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.

DrDevice

Members
  • Content count

    1,672
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About DrDevice

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Dallas, TX
  • Interests
    PC Gaming, Paintball, Plastic Models, RPGs
  • Occupation
    Project Manager
  1. I think this one works the same as in real life. If you swear loud enough at your monitor and slap the side if it, the CLU will come back to service.
  2. GREAT pics! Odd note, though: notice that the camo pattern on the turrets are identical. I mean, there's "by the book" and then there's "by the book." Is the spec that intentionally constrained?
  3. There's a note about this in the gallery that is different from the screen shot: "It was as if I could fly! ("These aren't the particle effects you've been looking for...")" http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/sbgallery/main.php?g2_itemId=17327 So, I think that's a "yes...the particle effects shown aren't final v3 ones."
  4. North should always be on the "top" of your screen. No questions about that. (btw, what gave you the indication that north was to the left?) If you are trying to rotate a beaten zone, the doc referenced above should help you learn which rotation matches which. I'll add that the image shown has a beaten zone adjusted in width. The zone is rotating around its short axis. In the example, you could just as easily get the AB0018 (1600mils) rotation simply by adjusting the zone's length, rather than width. (e.g. instead of a 150x400 zone rotated 1600, just use a 400x150 zone.)
  5. They are so similar in pretty much every functional parameter as to be clones. Not at all the same for the M1/Leo. Styker also traces its exact design lineage to the MOWAG, via LAV III. They are a variant, not a separate vehicle. Sorry if you take offense to your favorite being VERY close to another vehicle, but you mis-identified it in the screeny too.
  6. Pretty sure that's the existing Pirhana IIIC/H found in v2.65. (Which is essentially the same vehicle as a Stryker anyway) And speaking of: inquiring minds would like to know why one cannot move the view via joystick from the TC unbuttoned view in this vehicle. Is this a feature? It requires a mouse-only look around, which just seems odd.
  7. Well, if details are important...there is a plug in the barrel, the doghouse is closed, and there are cats at the helm! The fact that it's not an -A2 seems to be the least of the worries.
  8. A worthwhile question. The real issue with crewability is the fact that you can choose a target and shoot, vs. watching the AI struggle at times. It's not really about "fully modeled systems" to me, either. The simple M113 is a perfect example of getting functionality that imerses play, but isn't a whiz-bang system in all detail. (Granted, the track is pretty damn simple, but you see what I mean...) My greatest interest usually lies in US/NATO vs. Warsaw Pact forces in theoretical WW3 scenarios. Some more modern ones are awesome too. But for any of those, what I want most is for both sides to be able to have a crewable MBT, IVF/APC and a functional (not necessarily crewable) CS/CSS selection of ENG, Arty, recovery, and logistics. The later can be abstracted, too. i.e. I don't need country accurate fuelers or ammo trucks, I'll settle for placeholders. The weak link at this time is the USSR IFV. If we get a BMP, we "even up" the crewable platforms for each side. I'd also run the Marder as a close second, with the availabilty of DE equipment too.
  9. Playable OPFOR gear is my first choice, at the moment. Equality in any one "fully playable time period" would be great. Whether it's Cold War 1970s, or 1980s, or even post-Soviet up to say, 2000, I'd be happy. With that logic, I'd actually prefer BMP-1 or -2 to any of the playable MBT listed...but that's a differnt poll.
  10. Rarely in the single vehicle capacity. Sections at the least. Sending one vehicle to do a task it a great way to get single vehicles killed. And moreover, just because you can't script it doesn't mean it can't be done. Even as a single player, hop into unit #4 and drive out of formation. It will split right off and you can perform the task you desire. You can even join it back with the formation when done. You just can't program it in. The system is robust, but it doesn't accomodate everything.
  11. Ssnake confirmed that helos can be scripted to land and drop off/pick up troops. Not sure "playable" is the term you'd use, but you noted that too.
  12. I'm not aware of a way to script a unit split. The "embark if" will only work if that unit is solo.
  13. Take a butcher's at Hedge, teachin' the Sherman's how to rhyme! :biggrin:
  14. I'm gonna take a strech and think that Tacbat meant "no bugs." :biggrin:
  15. I think you also have to put things in a sense of scale: So they have enough systems for about one operating batallion of each, maybe a bit more if they are sharp on maintenance cycles. That's not a deal maker or breaker in most modern conflicts. Granted, they aren't looking to go conquer a neighbor or anything loony, but the end-effect of one battalion of shiny tanks and one of artillery just isn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. If they get to the 200 number, I'd be surprised, given their previous force, that is a big upgrade.