Valid Fire effect on burning tanks

[Fele1 9]

Maybe it would be cool to add a flame effeft around the tanks that are burned by firebird. When firebird starts damaging, then small flame should appear like a sign that tank is burning, and it lasts as long as afterburn is in effect, that is as long as tank is being damaged. This is just simple idea, if you don't like it, it doesn't have to be implemented. (Sry if my english is bad, i hope you understand :) )

[Hate 5,582]

Under review

[T-34-3m 360]

I agree. Even in TX they use the same glowing effect to signify heat, which is more realistic, but it implies the tanks immediately reach a molten state. Surely Firebird isn't THAT hot!

[GuidoFawkes 2,361]

I agree. Even in TX they use the same glowing effect to signify heat, which is more realistic, but it implies the tanks immediately reach a molten state. Surely Firebird isn't THAT hot!

assuming their napalm is napalm b it'd be hot enough.

Edited September 20, 2017 by GuidoFawkes

[Quincie 531]

I agree. Even in TX they use the same glowing effect to signify heat, which is more realistic, but it implies the tanks immediately reach a molten state. Surely Firebird isn't THAT hot!

Have you ever used a Flamethrower in real life ? Maybe you should see the temperature of Flamethrower and compare it to the melting point of Metal 

[T-34-3m 360]

Have you ever used a Flamethrower in real life ? Maybe you should see the temperature of Flamethrower and compare it to the melting point of Metal 

No, but apparently it's fully legal to own and operate one. Huh. 

 

assuming their napalm is napalm b it'd be hot enough.

Isn't napalm mostly anti-infantry though? And why doesn't it burn through wherever it's stored on the turret?

 

 

All that aside, what metal are the tanks made of? It's apparently widely used since all the tanks burn at a somewhat equal rate, and my guess is that hulls like Mammoth just have more of it to burn

[ThirdOnion 4,898]

Who cares what flamethrowers look in real life? It's confusing in terms of game mechanics, because the temperature of the tank doesn't correspond to the visual effect.

[GuidoFawkes 2,361]

 

Isn't napalm mostly anti-infantry though? And why doesn't it burn through wherever it's stored on the turret?

 

 

All that aside, what metal are the tanks made of? It's apparently widely used since all the tanks burn at a somewhat equal rate, and my guess is that hulls like Mammoth just have more of it to burn

um... the US has used most of theirs for unprotected people, but... it can be used for tanks too.

 

I'm guess mammoth has thicker armour so that means it'd have higher thermal heat capacity so more thermal energy would be needed. and burning after being sprayed with napalm makes sense as napalm sticks to stuff and i could be confusing this with something else but it's produces it's own oxygen needed for burning.

 

ammo is usually stored in the hull of a tank, not the turret.

Edited September 20, 2017 by GuidoFawkes

[T-34-3m 360]

ammo is usually stored in the hull of a tank, not the turret.

The hull that can be burned by said napalm? Maybe it's in a special container or something. Keep in mind that it happens in a matter of seconds, not a few minutes. I can't find a decent article on how fast metal reaches the melting point, but I'm sure that napalm would at least take a minute if it was just sprayed onto the hull. It also comes out as gas, as it's a stream of flames that go out as soon as the trigger is released.

Edited September 20, 2017 by T-34-3m

[GuidoFawkes 2,361]

The hull that can be burned by said napalm? Maybe it's in a special container or something. Keep in mind that it happens in a matter of seconds, not a few minutes. I can't find a decent article on how fast metal reaches the melting point, but I'm sure that napalm would at least take a minute if it was just sprayed onto the hull. It also comes out as gas, as it's a stream of flames that go out as soon as the trigger is released.

it is only ignited right when it leaves the turret. before that it doesn't have oxygen to start burning. combustion only starts after there's enough oxygen surrounding it. and afterwards it'd would produce its own oxygen to continue.

 

and that is why tanks dont start burning straight away after getting a small whiff of napalm. it doesn't take a minute tho, you have any idea how much thermal energy gets released? obviously i can't tell you because i don't know the quantity of napalm they spray and other variables... but it'd only need a couple seconds.

[ThirdOnion 4,898]

The metal itself can't be burned by napalm. However, equipment inside can be damaged or crew members injured through vents.

[GuidoFawkes 2,361]

Some people really need to stop playing this game and go back to school to learn science. napalm burns at 2760°c. iron melts at 1510°c while steel melts at 1370°c. Because napalm sticks to stuff tanks would absorb it s full temperature. and even if tanks were made some special mixture of kevlar that happens to have an even higher melting point the instant amount of energy released from combustion shpuld be more than enough to take care of that.

Edited September 20, 2017 by GuidoFawkes

[ThirdOnion 4,898]

Some people really need to stop playing this game and go back to school to learn science. napalm burns at 2760°c. iron melts at 1510°c while steel melts at 1370°c. Because napalm sticks to stuff tanks would absorb it s full temperature. and even if tanks were made some special mixture of kevlar that happens to have an even higher melting point the instant amount of energy released from combustion shpuld be more than enough to take care of that.

A) I said metal doesn't burn.

B) Napalm does not melt tanks themselves. Obviously some parts do, but not everything. It damaged equipment and injures crew members. The tank doesn't melt down, most likely ammunition cooks off or something of that sort.

Edited September 21, 2017 by ThirdOnion

[GuidoFawkes 2,361]

A) I said metal doesn't burn.

B) Napalm does not melt tanks themselves. Obviously some parts do, but not everything. It damaged equipment and injures crew members. The tank doesn't melt down, most likely ammunition cooks off or something of that sort.

 

oh my god! metal does burn! It just burns without flames! look i learned all this in french so i cant explain this... so i spent 5 seconds to google a correct answer in english for you. https://www.quora.com/Why-does-wood-burn-Why-doesnt-metal-burn

 

and as for the tank melting part i could explain this happens to be the same as what i learned in the military and by myself so you can read this. http://science.howstuffworks.com/napalm.htm

 

your mummy should be the one doing this for you instead of me. :lol: ;)

Edited September 21, 2017 by GuidoFawkes

[GuidoFawkes 2,361]

So, for all you kindergarden children :p ... there can be flames on the tank because of the napalm sticking to it, but there doesnt have to be because the tank itself burns without flames. the redness could also show that the surface of the tank is in a molten state, which is also possible. and napalm is not just used for people or vegetation, it is also used on tanks, bunkers, bases... anything actually.

Edited September 21, 2017 by GuidoFawkes

[bauce 45]

So, for all you kindergarden children :P ... there can be flames on the tank because of the napalm sticking to it, but there doesnt have to be because the tank itself burns without flames. the redness could also show that the surface of the tank is in a molten state, which is also possible. and napalm is not just used for people or vegetation, it is also used on tanks, bunkers, bases... anything actually.

And informal barbecues.

 

Could you imagine if they added a "jammed turret" for the duration because the ammunition melded to the turret? Well, the plasma weapons and Freeze/Fire wouldn't have this problem, but Magnum, Shaft, Rail, Smoky, Striker and Thunder would.

[GuidoFawkes 2,361]

And informal barbecues.

 

Could you imagine if they added a "jammed turret" for the duration because the ammunition melded to the turret? Well, the plasma weapons and Freeze/Fire wouldn't have this problem, but Magnum, Shaft, Rail, Smoky, Striker and Thunder would.

... i wouldnt wanna have a barbecue while having to smell that distinctive smell of napalm...

 

 

unless I'm barbecueing somebody :D 

 

Edited September 21, 2017 by GuidoFawkes

[ThirdOnion 4,898]

oh my god! metal does burn! It just burns without flames! look i learned all this in french so i cant explain this... so i spent 5 seconds to google a correct answer in english for you. https://www.quora.com/Why-does-wood-burn-Why-doesnt-metal-burn

 

and as for the tank melting part i could explain this happens to be the same as what i learned in the military and by myself so you can read this. http://science.howstuffworks.com/napalm.htm

 

your mummy should be the one doing this for you instead of me. :lol: ;)

When I mean burning, I mean burning in the traditional sense of the word. Combustion is redox reaction. Redox reaction are everywhere. This is not a good example.

 

Second, how many tanks do you see melting from napalm? (Obviously you've probably seen none, but it's a rhetorical question.) Yes, napalm burns at very high temperatures. Yes, steel has a melting point of around 1300 C. But this is all relative. It is one thing to melt a small rod of steel when heat is applied uniformly, it is another thing to melt a plate several inches thick when heat is applied non-uniformly. Again, some outer parts most likely melt, but the point is that the tank isn't going to fall apart. And we are not even considering the complex compounds used in the armor of modern tanks. Is napalm an effective anti-tank weapon? Yes, it is. Does it heat up armor? Yes. Does it melt through armor? No. Likewise, does it burn through armor? Not really.

 

The point is to cause internal damage. How else are you going to disable a tank, by literally melting it to the ground?

[GuidoFawkes 2,361]

yeah whatever i give up

edit: maybe not, yes napalm does melt through armour. read the second link

Edited September 21, 2017 by GuidoFawkes

[Quincie 531]

No, but apparently it's fully legal to own and operate one. Huh. 

Not telling you to, But you can make your own mini flame thrower, I made one for my science exhibition and as celebrating my A+, I used like 3 cans of Body spray on a metal to for fun and then I got my results. 

[T-34-3m 360]

I miniature one is easy, tape a lighter near a can of Aerosol and enjoy it until you lose an arm and burn yourself from the ensuing potential explosion.

[TakeAShower 300]

Guys, Tanki was never made to be realistic. A better fire effect is not needed, and why are we arguing about realism? Suggest that Tanki X make the firebird more realistic if you must, but Tanki is not that kind of game.

[Hate 5,582]

I think the little burning effect or numbers is similar to what you requested hence why the idea is completed.  :rolleyes:

[Guest]

I think the little burning effect or numbers is similar to what you requested hence why the idea is completed.  :rolleyes:

wat

[Hate 5,582]

wat

When you burn someone with Fire or even with other Turrets that have alterations that let you burn the enemies and they hide from you for example or you even die, you can see a small numbers that indicate the amount of damage you do to them each second and for Fire it is very clear so it is the same if not similar to what the topic owner suggested hence why the idea is completed since that option has been introduced to the game for some time now.