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 Captain_Colossus

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday
  1. I think the problem with that is the way crew members instantly teleport into each other's stations; what this means is that a crew which should be shocked or stunned with serious damage taken recover too fast and are able to turn the ables on the attacker. This happens enough to notice: attacker gets the first shot in, maybe one or two of the enemy is killed, but the crew member(s) remaining sometimes get the return shot in and kill the player. How many times have you guys seen a situation like this: "Gunner, sabot, tank (PC, or whatever). Fire. Target. Re-engage. Fire. Target. Re-engage. Fire. Target. Rengage." Then at some point in this sequence, the enemy target gets in one lucky hit and kills you. The ultimate blue balls. Check the AAR, and it does appear the enemy vehicle was taking damage to components and crew, but whoever is left all too quickly recover, and the attacker ends up the victim. So you can imagine a tank where the driver is killed, but the practical effects are not really shown if the tank keeps maneuvering because a crew member teleported into the driver's station the way it works right now.
  2. I think I've noticed something similar in the T-72; with stab knocked out, the gun appears to be locked in position unless you jump out of the tank.
  3. 'Game' can refer to the fact that players have opposing interests, i.e., game theory- there may or may not be any fun to have at all in a game. A simulation may be a game in varying degrees: if someone were to write a paint the fence simulator, adverse factors even if modeled such as wind, time passing, paint mixtures yielding unwanted, different shades of color against the player's wishes may still have game elements nonetheless, albeit not a fun game. A classic study in game theory is the "Prisoner's Dilemma" for its study in long and short term selfish or selfless strategies, although it's quite dry and boring when running it. In other words, you could run Steel Beasts without any opponents, just drive around and look at things, you've removed the game elements out of it- that is, the adverse conditions. It's still a simulation, not much of a game, it becomes more of a game when adding some kind of goal or some kind of opposition.
  4. Nice. I'm starting to worry about my memory or something here aren't I. sure. When i get home and have a look I'll probably have a wargasm and this sort of thing.
  5. Conditioned routes like waypoints are conditioned- the same kind of 'fire if' 'retreat back if', 'surrender if,' etc. context sensitive menu can be opened up and predicated to routes as they are to waypoints. In most cases, units don't change plans while embarked- exceptions would be the 'Scout' route where units will automatically retreat if under fire, units stopping to avoid artillery, or stopping to fire when en route when given the Engage command (as opposed to Assault command). Example: let's say I want to simulate an attacking unit to surrender or retreat back if taking too many casualties- in practice, it must endure and survive, perhaps attack through mounting casualties to reach a checkpoint before it can do that. While human players can always react and intervene when a unit is already embarked, the computer in most cases doesn't, it follows the last orders given until the next checkpoint is reached, even if it is suicidal. Rationale: Eliminate some inertia in computer behavior: especially when advancing or attacking, promote more flexibility or more complex behavior so that they don't have to necessarily reach this or that or such and such checkpoint first before changing behavior. The checkpoint system as the foundation to assign behavior favors complex defensive scripting, that is, set pieces in place defending or waiting at checkpoints, but when on the attack, the scripts tend to look more blind and plodding as units generally can only follow a route through all kinds of variables that might happen on the way before reacting to them. Therefore, a conditioned checkpoint-route system permits the computer more complex behavior on the attack or on the march about as much as it can be scripted on the defense. I do see however at least one difficulty in attaching an 'embark if' command to a pre-existing route like they are to checkpoints (in other words attaching a route to a route), so maybe that wouldn't be replicated the same way or at all.
  6. That data doesn't reveal too much to be useful for modelling purposes. Does the accuracy rate rule out human intervention, for example, in 1973 Arab gunners were subjectively reported as bad shots compared to their Israeli counterparts (I have several materials explaining how even at very close ranges with every advantage- the superior IR sights of T-55s and T-62s would still fail to detect or hit Israeli tanks which didn't have them at dusk or light conditions), how much of the tally is extrapolated from bad training and this sort of thing versus the accuracy of the machine and the gun system? Likewise, on the Syrian front in 1973, Israelis were able to do well despite overwhelming odds not simply because of the accuracy of their machines but because they had presighted range tables of the approaches rehearsed and insinuated into their drills so well so that when the real thing happened, it probably worked out much better than if the whole thing went down completely unprepared. If you see what I mean, you just get a crude figure without much context there.
  7. Simply a matter of erasing the parts in the template in Gimp (which is the same as converting these parts to transparent alpha layer). With other paint programs, this may be a different process.
  8. From my sources, there are both 2 tone and 3 tone schemes in 1973 as well. I have done both 2 types with the T-62 and T-55 (in previous versions of SB). I'm going to do another 3 tone pattern for the T-55, since the T-55 in 4.00 uses a new model over 3.00.
  9. You're right. My mind is definitely getting slower.
  10. Can you please tell me where the snorkle attachment point is below- I can't find the location for the part(s).
  11. I converted the pre-existing Syria template into Egypt in 1975 (top images). Bottom image is Iraq T-55, with 3rd regiment markings.
  12. You did a good job erasing the snorkle, I still see little tiny outlines of it here and there after I did it. It's not easy.
  13. Here is praise for a nice new touch I recently noticed: the leaves and branches and things breaking off from trees when you shoot into them. It feels different now because of polish like this.
  14. Yes. I'm not talking about how practical it to build technology beyond my understanding of how it could possibly work, but rather if someone else did it and it more or less functioned like in Star Trek- if that happened, then the practical effects on the human race would look like such and such or this or that. If technology got to the point that solved the problems of hunger, poverty, disease, people may just start fighting one another just to stave off the boredom, like the gods in mythology which war with one another, there's simply nothing else to do. Only the most primitive animals seem immune to boredom, they live in the moment rather than really paying attention to the past or the future- you can hold them captive and they seem none the least content. As beings become more sentient, there's a problem with this. If you could give people holodecks, that could create a very decadent type of culture. Human beings would become nothing but miserable and spoiled. To this extent, there are symptoms of this now in more affluent societies being brought on demand anything they can think of. I haven't seen the animated film Wall-E, but I came across this clip, and what does it show- assume the future where there is nothing left to do but consume: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1BQPV-iCkU Schopenhauer was known to possess such an acumen for the human condition expressed in the most articulate way. Basically life necessarily operates between two poles: want and boredom. It's in us to desire- that is a basic reality of life, to want. However, the curse of this all is once the object of desire is obtained, something else is desired, this apparently is how life moves and evolves. If a sentient race ever evolved to the point like they show in the movies where they are they appear to be very enlightened and passionless and completely rational and omniscient and this sort of thing and what have you- likely they would be bored out of their skulls for lack of anything to do. Perhaps they would start to hang themselves. The lack of want would extinguish life, no one would desire- if reproduction for example were just a passionless activity, who would bother with it? That's why it exists the way it does as an irrational desire or compulsion, that is fundamentally why people want to do it, not because it's just simply rational to create the next generation. Just as poor people, once they recognize their condition, of course don't want to be poor, they want more- security, stability in their economic situation, very rich people don't have this problem but the opposite: their wealth gets taken for granted, comfortable and boring. If someone could have whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted it, life becomes boring- if someone's favorite food just prepared itself and flew into their living rooms, or they could attract anyone they wanted with their wealth, all these things lose their significance.