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

Everything posted by Marko

  1. I can go back even further then that. I actually played this in the arcades back in the day. LoL
  2. Like most armour enthusiasts i enjoy the highly detailed interiors on some of the playable AFV's modeled in SB The M-60. BMP-2. CV 90. But after the initial release and admiration of a job well done i very rarely use the functional buttons modeled From time to time i do just jump in to the commanders position and just look around i enjoy spotting the little details the geek side of me enjoys hitting The buttons and there's no doubt it adds to the Immersion and i am sure it has training value for esims military customers But when i am in the thick of virtual combat my key board is a lot more efficient and quicker. As we all know a split second can make the difference between killing or being killed even in virtual combat So this got me wondering how many of you guys actually use the modelled functional controls in the highly detailed turrets In virtual combat anyway. I asked this question before a few years ago but the community has grown since then. Would you prefer a fully detailed and functional turret or more models like the CR-2 where you just basically have the sighting systems But this would mean more playable vehicles (in theory anyway not saying Esim would or should) but it takes a lot of resources to model the turret to say the level of the M-60 and its not cheap to do it from what i gather PS If anybody can run a poll on the question i would be greatful I am unable to do so. It would be interesting to see the results.
  3. I Recken its this. LoL
  4. Move out the way Boy.
  5. I may be biased but i have always considered SB a very easy simulation to manage control wise compared to some other simulations in my collection.
  6. I think we would all like the complete SB stable to be playable but its not really a realistic option there's just to many Vehicles As per my other post about turret interiors, yes eye candy is nice but IMO give me Substance over style anytime.
  7. As armour sim enthusiasts/players were very lucky to have as many playable AFV types as we have currently modeled in game With a few exceptions we have nearly every MBT since post WW2. (But are french and italian members could use some more love.) This in its self makes me wonder what will be Esims future focus will be after the terrain engine update. Obviously Esims military customers will dictate a large percentage of new content. (Got to pay those bills) I seem to remember Ssnake saying a complete new engine at some stage is on the cards That in its self will be time consuming and expensive to implement. And will probably take a couple of years of just bug fixing. I still hope a large military body like the indian army or French /British etc would spend some big bucks. And we would get some more highly detailed AFV interiors there not the be all and end all but Do make for nice eye candy.
  8. Used to be a big lego fan back in the day. Been to legoland a couple of times some amazing creations. till that movie was released my granddaughter watched it over and over again that song drove me to the point of insanity ( everything is awesome) LoL But good luck to the guy its a good model a little pricey though.
  9. Hedge the price of new AFV designs have sky rocketed. Let the military professionals agree what there requirements are going to be gun size engine size etc force the designers/ manufacturers in to fixed price contracts and keep the bloody politicians out of the whole process as much as Possible. As things stand the whole process of tendering is a joke do you really think the french would buy a completely german design when they have the ability and skilled work force. To do it themselves same goes for the germans english etc Hopefully lessons were learned from the euro fighter co-op debacle the unit cost of the euro fighter was far to high
  10. Leo, i am your father.LoL
  11. I have always believed there should be a Nato research facility for new weapons development. Share the costs and expertise etc But There's a whole myriad of reasons Nato nations don't. Defence contracts mean jobs and big investment.
  12. Excellent video. The passion showed by the restorers impressed me there's a vehicle very similar to the Tankette in Bovington Tank museum. When most people see an old AFV wreck rusted and battered they probably think its only fit for the scrap yard Wheres a real enthusiast will see a piece of history. Also the reenactment was very well done.
  13. Ran the mission using M2/M3 and M1A1s Again just for the hell of it i went up the centre surprisingly i took as many casualties as i did in the original mission. I used the same tactics and route as i did when i ran the mission in the CR-2s and warriors. The bradleys tow launchers were effective and the M1s better fire on the move capabilities showed I like to test different AFV capabilities in missions and analyse the results. .
  14. I completed the mission took the OBJ but as I expected causality's were very high over fifty percent. The mission score stated it was a major defeat probably due to the high casualties I would not have normally attacked straight down the centre just wanted to experiment. The rolling Arty did work to a degree. But my co-ordination could have been better I made a stupid mistake that cost my mech inf they cut to pieces in a Arty strike. All in all a very tough mission your fighting the terrain and obstacles as much as the enemy. Kudus to the mission designer he anticipated a player trying to use the main road very well placing obstacles and kill Zones. As Gibsonm stated some nasty surprises along the way. Enjoyed the mission.
  15. Have just downloaded the mission. I was considering using a rolling smoke/ HE barrage and trying to steam roller my way up the middle to the OBJ. Casualtys will be high, but speed and smoke mite just give my forces the edge. Will let you know how it went.
  16. Enjoyed the video. You asked for ideas for future videos. One of the things I like to do when I have successfully completed a mission is edit the mission. Changing the vehicles for more advanced types. IE instead of T55 add T-72 or even T-90 give the BRDM ATs more advanced missile types etc. Then replay the mission. Its very unlikely the mission will run the same way as the first attempt did.
  17. Good choice but I would fit the Amos 120 mortar system
  18. So what is the procedure if a crew member is killed or wounded. Say the driver is killed but the AFV is still able to move who would take over.( I assume the loader) If the commander was out of action I assume the gunner would take command. Same if the gunner was out of action the commander would take over the fire control. Also Enlisted men have to learn and become proficient in all the various crew roles before thay can become a Commander. Is this the same for officers I would assume they would also have to be proficient in all crew positions As well
  19. I set up a very basic mission chieftains v T-72A's I positioned the chieftains in a forest with the intention of using the trees and foliage as camouflage. But the T-72's were able to spot and engage them at relatively long range had the T-72s been thermal equipped i could understand this. So i jumped in to a couple of the T-72s to see if i could spot the chieftains Using the commanders and gunners sights. i was unable to see the chieftains Admittedly my eyesight is not the best and my monitor is relatively small So i suppose the question i am asking is does, trees and foliage have any effect on the AI commander/spotting targets. Now we have more older generation AFVs and hopefully get some more in the future it would be a great feature to be able to apply camouflage to your AFV relative to the terrain your mission is set in. I know the leo-2DKA5 in game has some thermal defeating covering it would be a good feature to be able to apply the various types available. the Russians developed a product of there own For the T-90. pic below.
  20. Beauty and the beast Which is which is a mater of interpretation . LoL
  21. Didn't the Iranians and Jordanians fit better engines the Rolls-Royce CV12 engine producing 1200 BHP That would have given the chieftain decent mobility.
  22. Starting a thread about RC Tanks planes and helicopters. A 1:16 Scale RC tank can range from 5k to a couple of hundred euro. they great thing is you can buy a cheap one then upgrade it. The sound effects there fitting now are impressive take the T-90 in the below video. (I going to get one in the next couple of months ) fully intend to upgrade it with more all metal parts Gun barrel etc. You can purchase it for around 260 euro and upgrade it with metal tracks and running Gear for about a hundred euro more.
  23. The video shows Wichita tankmans builds the guy builds them to 1/3 scale and they fire shot gun blanks. https://www.youtube.com/user/WichitaTankman Its a shame armortek is in difficulties I always promised my self I would get one when I retire
  24. Now that's what I call RC models
  25. Interestingly the chieftain engine was notoriously unreliable The engine was not powerful enough for the weight seemingly the Tank ended up ten tens heavier then originally envisaged