Welcome to Steelbeasts.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Werewolf

Members
  • Content count

    1,112
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Werewolf

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Oklahoma, USA
  • Interests
    Guns, Motorcycles, History, Photography, Gaming
  • Occupation
    Financial Analyst
  1. Thanks, Guys. I'll give those ideas a try.
  2. I'd like to be able to setup a scenario where the player is a company commander - of a tank company. His company needs to be human not PC controlled so the player can give the platoons orders. But here's the kicker: I don't want the player to be able to flit about from vehicle to vehicle. I want him to stay in the Commander's tank and stay in the commanders position and not hop into the gunner or driver's position. I can make it so that only the commander's slot is available but that doesn't prevent the player from hopping about from vehicle to vehicle as he wishes. I'm not having a lot of luck setting this up. Hoping one of you guys with a lot more experience with scenario design than I know whether or not this is even possible and if it is would describe the process. Thanks....
  3. I always thought the Merkava looked pretty cool... But as a tanker that dates back to '71 to '74 there's just something about the space age look of the modern tanks that just doesn't seem right. Yes it does look cool and yes they are much more survivable based on their space age shapes. But... The M-48, M60-A1, T-55, T-62 - now those look likes tanks should. Then again for some wierd reason I always thought the Swedish S Tank was fairly aesthetic.
  4. And that's pretty much what I do. With some experimentation I've found that set back about 50 yards or so in column, close gives the minimum amount of time for each vehicle to locate it's pit and move there directly by just turning right or left and heading in. If you start out with the unit in line then the individual tanks tend to back up, and for what ever reason the one's on the right think the pits on the left are theirs and vice versa and it turns into a cluster fuck until everything is sorted out. The 1st way takes about 20 seconds or so the 2nd way can take over a minute to get every one in position. Sure would be nice if there was an editor command or tool that would set this up with units in place though.
  5. Snake hit the nail on the head...
  6. Or... I won't - try that that is.
  7. Now that's thinking outside the box! I'll give that a shot.
  8. I'm finding it impossible to get a tank platoon to start a scenario already in tank emplacements. Getting them to move into the emplacement is easy but it usually takes at least 20 seconds. Might not seem like a lot but while they're moving they're vulnerable which means there are limits on positioning of the enemy units which one may not want depending on the scenario situation. So is it possible to have a tank platoon start the game with each individual tank already in its emplacement and if so how? (no... I'm not going to divide the units up and place individual tanks - defeats the whole purpose and is definitely a no go for AI units).
  9. That all makes sense. Thanks, Mirzayev.
  10. Got tired of telling Win7 that NO codemeter runtime server didn't have permission to make changes to my computer. SB Pro PE 4.010 still ran just fine so I set it to not load at all using the config.msi panel. That made me wonder just what the heck good is it? What does it do? And is there a situation where I'll need to run it manually sometime?
  11. Is there an option to help the terrorists holding the CNN <gag> news crew hostage?
  12. Aren't they that effective in real life? note: serious question - not sarcasm
  13. Uhhhh... What? Conclusions are regularly reached without ALL the info. In fact that is the norm in the real world whether its done by scientists, engineers, statisticians (I fall into that group), theologians, politicians... You name it and conclusions based on "not all the info", are drawn all the time. Imagine how the world would be if action was taken on only conclusions reached with all the info. Sure as heck wouldn't need prisons as no one could ever be convicted, medical science wouldn't even exist (almost everything those guys do is based on just educated guesses backed up by incomplete information), heck most science wouldn't exist. We'd still be living in the stone age. In fact having all the info in most situations involving any issue with multiple variables is essentially impossible. Been reading long? I didn't say no other conclusions could be drawn. Note the word other. I was asking for what OTHER conclusions could be drawn. There are others, certainly, though no one has stepped forward and provided any. Perhaps if you changed ALL to ENOUGH one could agree with your flawed contention. But enough of this. The problem with AI drivers not being able to keep themselves from driving into water is a known issue and has been for a very long time. Esim has acknowledged it. They haven't fixed it - yet. One hopes that someday they will (fix it) or absent that that we're just told to live with it and to move on. Personally I'll move on but I'll feel like I'm driving a Ferrari with a motor running with a cylinder misfiring.
  14. So... Number 1 then?
  15. If a problem has existed for 16 years then what conclusions can be drawn about the issue other than: 1. It can't be fixed - if so then just admit it. I'm OKAY with this. 2. It can be fixed but we're unwilling to fix it for business reasons. I'm OKAY with this too. 3. We know about the problem but it's been one for so long that our users have grown so accustomed to it that it really isn't a problem - I'm not OKAY with this. It's like saying that oil leak you've got is not a problem just keep adding oil when the level or pressure gets too low. There's undoubtedly a lot of excuses that can be made but they're still excuses and an excuse is no more than an "attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offense); seek to defend or justify."