Jump to content

Captain_Colossus

Members
  • Content count

    1,645
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Captain_Colossus

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

3,570 profile views
  1. Video Card Recommendation

    i'll admit as highly as i regarded the first steel beasts at the time, towards the end of its shelf life the graphics were getting stale, the low resolution and bland environmental effects (smoke, fire, ambient meteorological conditions) were getting a little tired, and that time i started switching over to games like battlefield 2 for for awhile until steel beasts 2.0. we're at the point now though the graphics still are interesting for me at this development rate, even as improvements are incrementally added over years i really think for the subject matter that steel beasts delivers, the graphics still nicely pair with the gameplay- i've seen some incredible looking games out there, but the relatively shallow gameplay offsets that a bit, so usually it's a case of never really getting to have your cake and eat it too for anyone- bigger developers with millions of dollars worth or resources to throw into graphics typically aren't delivering high fidelity simulators either, on the other hand, the esims and whatnot don't have the same kinds of backing as they do, but what they're doing is maximizing the advantages and playing the cards they do hold quite well. this is really what everyone is doing or should be doing, if you're say, you're not the biggest and most intimidating, play on your other strengths- be funny and charming if you're those things, if you're not funny and charming, say less and be mysterious or whatever. it's not so much a new graphics engine per se, i would however like to see just see procedural developments like they've been doing- for instance, my next major wishlist item are wind effects on the trees, grasses and bushes, vehicles having an effect on them not that they simply flatten when run over but branches push out of the way and snap back when objects pass through them- to what extent that would be considered a 'new engine' or major work on an existing one is somewhat semantic, but it doesn't per se mean a new engine like steel beasts 2 is a new engine compared to steel beasts 1 in the sense i mean it.
  2. Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

    insofar as that would become an adjustable detail option then that shouldn't be a problem. larger and more persistent fire and smoke was probably number one on my wish list since steel beasts 1.0, not simply because it looks better, but for orientation and navigation purposes it's much more useful. up until recently, you could park a vehicle next to a large pile of burning vehicles and often not even see anything unless they were right in front of you a meters away, because the smoke and fire were these diminutive, under represented plumes and whatnot. now with smoke visible on the horizon for many kilometers away, you can observe and orient yourself to where action is happening, as it should be. i'd hate for steel beasts to reverse on this, i want them to keep going with more environmental effects as much as they can moreover, but if it were a graphical option for the end user to play with, that would be a great solution for everyone.
  3. The Battle of the Bulge Movie 1965

    i've seen roughly similar figures from other sources, but most of the western allied tank losses were not accounted for directly by tanks- most losses by gun fire take the majority, but are divided up between tanks and the support arms such as artillery, self propelled guns and towed anti tank guns, again which often seem to be overlooked in the amount of casualities they were able to inflict. If this claim is true, then that seems to indicate losses are primarily from the unseen threat rather than face to face confrontation, this is what makes the claim that shermans were capable of taking on german tanks face to face rather regularly unlikely in most cases, since in addition to the enemy tanks themselves, which aren't going to simply allow sherman tanks to approach frontally to have a chance, there's also other supporting units taking shots at the allied tanks as they try to close the distance or outflank the german tanks http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/12/26/on-allied-tank-casualties-in-the-eto/
  4. We love screenshots

  5. Virtual Reality support?

    i think as the technology develops and when and if it becomes more mainstream, it would obviously imply society changing profoundly. that's happened already with the smart phone and social media, all the studies are indicating people rely on them to a such a degree that they feel anxiety being disconnected from their devices when they don't have access to them. when this gets going, it will be the next step in that, like any habit.
  6. Time to Squint - BTR50 as a proxy for AAV-P7/A1?

    is it possible for a ypr-765 pri.50 to tow another disabled ypr-765 pri.50 in the water? two vehicle setup simulated as one would achieve about the same weight and roughly the same length, and would carry 12 passengers total.
  7. We love screenshots

  8. The Battle of the Bulge Movie 1965

    german optics were considered very good, so when it came time for shootin', i bet on on the germans with other factors: as the war in europe turns defensively for the germans, the germans get combat bonuses in terrain which tended to favor defenders. german crews laying in wait with distances to approach routes already indexed could get off shots before the western allies could spot and/or return fire as accurately, situational awareness goes more to the germans because for ww2 armor, moving tanks don't see as well as stationary tanks, which have the advantage with careful planning of predicting where enemies are going to be showing up- in contrast to allied tanks which have a difficult time pinpointing locations in built up terrain . moreover, tiger crews tended to be hand picked from the most experienced crews, even better than the panthers, which were technically regarded as better tanks than tigers all around. tiger tanks were more expensive to manufacture than panther tanks, and tended to be made of more consistent higher quality steel when the german steel industry had difficulty keeping up late in the war. the germans put more investment into them. one of the worst opponents tank crews on all sides could face which tend not get the same kind of press as tiger tanks were the towed anti-tank guns. these were the most difficult opponents that tank crews might face under select conditions, they were virtually invisible with good concealment and good defensive terrain, they were difficult to range and suppress because gun optics weren't calibrated for them. and if deployed working with tanks, the tankes and the tank guns could deliver a shellacking on advancing without them knowing whether to scratch their watches or wind their butts, such a combination like that really was difficult to overcome in bocage hedrows or rocky italian hills so with these in mind, that's why i'm saying that even though technically it's true that the 76mm gunned sherman can techincally penetrate tiger frontally at 500 yards, in practice, it wasn't likely to happen- too many factors going against poor sherman crews. when you read allied warplanners and propaganda seemingly oblivious to reality arguing against a need for a better thank than the sherman, you see what they were selling their crews on: "your tank can penetrate the tiger at 500 yards, you got them licked" - on paper, yes... in reality, even third tier german tanks such as the panzer iv were the equivalent of the sherman and was still a deadly opponent, let alone panther or tiger
  9. The Battle of the Bulge Movie 1965

    again, you're confusing what i'm saying- i'm not saying the 76 mm gun can't penetrate a tiger say under 500 meters. i'm saying that in practice, the shermans didn't tend to maneuver in close enough frontally for that to happen, as if it were a simple matter of closing the distance for that to happen. and it wasn't. in addition to the tiger which could lay fire more accurately at longer ranges, particularly with the advantage of being on the defense waiting for shermans to enter into its range, usually there were going to be other units deployed off axis defending the tigers's flanks- tank destroyers and towed guns, panzer troops with anti tank weapons, and so on- again which is why the odds don't stack up like they you seem to be closing the gaps here. again, it's not that they were incapable of doing it, because it's not impossible for the 76mm gun to penetrate, but the odds weren't going to get close enough to do that anyway. it's simply not the way it happened. i'm still going to to believe however the three tiger i tanks is likely a lowball because the accounts are often too unclear- like i said, there were many times americans didn't know what they were facing, for example, that hidden fire from the bocage was not known, it could be a towed anti tank gun, could be a panzer iv, could be a tiger, american crews might tend to misreport it so there was no way of knowing- in other words, your three tanks cannot be proved, because no precise number can be proved. but let's take your number of three times, then by implication, american troops just happened to meet three tiger tanks and apparently knocked out all three frontally, because they had no problem doing it according to your estimates.
  10. The Battle of the Bulge Movie 1965

    what in the world. having no trouble piercing a tiger frontally at combat ranges is difficult to swallow- because again, that's not what tended to happen. under test conditions you can set it up so that you achieve that outcome under 'combat ranges', without a tiger and accompanying td guns and panzergrenadiers shooting back. however, in reality, shermans didn't tend to cut to 'combat ranges' before getting picked off. now it's true that shermans didn't always meet tigers, and many times what were mistaken for tigers were likely something else to green or nervous troops, but that doesn't prove the notion that shermans regularly knocked out tigers in 'combat ranges' frontally, and disproves me that this tended not to happen. even if i accept your claim that only two tigers were ever met by american troops (which i know is NOT true), then that makes your case even poorer. see, at least one of those two times that it happened was not between a sherman and a tiger but a tiger and a pershing late in the war. so that leaves you with one tiger, and that tiger muat have been knocked out by a sherman frontally, and that would necessarily be the only one that ever happened to- that's the only choice left your argument leaves you with
  11. The Battle of the Bulge Movie 1965

    that's like saying if i could just get past the palace guard, i can get close enough to hit the king with a pie in the face. in practice, this isn't what would tend to happen even if it were possible, usually the sherman tanks were getting picked off before getting close enough to do that. i think it would be bad for the picture to actually depict a rare instance of a sherman doing that, movies already have the problem of being predictable in that you know the protagonists will manage to come out on top- even in the last stand battles, there will be at least one or two who make it in order to show the audience that the good guys will never truly be beaten. so if you actually took some statistical anomaly and showed a general audience a sherman piercing a tiger frontally, you'll probably: 1) convey to a general audience the impression that this happened more regularly than not (especially since a general audience probably doesn't know the difference) 2) annoy the grognards and tank geeks who don't want to see that in a movie
  12. i would play it if a combat simulator came with it. this is the kind of thing which should be married to an online universe like world of tanks; imagine the care and investment put it into your tank and then having to either risk losing it in battle or successfully showing off your pride and joy with all bragging rights
  13. The Battle of the Bulge Movie 1965

    if other members here don't recall what i'm talking about, family guy did a good critique of this type of film technique towards the end of the clip when hans dies and the choice voice comes on
  14. The Battle of the Bulge Movie 1965

    you're absolutely correct. i don't mention the tactics or the interaction with tigers for our audience here- it goes without saying for this bunch. for a general audience which mostly will not really appreciate these points i just mean that overall i thought fury sucked, but as the art form itself was too weird. even the opening scene looked weird to me and did not belong in this film, it looked like it should have been used in a wolverine comic book or something
  15. The Battle of the Bulge Movie 1965

    i'm sure when it first came out, audiences were not as cynical. the simple fact is the bar keeps getting raised as with everything- evolution is everything. that's why early films look ridiculous now, but to audiences then they were novel. as we go along, this phenomenon will just keep moving the goal posts more and more, it will take more to impress. and then as directors try and impress, they are violating the rules of natural least effort, the attempts to try and impress audiences will be easy to detect as audiences get more sophisticated, a seen it done before malaise is inevitable
×