Gibsonm

Well that’s no different to RL at say 1,500 - 2,000m. You don’t always get turrets flipping or “roman candles“ (despite the ATGM manufacturer’s videos). As for the BTR, if you have fired APFSDS through one side and out the other you may not see much in the way of external effects.

Which year? ...

Well you can do that now via scripting. - Designate one or more regions as LZ’s - Set the condition that if helo unit ? is landed in the region for X minutes then vehicles entering and staying for Y minutes will be resupplied or repaired. Of course its pushing the bounds of reality (people don’t task rare assets like CH-47s to come forward with repair team and a hold full of parts to repair a tank). Tasking the smaller helo(s) would be wrong given their limited cargo capacity and the weight of stuff like tank ammunition or engines, etc. One CH-47 carrying unlimited ammo (by weight or nature) would certainly attract criticism as every vehicle coming near the helo would get a full new bomb load if it stayed long enough. But if what you want is a game, rather than a simulation, it could be done.

Sure, but I’m not sure if I have a login (or link) for that. Can you email the details to me. Or perhaps I can post it on the SB Pro forum?

Apart from yet another M1 or Leo variant, I’m interested in some “smart” obstacles such as a “road block” or a “check point” for use in asymmetric scenarios. Ideally this would be something a unit could “create” with conditions associated with it. This would also mean it conforms with the LOS modelling. So for example the check point wouldn’t be effective unless dismounted units were within say 50m. “Effective” would mean it stops any light traffic (for any other side) routed through it. It would not stop a Tank or APC or other protected vehicle. It would stop civilian trucks, cars or pedestrian traffic. The check point would open either on command from the nearby dismounted unit and have a scriptable option so it would open automatically if the conditions were satisfied (so the Ai could run one). Usage: Unit X arrives at road junction or suitable location. Unit X “creates” the check point. Unit X orientates the check point to cover the required route (similar to “defend”, “hold”, etc.) Unit Y (different nationality civilian, light vehicle, etc.) plots route along road, etc. Unit Y encounters check point. If scripted and under AI control, once the conditions are satisfied (say Unit Y is unarmed and has been true for Z minutes) the check point is “opened” and the unit resumes its route. If manually controlled, the check point opens at the player’s discretion. On Unit Y’s side, encountering a check point could be a trigger for a supposedly civilian unit (vehicle or pedestrians) to reveal its weapons and initiate contact or perhaps initiate a VBED or PBIED. I’m not worried about what it looks like - single row of steel girders, oil drums, jersey barriers, etc. would be fine, but probably not the movie cliche “boom gate” type affair.

Duke, I'm try to avoid "pre playing" the scenario, but so far I've seen screenshots of: AVLB (at least two based on the bridges laid) Eng vehicles (flagging minefields) ARV MBT with mine ploughs. Is all of this "engineers"? Or are the plough equipped tanks part of the tank Coy?

There are 3 or 4 seasons of "IT Crowd" based on that premise.

That’s a pretty generalist statement based on ... ? Different armies use the product for different training outcomes. Some use it as a crew procedural trainer (see the Danish video recently published) where use of the 3D world is probably (again I’m not a Dane) a large proportion of the time. For them graphics may well be important. They have also built facilities (buildings) around the computers so a computer refresh is probably not a big part of the equation and I guess if the had to upgrade/replace machines to achieve the same level of training they would. The 3D world dropping from say 40 FPS to say 5 has a massive impact on gunnery drills, etc. Other countries use it more for “post H hr” decision making (i.e. how your plan goes once you cross the LD). Those countries might use the 3D world for 10% of the training session and focus on F5 and the AAR. For them how “pretty” the 3D world is, is not that important (shadows can be “off”, detail scaled back, etc. to support the equipment in a given location [dedicated classroom with desktops or portable laptop based suite]). So I wouldn’t hang your hat on militaries requiring it to run on “old’ gear and that therefore your “old” gear will be fine too.

Well again my suggestion is "Don't Panic!" (at least not yet). When it comes out borrow a license and try it out. THEN panic IF you have to.

Tonight’s a scratching. Couldn’t get a critical mass to justify it. Sorry Duke.

Need someone to lean on a shovel and just answer every request for help with: “Filling sandbags/laying mines/digging fighting positions/laying wire is an all corps responsibility” Sounds good to me.

Right so have you made some objective comparisons? Now that Ssnake has given a rough understanding of it being a mech platoon (so four vehicles) moving into a small town and the dismounts patrolling in a mixed population, how does that compare with your Fulda Gap scenario? Do you have more than four vehicles in total (so Blue plus Red)? Do you have artillery falling (because its not in the eSim baseline)? How “busy“ is your scenario?

Well “wait until the software actually comes out and then see what your performance is like for you” has been mentioned a few times but I guess nature abhors a vacuum so people will try and pre guess anyway. Whether Scrapper_511 was wasted his money or not he wont know until after the software is released. But its his money and if he wants to spend it now rather than wait is up to him.

And then its just a short jump to Easter and then ....

So is that 1800 "local" time (GMT + 1 or 2) for you on the 28th? So either: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20130928T19 or http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20130928T20

Well its MICV or IFV (not an APC though) regardless of what is written on it.

Well that depends in part on the level of detail that you want displayed, how much time you spend in the 3D environment, how "busy" that environment is (100s of tanks driving around while masses of artillery is falling will have a bigger demand than 2 or 3 vehicles moving cross country), etc. So in part, how you play the game and what size scenarios you run, influences the performance.

Some other links to images that appear to be broken: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=19545

Yes. SB Icon now missing from "home" page. Will link this back to the "server mantenance" thread that Sean is monitoring.

Yes, back up for me too (or at least this machine).

Well I'd say its safe to say that weight classes were an arbitrary term used by academics and scholars until 1945 and abandoned after that. As far as I know no one in uniform ever used that system (except maybe when talking to politicians). For people in uniform a tank was a tank was a tank (with the possible sub categorisation of "Infantry", "Cruiser", etc.). If someone in 7th Armoured briefed say 5 RTR that tomorrow they'd be facing Tigers, no one worried about "Tiger heavy tanks" as "Tigers" told the guys all they needed to know. It wasn't like warships where international treaties like the Washington one specified that a cruiser had guns between X and Y and weighed so much, while a heavy cruiser had guns between Y and Z, etc.

No its because they did away with the idea of multiple vehicle types. So instead of "Infantry", "Cruiser", "Heavy", etc. they just switched to "Main". It was "universal" because it replaced its predecessors (Cromwell, Comet, Churchill, etc.) and just used one tank in multiple roles (also no doubt to simplify logistic support, expense, etc.). Just like Centurion's replacement, Chieftain, was also a MBT, although when compared to Centurion its had a heavier gun, more armour, etc. No such thing.

Thanks. Have rolled back the Woodland installation and put them in Autumn instead.

The weight vs role thing is due to historical context and a bunch of other variables such as how countries named their vehicles (country A's light tank is country B's medium tank). If you want to superimpose some universal standard on it well of course it going to be complex. In the Second World War, the Tiger II weighed about 70T and was classified at that time as a "heavy", because most of the opposition it faced at the time had either a smaller gun or less armour or both. Now Challenger 2 weights about the same and is classed as a "Main Battle Tank" Weight based classifications were one way to codify vehicles and are now gone. Hence the term "main". UK's MBT weighs about 63T, Russia's MBT (say T-90) weighs about 48T. Same role, vastly different weight. CVR(T) Scimitar isn't a tank, nor is Warrior.

Well perhaps Zipuli or one of the several other Finns can help.