Jump to content


Rammer equipment. Myth or real?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
36 replies to this topic

Asky #1 Posted Dec 01 2010 - 02:07

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 15479 battles
  • 1,667
  • Member since:
    08-06-2010
Version 0.6.1.5.

Rammer. One of the most popular equipment in WoT...
You finally got the tank of you're dream, mount the best gun u can use, and then of course u look at the rammer, like a kid who looks at a cake. "-10% percent loading time" sounds so nice, should i sell one of my tanks and spend my last credits to get one? How much time will I gain? 10% from a 10 seconds loading time is 1 seconds, it could save ppl life. But that sounds to good to be true... well let's find out from what he is made of!

Ok, the test consists of some recorded videos, used for measuring reload time of certain weapons on tanks with rammer equipment.
The videos were recorded at 30 fps so we will have an maximum of 67 ms error. That means 2 frames. One when shooting starts and one when reloading ends.

I have tested 3 types of weapons, on different tanks. 1 Fast reload weapon, 3 medium reload, 2 slow reload weapons, and 2 very slow reload weapons (artillery)

Formulas i used:
Well i don't know if we can call them formulas, because it's basic math: 60 / reload time = RPM; 60 / RPM = reload time;

Note:
1. At some shots, reloading time differs by ~ 200ms (e.g. IS3). Probably that is because of a lag spike or smthing.
2. All crew members were at 110% (+ vent bonus on tanks that had vent)
3. If someone (developers,moderators or players) wanna see the raw videos i can upload them somewhere. Just ask
4. I didn't used a stopwatch to measure the reload time, i used an video editing software

T-20 M1A2
http://b.imagehost.o...89/t29_M1A2.png
Reload time gained: 6.6(6)%

Note: Tested with "vertical stabilizer" and "Rammer"


T-20 M3
http://b.imagehost.org/0894/t20_m3.png
Reload time gained: 4.80%
Note: Tested with "vertical stabilizer" and "Rammer"


T-44
http://d.imagehost.o...78/Tiger_II.png
Reload time gained: 5.346%
Note: Tested with "vertical stabilizer" and "Rammer"

Panther
http://b.imagehost.o...945/panther.png
Reload time gained: 3.70%
Note: Tested with "vertical stabilizer" and "Rammer"

IS3:
http://b.imagehost.org/0003/Is-3.png
Reload time gained: 2.86%
Note: Tested with "Rammer" only


Tiger II
http://d.imagehost.o...51/Tiger_II.png
Reload time gained: 3.89.%
Note: Tested with "vertical stabilizer" and "Rammer"

SU-8
http://d.imagehost.org/0018/su-8.png
Reload time gained: 2.06%
Note: Tested with "Rammer" only

SU-14
http://d.imagehost.org/0954/su-14.png
Reload time gained: 3.302%
Note: Tested with "vertical stabilizer" and "Rammer"


As u can see, reload time is not reduced by 10%.

WaffleFries #2 Posted Dec 01 2010 - 02:18

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 15911 battles
  • 321
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010
Nice work!
Id offer to contribute but I'd only be able to get you the stats with rammer for IS7, IS4, s51.  100% crew of course.  If you can find someone with these tanks, 100% crew and no rammer (not likely?) let me know and ill fraps some shooting vids for you.  

It would be nice if one of the developers could shed some light on the inconsistencies Asky is observing.

Asky #3 Posted Dec 01 2010 - 02:22

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 15479 battles
  • 1,667
  • Member since:
    08-06-2010

View PostWaffleFries, on Dec 01 2010 - 02:18, said:

Nice work!
Id offer to contribute but I'd only be able to get you the stats with rammer for IS7, IS4, s51.  100% crew of course.  If you can find someone with these tanks, 100% crew and no rammer (not likely?) let me know and ill fraps some shooting vids for you.  

It would be nice if one of the developers could shed some light on the inconsistencies Asky is observing.
Thank you

well if u guys wanna add more guns/tanks on the list i can do it, i got 16 tanks in garage, but not over tier 8.

For higher tier tanks i need videos of tanks with rammer installed, because i already know the reload without rammer

TheHasegawaEffect #4 Posted Dec 01 2010 - 02:34

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 8136 battles
  • 858
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010
Would having 116% crew and rammer be a problem? I might contribute.

Asky #5 Posted Dec 01 2010 - 02:38

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 15479 battles
  • 1,667
  • Member since:
    08-06-2010

View PostAfoxi, on Dec 01 2010 - 02:34, said:

Would having 116% crew and rammer be a problem? I might contribute.

no, i need a video with a tank shooting 10 shells, u can uploaded somewhere. I will add what i find out

coolbro #6 Posted Dec 01 2010 - 02:40

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 231 battles
  • 111
  • Member since:
    08-08-2010
hahaha wargaming getowned !

Nice work on getting those numbers.

BRB  getting Anderson Cooper on the phone to "keep 'em honest"

sourkraut #7 Posted Dec 01 2010 - 02:42

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 2566 battles
  • 892
  • [LKY56] LKY56
  • Member since:
    07-13-2010
I havent really ever noticed the difference the rammer make. Untill i slapped one on my churchill. now thats noticeable

TheHasegawaEffect #8 Posted Dec 01 2010 - 02:53

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 8136 battles
  • 858
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010
No, i mean nearly all my tanks have ventilation, some also have rammers. Will having 116% loader and Rammer be an issue or do you just want 110% loader?

Asky #9 Posted Dec 01 2010 - 03:00

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 15479 battles
  • 1,667
  • Member since:
    08-06-2010

View PostAfoxi, on Dec 01 2010 - 02:53, said:

No, i mean nearly all my tanks have ventilation, some also have rammers. Will having 116% loader and Rammer be an issue or do you just want 110% loader?

As u can see in my tests, i tested them with rammer and ventilation, and 115% crew (OP updated). So ventilation doesn't matter so much, important is to have rammer. Rammer should get 10% reload time reduction. What will be over 10%(if he will give such percentage) is from ventilation

OJ191 #10 Posted Dec 01 2010 - 03:22

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 1810 battles
  • 346
  • Member since:
    09-24-2010
I don't know what you did, but your numbers look really wrong somehow. When using a rammer I ALWAYS see a faster rate of fire, so I don't know why you seem to think it is INCREASING reload time.

EDIT: Have you taken videos of the normal rate of fire? I just thought.... what if the NORMAL rate of fire is off. That would explain why I see increases in rate of fire yet your numbers say it reduces rate of fire somehow.

Asky #11 Posted Dec 01 2010 - 03:32

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 15479 battles
  • 1,667
  • Member since:
    08-06-2010

View PostOJ191, on Dec 01 2010 - 03:22, said:

Rammer doesn't act on reload time, it increases shots per minute AFAIK.
So 10 shots per minute + 10% = 11 shots per minute
60/11 = reload time of 5.45 seconds

Also, I think you did ALL of your math wrong, and I can't correct it without the raw data.
When you are applying a rammer, no matter if the actual bonus is the correct amount, it ALWAYS increases the rate of fire somewhat.

In all of your data the reload time has INCREASED which is utterly wrong for my experience with a rammer, and the one time I checked to see it was working. I don't know what you did, but it doesn't add up with my experiences. And no I won't test it for you, that's your (self-appointed) "job".

rammer RPM = RPM*1.1
reload time = RPM*1.1/60

NOTE: if I am wrong about this I apologise, but a) your numbers just look badly wrong, and B) I aren't entirely certain it is RPM*1.1 but it's what always made the most sense to me based on my experiences.

The description clearly say it decrease the reload time, not increase in RPM. However a increase in the rpm = decrease in the reload time.

Even if they were referring at a 10% increase in RPM, as u see, it doesn't. U can find the data in the OP, but i give u an example

Panther 1st shot had a reload time of 6.466; 60 seconds (1 minute) / 6.466 = 9.279 rounds/ minute


View PostOJ191, on Dec 01 2010 - 03:22, said:

I don't know what you did, but your numbers look really wrong somehow. When using a rammer I ALWAYS see a faster rate of fire, so I don't know why you seem to think it is INCREASING reload time.

EDIT: Have you taken videos of the normal rate of fire? I just thought.... what if the NORMAL rate of fire is off. That would explain why I see increases in rate of fire yet your numbers say it reduces rate of fire somehow.

Based on 30 fps videos i had made my tests. I didn't used a stopwatch to measure the reload time, i used an video editing software

Well, if u guys think i m mistaking or miscalculating something, tell me and i will recalculate everything

Hotwired #12 Posted Dec 01 2010 - 03:39

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 20 battles
  • 1,054
  • Member since:
    09-12-2010

View PostAsky, on Dec 01 2010 - 02:07, said:

The videos were recorded at 30 fps so we will have an maximum of 0.067 ms error. That means 2 frames.

That needs correcting.

Accurate to 0.000067 seconds?

I'd also forget about 3 decimal place calculating when its not going to be that accurate, 1 decimal place is more realistic.

Asky #13 Posted Dec 01 2010 - 03:39

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 15479 battles
  • 1,667
  • Member since:
    08-06-2010

View PostHotwired, on Dec 01 2010 - 03:39, said:

View PostAsky, on Dec 01 2010 - 02:07, said:

The videos were recorded at 30 fps so we will have an maximum of 0.067 ms error. That means 2 frames.

That needs correcting.

Accurate to 0.000067 seconds?

lol yeah. ty, +1 it's late here. Corrected

Hotwired #14 Posted Dec 01 2010 - 03:44

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 20 battles
  • 1,054
  • Member since:
    09-12-2010
I'm wondering what they mean by 10% too.

If we forget about the other bonuses for simplicity:

Could be 10% of the basic 100% crew rate = rammer bonus making up 9% of the rate of fire

Could be 10% of the maximum firing rate = rammer bonus making up 10% of the rate of fire


Especially since we have no running equipment stats and all we see are maximum numbers not the usually much lower current rate. Interesting figures though.

Asky #15 Posted Dec 01 2010 - 12:18

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 15479 battles
  • 1,667
  • Member since:
    08-06-2010
Well i hope a developer will answer to this dilema

Esourze #16 Posted Dec 01 2010 - 12:22

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 173
  • Member since:
    09-13-2010
A rammer is always worth it due to the fact if you need to put in that last shot a little faster then your opponent its worth it. Nomatter how many percent you get from it hell i would have bought it even if it was only 1% faster reload time :Smile_great:

Keulz #17 Posted Dec 01 2010 - 12:51

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 61
  • Member since:
    10-04-2010

View PostEsourze, on Dec 01 2010 - 12:22, said:

A rammer is always worth it due to the fact if you need to put in that last shot a little faster then your opponent its worth it. Nomatter how many percent you get from it hell i would have bought it even if it was only 1% faster reload time :Smile_great:
No, because they are others modules that can bring you bonuses. I would prefer 5% to all my crew instead of 1% to my RoF.

Maybe the rammer give 10% To the loader ? Which wouldn't result in a raise of 10% in the RoF since a 50% loader doesn't give you a RoF 50% inferior to the one at 100%.

Wojto #18 Posted Dec 01 2010 - 12:52

    Private

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    07-24-2010
I also think there is something wrong in the calculations. After applying a rammer to my s-51 with a 203mm gun i felt a significant increas in reload time.

A question to Asky: Did you take the value of RPM out of the statistics of the tanks, or did you calculate them youreself? Maybe the crew skill 110 and the vent bonus interfears somehow with the rammer bonus?

WaffleFries #19 Posted Dec 02 2010 - 15:54

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 15911 battles
  • 321
  • Member since:
    07-17-2010

View PostAsky, on Dec 01 2010 - 03:00, said:

As u can see in my tests, i tested them with rammer and ventilation, and 115% crew (OP updated). So ventilation doesn't matter so much, important is to have rammer. Rammer should get 10% reload time reduction. What will be over 10%(if he will give such percentage) is from ventilation
Maybe it was a typo, but you had listed Vertical Stabilizer, not Ventilation as the other equipment you had.  I was assuming no bonus from Ventilation.  I think the bonus from Ventilation makes a tricky comparison/test even trickier.

It would be nice if we could get someone to supply the missing combinations from your tests.  IE:

  • 100% crew with no equipment
  • 100% crew with rammer only
  • 100% crew with ventilation only
  • 100% crew with both rammer and ventilation


Sevaver #20 Posted Dec 02 2010 - 17:11

    Private

  • Beta Testers
  • 5964 battles
  • 9
  • Member since:
    10-10-2010
Depending on how the math is done it can turn out with different variables.

-1-

One way is increasing the Rate of Fire by 10% per minute.

Lets take a hypothetical idea here. RoF is 30 rounds a minute like the M7's Pounder(tank and gun I am using for the math).

(30 * .10) + 30 = 30 * 1.1 = 33

A 10% increase is 33 rounds per minute.

-2-

Next way is to decrease reload time by 10%.

For this you need to divide the time by the RoF. 1 Minute = 60 seconds divided by 30 shots equaling 2. Multiply 2 by 0.9. Then divide 60 by this answer.

60 / 30 = 2 * 0.9 = 1.8

60 / 1.8 = 33.33 rounds per minute.

-3-

The last way is a combination of both formulas, in which you decease the reload time by a division of 10%.

For this you need to divide the time by the RoF. 1 Minute = 60 seconds divided by 30 shots equaling 2. Divide 2 by 1.1. Then divide 60 by this answer.

60 / 30 = 2 / 1.1 = 1.8181
60 / 1.8181 = 33

-

So depending upon how they chose to do their math you either gain 3 rounds per minute or 3.33 rounds per minute. I prefer way 2 because the math is more sound than the 1st and 3rd.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users