[0.23.5]General Propulsionâ„¢ SOLD

[Kass]

I hate to disagree with you, because you do seem to know what you are talking about, but is this not basically the same as load spreading? The usefulness of taking the road with you is that you get stuck less easily, because you are spreading the load across a larger area. It is doing the same as the semi-deflated wheels you talk about, but on an even larger scale. Reducing pressure is the name of the game and that is a useful property when on muddy building sites, or in shot up fields of mud or loose sand trying not to get stuck and become a sitting duck.

I find it difficult to divide this into two seperate qualities.

I see what you mean buddy, but it's quite easy to explain. It's all about the design of the tracks and the wheels that interact with them. Tracks allow a vehicle to move even when sunk into the mud due to the fact there is a positive interaction between the track and the front wheel, helpfully called a sprocket (which is the only driving wheel on a tracked vehicle). In fact, tracks work best when they are sunk into the mud, because when they are sunk into the mud they are gripping the surface extremely well and the sprocket teeth fit into the corresponding holes in the track allowing the vehicle to essentially climb along the track due to the gear tooth type interaction between them. Take away the fact that the track is keyed to the driving wheel and you would have a vehicle with wheels spinning on tracks not going anywhere instead of a vehicle with wheels spinning on the surface not going anywhere, even though it might not have sunk as deeply into the surface.

Of course if the drive sprocket was not gear-like, on ground where there is no resistance to the torque applied by the drive wheel the vehicle would move. But the second there was some resistance, it would start to slip.

On a tracked vehicle, the thing to understand, that may seem contrary to a layperson, until you see one up close move then you would understand immediately, is that the vehicle climbs up the tracks due to the gear like interaction, not rolls along them. That is what gives them their amazing grip and off-road capabilities. The track and sprocket allows a greater torque to be applied due to the weight of the vehicle holding the tracks down thus increasing surface area and thus grip. Reducing pressure has nothing to due with their effectiveness whatsoever.

Mathematically I would write is as :

grip (tracks) + torque (drive sprocket) > depth sunk into surface (weight spreading properties).

This picture explains that interaction.

Does that explain it?

Sorry to derail the thread

Edited December 19, 2013 by Kass

[Hodo]

This is not the purpose of tracked vehicles. The idea behind tracks is that it allows vehicles to travel off road because they take the road with them (the tracks). If it was to reduce the pressure of the wheels on the ground, the track would have to be tight yet all tracks are designed to have a certain element of slackness in them or the track becomes too tight and pops off. The fact that many tracked vehicles have 10-14 wheels each resting on the width of an individual link of track instead of just the contact point on the circumference of the wheel reduces the ground pressure, not the tracks themselves. Usually when a vehicle wants to reduce it's footprint, it uses huge, lightly inflated rubber wheels.

That's interesting. British Army armoured vehicle drivers are taught not to brake too hard because they can literally tip the whole vehicle over the vehicles stop so fast. Also, when any armoured vehicles are taken on civilian roads either in the UK or Germany, it has to have a sign on the back that literally says "KEEP YOUR DISTANCE, THIS VEHICLE CAN STOP EXTREMELY QUICKLY" (much faster than a car at the same speed).

Actually tracks aren't to bring the road with you, they are to reduce the ground pressure footprint of the vehicle thus making it less likely to bog down in loose terrain. This is why the T-34/76 performed so much better than the Panzerkampfwaggen MkVIE Tiger on the eastern front. Because the T-34/76 had a wider track, and had a MUCH lower pounds per square inch, than the Tiger tank. Which lead to the Tiger getting bogged down in muddy situations, and allowing the T-34 to basically drive over that same mud and snow.

This is also why the M4 Sherman performed so much better than the A-13 Crusader, or the M3 Lee/Grant.

In the US Army they teach us not to slam on the breaks because it will rip up the asphalt, not because the vehicle will tip over. Maybe if you are in the lunchbox with tracks M113, but not in an Abrams.

[hawkinator]

Is anyone able to verify that these work in 0.23? A guy on the last page said the game loaded them, but didn't say whether or not he was able to build stuff with them.

[Kass]

In the US Army they teach us not to slam on the breaks because it will rip up the asphalt, not because the vehicle will tip over. Maybe if you are in the lunchbox with tracks M113, but not in an Abrams.

When was the last time you saw rubber rip asphalt? Armoured vehicle tracks have rubber pads so they don't damage roads. It's what they are for. Ever looked at the pattern left when a tank rolls by on the road?

Actually tracks aren't to bring the road with you, they are to reduce the ground pressure footprint of the vehicle thus making it less likely to bog down in loose terrain. This is why the T-34/76 performed so much better than the Panzerkampfwaggen MkVIE Tiger on the eastern front. Because the T-34/76 had a wider track, and had a MUCH lower pounds per square inch, than the Tiger tank. Which lead to the Tiger getting bogged down in muddy situations, and allowing the T-34 to basically drive over that same mud and snow.

That is exactly what they are for. To make a road you can climb up (or down if the drive sprocket is at the back). The MkVI's had a design flaw in having tracks far, far too thin for it's weight and thus got stuck. IIRC, the Mk VI's had mobility problems everywhere they went, not just in deep snow. There is a relationship between sinking too low and thus the belly hitting the ground below and the width of the tracks. However, they got stuck because the grip given by the tracks was not sufficient for the weight of the vehicle combined with sinking in deeper than the maximum permitted for the movement of the vehicle.

Grip is the primary role of the tracks. Not sinking in is the the second. The third is obviously giving a smooth surface for the weight of the vehicle to roll over by smoothing out the bumps in the surface. I'd be extremely interested to see a version of an armoured vehicle with completely smooth tracks against another exact same vehicle with the same width tracks but designed for grip. I know who my money would be on.

Edit: nice conversation about tracks this and not completely off-topic either lol.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Kass

[Hodo]

When was the last time you saw rubber rip asphalt? Armoured vehicle tracks have rubber pads so they don't damage roads. It's what they are for. Ever looked at the pattern left when a tank rolls by on the road?

You haven't been in Kentucky on a mid August day have you?

That is exactly what they are for. To make a road you can climb up (or down if the drive sprocket is at the back). The MkVI's had a design flaw in having tracks far, far too thin for it's weight and thus got stuck. IIRC, the Mk VI's had mobility problems everywhere they went, not just in deep snow. There is a relationship between sinking too low and thus the belly hitting the ground below and the width of the tracks. However, they got stuck because the grip given by the tracks was not sufficient for the weight of the vehicle combined with sinking in deeper than the maximum permitted for the movement of the vehicle.

Grip is the primary role of the tracks. Not sinking in is the the second. The third is obviously giving a smooth surface for the weight of the vehicle to roll over by smoothing out the bumps in the surface. I'd be extremely interested to see a version of an armoured vehicle with completely smooth tracks against another exact same vehicle with the same width tracks but designed for grip. I know who my money would be on.

Edit: nice conversation about tracks this and not completely off-topic either lol.

I think we are arguing the same point just from different angles.

[Galacticruler]

Sorry to derail the thread

no worries, I didn't think there was this much to say on the subject, and I was kind of hoping Endless Waves would step in and toss in some C#/C++ stuff that ended it earlier.

[Kass]

I think we are arguing the same point just from different angles.

Haha probably . I'm a lawyer now and have to spend my days arguing in court that there is a difference between killing someone to end their suffering and ending someone's suffering by also killing them. Ones illegal and means life in prison, the other is legal and normal practice.

[Kass]

no worries, I didn't think there was this much to say on the subject, and I was kind of hoping Endless Waves would step in and toss in some C#/C++ stuff that ended it earlier.

Thanks dude. We can hope huh

[ZobrAA]

So in works on 0.23 or not?

[hawkinator]

I was able to build a thing with the mark 3's and it worked as expected. I didn't test all the parts but I would say they are probably working.

[Rayder]

So in works on 0.23 or not?

It's a bit hit and miss. It seems to work intermittently. It will work sometimes, then it won't apply any torque. Then it will start going again.

EDIT: Seems only the small tracks do this. The larger ones seem to work fine...

Edited December 21, 2013 by Rayder

[Vorg]

A bit confused about this thread. Today I got the spaceport versions linked from the old thread and it sort of worked. But the largest track just mostly sputters and moves very slow if at all. Also had problems connecting it to things and connecting some items to it. I downloaded the dropbox file in the op of this thread, but it seems to be the same file I got from the space port.

[likke_A_boss]

Yeah, The Largest tread will refuse to attach to anything.

[Galacticruler]

A bit confused about this thread. Today I got the spaceport versions linked from the old thread and it sort of worked. But the largest track just mostly sputters and moves very slow if at all. Also had problems connecting it to things and connecting some items to it. I downloaded the dropbox file in the op of this thread, but it seems to be the same file I got from the space port.

it is, it has tech nodes assigned though, unlike the original.

I can't do anything to the plugin, so talk with EndlessWaves on that.

Yeah, The Largest tread will refuse to attach to anything.

try turning off collision?

[DXTFantom]

Hi all sorry i havent been on upcomeing spotlite for you

[likke_A_boss]

Anyone know If there are any edits in the .CFG to increase speed?

[tyrant264]

My download wont even get passed the loading screen I cant even use them

[Galacticruler]

My download wont even get passed the loading screen I cant even use them

are you sure you installed them right?

and which pack are you talking about, the tracks or my engines?

Anyone know If there are any edits in the .CFG to increase speed?

there are none, I think it was planned at one point but never happened.

[JeffreyCor]

Love the idea of tracks, wanted something like this for my cranes. Unfortunately I can't get them to run in my .23 game. Trying the Mark Five and Mark Four, both draw power as expected when trying to move, but they don't go. And yes, I did make sure the parking break wasn't set I even took a Mark Five, put just a battery and command module on it to make very sure it wasn't over loaded, and had the same result.

[likke_A_boss]

Love the idea of tracks, wanted something like this for my cranes. Unfortunately I can't get them to run in my .23 game. Trying the Mark Five and Mark Four, both draw power as expected when trying to move, but they don't go. And yes, I did make sure the parking break wasn't set I even took a Mark Five, put just a battery and command module on it to make very sure it wasn't over loaded, and had the same result.

They are really just horridly slow.

[HoY]

press G to turn on the drive motor also. you can edit the torque curve to make them whatever speed you want

[Galacticruler]

They are really just horridly slow.

not THAT slow though, with a 55 ton object on them they move just fine(~10m/s)

try HoY's solution, and if they still fail, idk what you could do.

[likke_A_boss]

press G to turn on the drive motor also. you can edit the torque curve to make them whatever speed you want

Mine showing your edits? I have seen then torque curse edit, but there are 5 different keys and I don't know which one.

[Galacticruler]

those appear to be related to speed, or actually, RPM.

[ArkaelDren]

I know this has been gone over a bit but, is their anyway you can put in some cfg adjustments for spring rate and dampening? These are exactly what tons of people need but due to their incredibly weak suspension settings, I cant really use them. I don't have any issues adjusting the torque curves, but "nothing" for spring rate and dampening.

Thx for attempting to maintain this Mod.