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.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About AlphaOneSix

  • Rank
  • Birthday 10/12/1971
  1. Well I'm feeling a bit better about my old MacbookPro now... 32 fps with i7-3720QM at 2.6GHz
  2. Even if there was a command line option to disable the 3D world during game startup, that would be a huge help. I think. That gives PE players the option of putting the server in a high bandwidth data center on a virtual server that lacks the ability to render 3D.
  3. The odds of me being able to make this are high enough now that I'm comfortable saying that I'll be able to make it. I would prefer a Leopard (or Leopards, as it were) but I'm quite happy to be placed anywhere you feel needs a body. Thanks!
  4. Merry Christmas from Kandahar!
  5. I'm curious about this as well. I've tossed around the idea of using an Amazon AWS server instance to host games...
  6. I voted for all of them as I can make any of them and I have no particular preference for any specific date. So since I'm one of only two that voted for the 3rd, then I think it's safe to scratch it.
  7. "4.006 changes over the previous patch 4.004 are denoted with blue text"
  8. Okay I had a crash again, although it was AFTER rejoining after one of these "lockups". I rejoined the game in progress (TGIF) and my game crashed as soon as it was unpaused. I was not running the debug version during the first try, but when I rejoined, I was running the debug version. DebugLog and crash dump attached to this post. My video card is an NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M with driver version 353.62, although I suspect that my crash on rejoin in this case is not connected to my issue of locking up when switching from the map (2D) view to the 3D world, but hey who knows. Also note that I've been in windowed mode this entire time, I haven't used full screen mode in years. SBProPE64cm.exe.4616.zip DebugLog.zip
  9. I've been having an issue more and more often lately when Steel Beasts will "hang" when switching from a 2D view (map, briefing, etc.) to any 3D view (either by pressing one of the F keys or by double clicking on a unit from the map view). By "hung" I mean that the application becomes unresponsive and Windows marks it as "Not Responding", asking if I'd like to continue waiting for it to respond or close the application. I had this issue before, but in the past, it tended to "resolve" itself after 10 seconds or so. Ever since 4.0 (and 4.004) the problem has only "resolved" on its own once. In about 6 other cases, the game has remained in a hung state (Not Responding, according to Windows) until I finally give up and close the application, usually after 15-20 minutes of waiting. There is a message in my debug logs that repeats over and over and seems to coincide nicely with the time period where the game was not responding: "WARN : Message of type MYMSGID_TANKSTATETOHOST (18) was sent XXX times in the last 5000 ms [FPS=64.47 (66.54 - 59.02)]!" where XXX is usually around 150-250 and the FPS hovers around 60. The above message appears to begin at the time the game stops responding and doesn't stop until I quit the game. In last night's case during TGIF, the game hung and the messages started at approximately 23:33:50 and there are 345 more messages like that up until I quit the game at 23:57:07. I am not pretending that this is a problem with Steel Beasts, or surely it would be happening to more people, but if anyone has any insight into what may be happening, I'm all ears (eyes?). EDIT: I feel compelled to add that the same messages appear in the logs when the issue "resolved" itself in the past, but the line only occurs 3-5 times and the games resumed working normally.
  10. Anybody get the AAR in a place I can download it? Somewhere around the midpoint my game hung (not terribly unusual) and didn't come back after waiting almost 10 minutes (unusual), so I had to quit for the evening.
  11. MANPADS would not have helped the Iraqis much in that case since nearly all of the engagements (at least initially) were at night, and the Iraqis had an incredible lack of night vision devices. They had quite a bit of AAA in the form of ZU-23s ans ZPUs, but as these are visual weapons, the whole night thing made them useless. There were a couple of ZSU-23-4s here and there, but they were by and large destroyed by weapon systems that outranged them. Iraq also had a fairly decent Integrated Air Defense System, but this was one of the highest priorities for most of the early missions (including the very first one of the "air war" by Apaches against several radar sites that opened the way for the first F-117 strikes). Gunships (i.e. AH-64) in SB can be an incredible killer, it just depends on the environment and whether they are properly utilized. Hint: If your AH-64 is within 4-5km of the enemy, it's too close, unless it's infantry with only light weapons, then you should be fine closing to around 1.5-2km.
  12. Yes, but not a good one! (I guess it depends on your perspective)
  13. I was going to say how much I enjoyed this mission, but now that I know how much of a complete sham it really was, I must say that I am terribly upset at having wasted my time with it!
  14. The example of BMS seems to be solely a comment on weather. Real-time weather is not very valuable except as a single-player gimmick, in my opinion. It can be entertaining and interesting, but doesn't really have a place in planned missions. In other words, I think it's better for the mission designer to dictate the weather for the mission in the way that suits the mission designer's aims the best. Also, while the weather may not be as "pretty" as BMS, the effects of that weather are there for the most part (which really just boils down to affects on visibility). While some people don't see the weather as just eye candy, unless the actual affects of that weather have an impact on the mission, then that's all it is. Again, I'm referring to affects on visibility and ground conditions (SB already implements visibility reductions, and no combat sim that I know of has weather that affects ground conditions very well, although SB does do some things like reducing dust). DCS was mentioned as an example of great ground graphics, but again, they really aren't that great. What I mean is that there are lots of things about DCS terrain that is really pretty, but the two biggest problems are trees (absolute show stopper for ground units) and the poor terrain resolution (here I am referring to the lack of undulating terrain in DCS, it is generally either too flat or too steep with regards to ground units). This is another example (at least as it pertains to ground units) of graphics that do look good but simply do not have any practical use other than looking nice. It seems like one of your major points is that better graphics equals greater immersion which then results in "realistic psychological pressure" and I'm not sure that's really the case. Also, it must be noted that the terrain is BMS and DCS is either not able to be modified, or takes a great deal of effort, unlike SB, where it is very simple for a mission designer to modify terrain to suit their training objectives. I do think it bears repeating who the target audiences are for DCS/BMS/Il-2 vs. SB. Even the Personal Edition of Steel Beasts is not intended as an entertainment product or even as a study simulation. It's a training product. The only good example is your example using Il-2, but I don't know anything about Il-2 so cannot comment on it.