Jump to content

Ssnake

Members
  • Content count

    20,012
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ssnake

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Hannover, Germany
  • Occupation
    Director, eSim Games
  1. OK, I found your license ticket (from June 12). I can send it again to the one (and only) email address that you provided. I'm not sure if that's going to help any, simply because if it hasn't arrived and you can't find it in your spam folder, chances are my re-send is going to "get disappeared" as well. This is why we're asking for an alternative email address, just in case something goes wrong with the first one (like in this case).
  2. It applies to the ground beneath it, but as far as vehicle mobility is concerned that point is, well, pointless - because at the end of the day the mobility parameters should be adjusted in a way to reflect deep snow conditions. My recommendation would be to reduce the bumpiness values of deep snow covered terrain to near zero. That may not be entirely optimal for infantry seeking cover but then again they'll be out of sight most of the time because of the deep snow. Infantry "under the snow" should still be able to shoot.
  3. I can only say, I have no unanswered emails in my in-box with recent requests for license support. Knowing a part of your mail address would go a long way to help me identify your request. Assuming that I received your request (which is almost inevitable, unless something were wrong with our contact form sheet), there's two likely explanations: you only gave one mail address, and maybe typed it wrong you gave two mail addresses, both of the same email provider, and they got filtered away as "spam" I'll be happy to provide assistance here, but knowing your mail address or a part of your license ticket number will help me to review your case and respond faster.
  4. Yeah, but I can see the effects in the development version. So we have the choice to reduce the effect of bumpiness and thus limit what we can do visually, or to go to the full extent of what the render engine can do and then live with scenarios that are visually inconsistent. I'm leaning towards the latter. At least there's a clearly visible cue now that something must be done (and it's obvious that it's bumpiness related). It's similar BTW with maps that aren't properly georeferenced. SB now applies a default coordinate (R'lyeh) which is as far off from human civilization as we could find on this planet, so that hopefully the odd time zone and the southern night sky are a clear indicator that something is off (except for Kiwis, Aussies, and those in southern Africa and South America where the only cue is the -9hr time zone)
  5. Mugs! Posters! Mousepads! Magnets!

    Yeah, we really haven't much influence here. I can upload our designs and decide which products can be sold with it. It ends about there, aside from the nuclear option to "not offer" anything.
  6. Yes... but that should not mean to abuse bumpiness as a band-aid to increase the troops' survivability. If they don't survive enough with 40% bumpiness, maybe we need to do something about the sink-in scaling, or take other measures. The problem is that in order to improvise with the survivability theme designers created a lot of 100% bumpiness terrain types, and now the argument is that we can't make really bumpy terrain so difficult that vehicles can't negotiate it because so many scenarios have these bad themes embedded. This is an ass-backwards subversion of the design process.
  7. Wellll... the (Realism) themes were an attempt to create something more useful, but were designed to maximize the utility value at the time of creation (for 3.0), so IMO they are hampered by a number of factors. Mostly, there's usually only 100% bumpiness in them, or 0%. At the time it didn't matter because you couldn't SEE it; typically only forested terrain types were set to have max bumpiness where vehicles drive slowly, so the incidents of suspension damage weren't so high as if a high value was used everywhere. Next, there's a lot of 100% hardness used, and/or 100% traction. Both are bad because they very rarely occur in natural terrain. Also, I often see 0% dustiness on grassland which does not necessarily reflect my own world view. My recommendations would be to use less than 40% bumpiness for open terrain (less than 15% for agricultural terrain); bumpiness >40% should be reserved for terrain that is very rough/unspoiled wilderness and a serious impediment to vehicle traffic; my design goal - not sure if we will get there - is to make terrain > 40% more or less impossible to traverse for wheeled vehicles (at least with only two axles, even if they are 4WD), >60% very difficult even for tracked vehicles; >80% bumpiness should be "infantry only" type of terrain and would be best combined with more or less large boulders as ground clutter objects, or applied by spray tool Dustiness should be applied to everything that is not water, bog, or marsh land. For grassland my recommendation would be ~40%; it simply makes no sense to see a lot of dust raised by vehicles traveling at high speed, and then it completely disappears from one second to the next as the vehicle moves on a different terrain tile. In this world, everything is dusty, we're just talking about how much dust should be generated. If it's plain dirt or sand, 100% are justified. Otherwise use the range between 80%...20%. Keep in mind, these values are intended for perfectly dry terrain (think sun baked for three weeks, no rain). less than 95% hardness for everything except rock. I'd expect loose sand like in a desert to be around 30% hardness, anything under 10% would be marshland, 5% or less represents IMO flowing mud where you can't properly dig anymore. This will become also an important factor with the dynamic terrain, as hard terrain will make the creation of emplacements a lot more time-consuming. Above 95% I expect that we restrict earthmover activity; we may allow preparatory blasting to then move the rubble, but without demolition charges: No dice. Traction is another thing. in a lot of cases 100% is used, but this represents clean asphalt combined with rubber track pads at 20° ambient temperature. Realistically, for off-road conditions 80% or so is about the best one could hope for, dropping to 60% in rainy conditions (the sole exception might be sand where the addition of water greatly improves traction, actually; anyone jogging at a beach will immediately know the difference between loose sand and sea wash area) Ground resistance would usually correspond to bumpiness. You can't have high bumpiness without increasing overall friction when driving across it. However, you could also have high ground resistance in bog/marsh land where the bumpiness would usually be low. So there's the point where you need to apply some common sense.
  8. Unfortunately, the Theme editor is a very powerful tool that prevents this type of simplicity. Also, unfortunately there are a lot of less than useful theme files floating around and more or less bypassed QA, as inspecting them is a time-consuming process to detect (and eventually fix) internal inconsistencies. I suspect that the Water tiles in the "Suomussalmi Winter Frozen Light Snow.thm" have the "Is Water" flag removed to make them solid/drivable, so the fix might have been as simple as putting that checkmark back on.
  9. Traction is only part of the problem, actually. For some vehicles, ground resistance goes way up in deep snow because it builds up at the front (I once saw a comparison of Bradley and CV90...); but that's a level of detail unlikely to be seen in SB Pro within the next years. And of course, for military vehicles (IF the corresponding army prepares for operating in snow condition at all) there's snow grousers for tracks, and snow chains for wheels which help to increase traction again. So, I can but recommend to not overdo it with the reduction of traction. Yes, there may be a bit of occasional sliding but you'd need really SMOOTH ice and nothing but rubber track pads in order to create really dangerous conditions. Then again, the combination of icy roads and steep mountains...
  10. No, snow depth is a different setting for terrain types with the "Is Snow" option selected. Here a surface above the normal ground gets rendered, where the snow depth slider determines the distance between ground and snow height (up to 1.50m). Snow blocks line of sight, but doesn't stop bullets. Hardness on the other hand determines how much vehicles sink in below the actual surface (which blocks both LOS and bullets), with the inverse of the hardness slider value multiplied by -0.5m. IOW, at hardness 0% vehicles sink 50cm deep into the ground, at hardness 100% not at all.
  11. "Deep snow" is a rate condition in Germany, at least in the northern lowlands. Up in the mountains (center, south), and closer to the Polish border deep snow conditions may occur with a higher likelihood; check out this site for historic weather data (e.g. Hannover, Friday, Feb 1st, 1991), if you want to replicate the conditions of the time (or use artistic license, of course). "Finnish" winter themes tend to give you the deepest snow. If in doubt I'd edit one of these for quickest results, and reduce the depth of the snow cover to a few centimeters, with main roads to be cleared.
  12. Strong Europe Tank Challenge 2018

    "Broken" is the default state of a tank. A good crew will see to it that it is "less broken" on average, but it's a constant struggle. Think of the worst car that you ever had, then multiply. Keep that in mind next time that a used car dealer tells you that "it's sturdy like a tank!"
  13. ETA on terrain patch?

    We haven't been working for four years on this new engine just to hide its capabilities from you.
  14. ETA on terrain patch?

    The earthmover demo as such isn't very spectacular, except for the fact that it illustrates what the new engine can do. You set a vehicle emplacement just like you know it from the construction of concertina wire obstacles right now, then you "activate" it for construction, and an earthmoving-capable vehicle will move the the location, then drive back and forth while the hole gets deeper and deeper. That's basically it. The more interesting part is now to get the timings right so that, depending on the terrain hardness, we get variable construction times that are either realistic, or not realistic at all; even in a 90 minute TGIF session you probably don't want to wait 40 minutes for a single emplacement to be dug, even if that may be realistic. So we will then also need to think about ways to cut it down in a way that you won't have to wait forever (but at the same time we don't want people to "spam" a network session with dozens or hundreds of emplacements). Eventually I'll make a video of it, when it looks a bit more pretty.
×