Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Past hour
  2. I read it that way, but there's always some people who won't get it, and misunderstandings here can have severe consequences. So I wanted to make it unambiguously clear that my professional advice is to stay away from materials marked as classified (let alone posting them online for the most retarded reason possible, winning an internet argument).
  3. Lol I know it was a joke,I was just merely stating the obvious. ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ˜
  4. Did you try Shift+Num* to activate the thermal view?
  5. Today
  6. If I create a new scenario (sample attached) where a Scout unit has a JIM-LR and the time is 2300 it appears to be "optically challenged". Daytime (1000): Night (2300): Conditions: 1. 4.379 in Mission Editor Test mode. 2. Sequence used for both: F7, F1, + (as per the video published earlier). 3. Brand new blank scenario with only one unit and time set. 240319 JIM-LR test.sce I was initially trying to workout why the JIM-LR looked like this in an older scenario, related to this post: But thought I'd confirm that the JIM-LR worked in a pure 4.379 scenario before I tried to make things more difficult. FYI the image from the older, more complex scenario looks like this (only difference being this unit has a UAS, whereas the test unit only has the JIM-LR):
  7. I'm sorry ... dry humor ... I was TOTALLY kidding! Total joke.
  8. Have tried: Remove Save Test - No UAV option. Add Save Test - Scout unit has "Drone Information ..." as an option, but no control panel. That doesn't seem to be a viable workaround. If I delete the old unit and create a replacement I get: +ves: 1. The Munin is now available to use (the control interface is available in F8 view). -ves: 1. Can't use the same name as the one you removed - so messages, briefings, etc. need to be adjusted. 2. The deletion and then creation process breaks all the "Embark if ....", "Retreat if ...", Routes, Events, or Conditions that might have used the old unit name. I'll send you a copy of the earlier (ancient) version.
  9. Here's a tentative workaround: Please take away the UAV (/Munin) from the unit. Save the scenario. Add the Munin to that unit, Save again. This may be all that's needed to get things to working. Let me know.
  10. Seems like, for European players, the time will be 1 hour sooner until the 5 APR TGIF. 22 MAR 2024: MBT-S05A-19-Dark Passage (FRG)-4379 (Pt 1 of 2) This is a two-part scenario, part 2 will be next TGIF, unless we postpone the scenario this week with something else. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes Random CO selection? Yes Minimum # players: 8 NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules ๏ปฟand SB.com Community Rules.
  11. Sure but there has been a lot of work done since then with route, events and conditions. If it helps you with the underlying code, happy to send it. But if its a case of you have the Munin now, but I've lost X months of work, I'll just do without.
  12. Ah! Do you still have the original scenario? If you could send me that, along with info about which unit's UAV needs to get changed to Munin, that'd be very helpful.
  13. Yesterday
  14. Some more detail which might make it a "less severe legacy bug". 1. The scenario is fairly old - it comes from a time when your choices were "UGV" or "UAV". 2. As part of the update process, I changed "UAS" to Munin and "UGV" to Libelle. 3. This change is what appears to fail. 4. Creating a new unit in the scenario and giving it a Munin UAS seems to be OK. 5. As an aside, this may also be why I couldn't get the JIM-LR to work either - because I was adding it to an "old" (pre introduction of the JIM-LR) unit.
  15. I'm not reading into anyone's posts. I just read them. And it is criminal to possess classified information in the US. The only exception is in the process of legitimate news gathering. Its up to DAs and judges to sort out intent for charging.
  16. it would be useful to create a 'evacuate crew if' condition in the mission editor in order to approximate somewhat ambiguous conditions that are not currently modeled- i.e,, a slow fire spreading throughout the vehicle threatening the safety or the operational ability of the vehicle during combat, or sufficiently damaged components which in their context might cause the crew to bail out. there is no way to train a crew, which are sensitive organisms evolved to remove themselves from the searing sensation of fire to stay with a burning vehicle- there are horrendous examples of victims choosing to throw themselves out of high rises rather than accepting the choice of burning alive- or from burning vehicles. even in the examples of M1A1 tanks knocked out in ukraine with compartmentalized ammunition storage the crews are bailing as the ammunition cooks off and the smoke and fire spreads into the fighting compartment and into the engine. with a user defined conditioned as to when this happens there would not be some arbitrary sense of it happening and elicit user complaints, and it would probably stave off many of the situations where you see that 'immortal' BMP-1 or something which is hit repeatedly but will not die
  17. Please don't read too much into anyone's posts. I replied to a specific statement. I did not imply anything about what I would do If I came upon leaked classified documents, on line or off.
  18. Ja, mein Leutnant, sofort, mein Leutnant, ich werde da sein, mein Leutnant!
  19. Technically as your platoon leader, I am not asking you to come. I am ordering you. ๐Ÿ˜‰
  20. And me, please (Personally, whoever COs, myself and @cavgunner played in the Northern sector last friday)
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...