and get a change of .5% to 1%, and thats with a 3 ton 2" gun! At the same time i can move one of my ~1000 ton main guns 1 increment fore or aft and get a 0% weight offset change, I might have to move it 2 increments to get .3%. Ship designing has been an utter chore to make something balanced looking and actually balanced this entire campaign beta test. Armor is just as borked, I can put 100" of fore belt and 100" of fore deck armor on a ship with 0 change in weight offset too.

[akd]

Fore / aft belt and deck armor extension offset calculations are completely broken.

Edited December 16, 2021 by akd

[RedParadize]

Its not considered at all atm:

[akd]

27 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

Its not considered at all atm:

Only if there is not an existing offset.  Otherwise you get the opposite effect, e.g. increasing fore belt / deck will decrease an existing fore weight offset rather than increasing it, but if there is an existing aft weight offset, then increasing fore belt will correctly decrease the aft offset (opposite for both with aft belt and deck).  Very broken.

Edited December 16, 2021 by akd

[RedParadize]

9 minutes ago, akd said:

Only if there is not an existing offset.  Otherwise you get the opposite effect, e.g. increasing fore belt / deck will decrease an existing fore weight offset rather than increasing it, but if there is an existing aft weight offset, then increasing fore belt will correctly decrease the aft offset (opposite for both with aft belt and deck).  Very broken.

Humm... Here is what I get when I do the same test with a weight offset:



Maybe what you are describing come from elsewhere, can you reproduce it?

Edited December 16, 2021 by RedParadize

[Id10tsyndrome]

Definitely still seeing this weight issue. On any design, I have to place the aft turrets and most of the towers almost all the way aft just to offset the fore weight. Logically speaking, when you think think about the machinery, engines, etc..., you should have an aft weight offset issue and not a fore weight offset.  This should be very simple to fix depending on the way the game calculates weight.

[Nick Thomadis]

19 hours ago, akd said:

Only if there is not an existing offset.  Otherwise you get the opposite effect, e.g. increasing fore belt / deck will decrease an existing fore weight offset rather than increasing it, but if there is an existing aft weight offset, then increasing fore belt will correctly decrease the aft offset (opposite for both with aft belt and deck).  Very broken.

It is not broken. Any added weight on armor belt and machinery will increase the stability as the weight will come more to the center. We need to improve so that Fore/Aft belt armor calculations differentiate, but it is not such a huge issue to call it broken, because fore/aft belt armor is not yet working correctly.

[akd]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

We need to improve so that Fore/Aft belt armor calculations differentiate, but it is not such a huge issue to call it broken, because fore/aft belt armor is not yet working correctly.

Not working correctly and broken mean the same thing.  I did not use it to mean that the game is not functioning, but that this aspect (fore / aft weight offsets based on fore / aft armor allocations) is not working, and this is a significant issue because unlike in reality, the player has few other variables to manipulate to distribute weight in the hull itself (rather than with stuff put on top of the hull).

 

20 hours ago, RedParadize said:

Humm... Here is what I get when I do the same test with a weight offset:

Maybe what you are describing come from elsewhere, can you reproduce it?

If I load up the default Brit 1890 battleship hull, slap towers, funnels and main turrets on it so that I have an offset (either fore or aft) then increasing the corresponding fore or after belt / deck armor (and that armor only, not the central citadel) will decrease the offset, e.g. the hull loaded with a default 1.3" fore deck armor and with other stuff on, has a 6.3% fore weight offset.  Increasing the fore deck armor (and nothing else) to 3" decreases the fore weight offset to 5.9%.

Edited December 17, 2021 by akd

[Nick Thomadis]

Just now, akd said:

Not working correctly and broken mean the same thing.  I did not use it to mean that the game is not functioning, but that this aspect (fore / aft weight offsets based on fore / aft armor allocations) is not working, and this is a significant issue because unlike in reality, the player has few other variables to manipulate to distribute weight in the hull itself (rather than with stuff put on top of the hull).

 

If I load up the default Brit 1890 battleship hull, slap towers, funnels and main turrets on it so that I have an offset (either fore or aft) then increasing the corresponding armor fore or after belt / deck armor (and that armor only, not the central citadel) will decrease the offset, e.g. the hull loaded with a default 1.3" fore deck armor and with other stuff on, has a 6.3% fore weight offset.  Increasing the fore deck armor (and nothing else) to 3" decreases the fore weight offset to 5.9%.

This happened before, it is a very old problem but now it can be more pronounced because of the latest fixes which made the system more sensitive to allow Cross-Deck guns without weight offset. If possible, we will have it fixed in the next patch.