Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Captain_Colossus

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

4,548 profile views
  1. Mission Editor question

    understood. gibson gave me an idea- i changed the traction and drag properties not of the shoreline terrain, but the water- this seems to be the key right here and the units can pull themselves out of water much easier. the jump route is no longer necessary for what i intend. tanks again-
  2. Mission Editor question

    tanks. i set up a test route with an m113 to jump to the end of the route after 5 seconds from the start. i've tried with both a stay command with no orders at the starting point- and the unit didn't actually jump in either case. it's supposed to teleport, correct?
  3. Mission Editor question

    is there an actual 'jump to end if..." condition (or is it a phrase you are using as a substitute for spawn if + a route chain attached) if there is 'a jump to end if...', where is it? the context of my question is to conceptualize simulated water crossings- with the current engine as we all know, amphibious vehicles usually cannot climb out of water on their own as shorelines and river banks are too steep to climb. "jump if..." would allow a unit to teleport past an incline on a shore without getting hung up on it (that is, a swimming unit reaches a waypoint close to the shore, then jumps to a waypoint on land, bypassing the incline), thus abstracting a water crossing as best as can be done currently.
  4. History of US Tanks.

    for modellers there is a paint color called 'sinai gray' - not an easy color to duplicate and get the effect.
  5. EU Warehouse

    add more industrial decay for poor infrastructure environments, put together mostly from existing building textures. i'll likely smooth some areas out and upload on the weekend.
  6. ETA on terrain patch?

    right. knowing it's a curse. we say that knowledge is power and this sort of thing, there is always a pricetag that comes with it, and people don't really consider there should be warnings that come with it. we've heard it in some sense- curiosity killed the cat, but generally knowing isn't the same as improving your situation. when i watch these documentaries and read articles about uncontacted tribes, often times these explorers and scientists and researchers they introduce envy and want where it didn't exist before because these people get exposed to technologies which look like magic to them- just like the film the gods must be crazy, the genesis adam and eve story where they have it all, they do not suffer from deprivation and want, and just the hint of something new starts the whole process into decay i suppose. having said that, what i would really like to see are the possibilities of transformable terrain, and/or infantry trenches. while i can't and don't speak for eSim, i would bet that would be a good chance at least some form of that should make it into a common feature for all customers.
  7. We love videos

    something seems to be missing from the video. what killed the other forty m1 tanks?
  8. GTK Boxer Graphics Bug

    here is an example of the hind- there is almost no discernible detail on the belly- ambient light does not penetrate, you can't see the soviet roundel and so forth. on the other hand, the wheel well is unaffected, the position of the sun does matter, but generally though some models seem quite more affected than others
  9. GTK Boxer Graphics Bug

    what i gather is this this- the shadow levels on the belly of some vehicles (such as the hind helicopter, centauro) are extremely dark- much more than looks natural. his screenshot shows this dark shadowning plus the towing hooks, which are unaffected by the shadowing effect, so you see an unnatural contrast rather than the shadow evenly applied. if you look at the inside texture of the wheels and axles, they aren't shadowed as darkly as the bow if this effect were applied evenly. on the hind you see something similar- if you look at it in flight from the underside, it looks almost black, but the wheel well for the front landing wheels aren't shadowed at all, and you see a strange contrast effect; i think that's what he's pointing at.
  10. Virtual Reality support?

    insofar as games matter, it's not something i really look forward to or pine away for. gameplay design still matters, and the trend is that some AAA titles that developers are putting lots of resources into are more like very scripted interactive movies than games (look at any of those call of duty type games), they''re boring, and vr wouldn't likely improve that sort of game design once the novelty wears off. i could see the occasional spooky haunted house or dungeon crawler, but generally i'm not interested in the technology at this point. looking at the IL2 videos, which do look good- i think resources would be better invested in an engine with the moving grasses and trees, shadows rendered at longer ranges rather than VR.
  11. Virtual Reality support?

    has nothing to do with whether you're trolling or not. i think i see what you're doing
  12. Virtual Reality support?

    everyone is ignorant to some degree or another- otherwise everyone is omniscient. the problem here is whether this person is trolling or not- i can't quite place my finger on it, but it looks like a form of trolling but trying to look engaging enough so that it's not. under the banner of 'hey i'm trying to help with my opinion' there 's enough in there to look more like a personal vendetta, ulterior motive, and what have you- especially when some of these repeated claims are asserting things like steel beasts and/or m1tp2 were dos applications and he doubles down on them
  13. Virtual Reality support?

    something else which might often be overlooked precisely with good reason: steel beasts' control scheme is probably the best i've ever seen- this may get overlooked because it so so well engineered that one doesn't notice oneself fighting with the user interface. conversely, panzer elite is probably the worst example; while i don't want to bash games per se, the convoluted control scheme (especially playing with it around the same generation of tank games- steel beasts, m1tp2, panzer commander), was probably the clearest standout reason why i always uninstalled it after coming back to give it another chance. m1tp2 was actually nicely done in this regard, but steel beasts as it exists today simulates so many more systems and procedures yet still somehow manages to convince me that i'm not overwhelmed with too many key combinations and switches to get the core running. it's remarkable that such an important part of game design by its very nature goes 'unnoticed'
  14. Virtual Reality support?

    and i just fell off the onion wagon. deep fried starfish ice cream is really catching on with consumers, and it's easy to see why, it's delightfully refreshing. since you are just making up crap, i can too. m1tp2 was more of an arcade shooter than some fans want to admit, but if you're going to think you can brainwash anyone with a statement like that, you have as much chance as i did with my statement above. the only thing difficult i found with m1tp2 was because of flaws in the gameplay, not because the game was well crafted in its challenges it gave the player. - poor pathfinding of the vehicles, this wasn't as much of a problem in the desert scenarios, but in the europe scenarios, friendly ai vehicles would often turn around in circles and get stuck in mires and bogs. still, even in desert scenarios, it was often the case that any change in movement would cause friendly tanks in the platoon to turn in circles, bump into each other and present their side or rear profiles to enemy fire - a very simplistic fcs system for the m1 abrams, gunnery was artificially difficult unless the targets were stationary, a moving target meant the player was adding his own lead and even this still didn't seem to be accurate in its representation - enemy air threats could be shot down easily, literally enemy jets would come in very slow on low lever runs walking cannon fire into you and you could knock them out with the ma deuce as quick as they come- you'd be an ace at the end of every campaign shooting down airplanes - the representation of forest blocks and tree 'fences'- which the ai would treat as transparent and could shoot missiles through them and track the player as if homing onto his brainwaves or something. conversely, they were useless for enemy infantry to hide or take cover or fortify, and enemy infantry in general were more of a nuisance more than a threat - way way too much artillery available to the enemy, this probably was to compensate for the generally poor computer tactics -last but not least, every mission was more or less the same: like the game doom but on tracks. the irony is the game shipped with a 73 easting scenario as if to give the player the unique experience of wiping out a large enemy unit with a small friendly unit- because every scenario played out like a 73 easting battle, all sessions were the equivalent of that, the 73 easting scenario was redundant and representative of how all the missions played out. every. single. time.
  15. Are there other boys in the bubble, like me?

    but i'm certain you realize we are talking about multi-player not for that purpose- i know you know this, the whole context of this thread points to non-military use, yet you still have a need to be pedantic and do that thing you do. you don't know me, i get that, but i've got a sense of your style so i will say this- it may not be apparent to you that what i say may need correction from you, but it doesn't- assume what i say is meaningful, and well thought out and doesn't need correction. ok?