Volcano

Right, the reason it has not been implemented yet is because we already have the unrealistic insta-gun-drop when a vehicle is killed (unrealistic because it instantly tells the user that the vehicle is dead, which will hopefully be improved some day with a gradual drop since so as to have more realistic "silent kills"). Obviously it would be less of an unrealistic tell if the texture switch happened for only burning vehicles, but it would still probably look odd because of the sudden transition. IMO, this is something that would take a lot of work or it will not look right either way - but who knows.

I am not sure I understand. You hope what gets reworked? Even though your F8 view is at the base of the building, the troops are using the troop positions on the upper floors. This should be true on both the new and old buildings. The F8 view is just an external view of where they are (in the building). If the zoom in "N" view goes higher in the building, then that is good. The best way to see this is put about 30 infantry equipped with RPGs in a high rise building and drive some tanks around it. You should see them shooting RPGs from upper floors, depending on who is shooting of course. Here is how it works AFAIK: In the buildings, there are blank frames that mark a fighting position for a man (e.g. in a window). Each one of these is numbered and there is a finite number of them. When the troops enter a building, they take up one of these positions. Once vehicles are spotted, I believe they move between the positions to fire on the enemy.

Awesome idea... they have figured out how to combine the vulnerability of a BTR-60 with the awesome power of an obsolete tank!

Stereo sound samples should be avoided at all costs for positional sounds, because stereo sounds cannot be positioned in the 3D world effectively. The external driving and engine sounds are positional, as are external gun shots and the like. These "3D" sounds should always be mono. That said, stereo sounds can and should be used for non positional sounds, like interior sounds, and this is the case for most of the non positional stock sounds in SB. 44 kHz is mostly a matter of preference, other factors are involved. 22 kHz should be used as much as possible because typically the ear cannot tell the difference between the two. Where 44 kHz is important is for sounds that have a large dynamic range (such as explosions, main guns sounds, something high pitched and so on). In SB, most of the stock sound effects of large dynamic ranged sounds are indeed at 44 kHz, but everything else is 22 kHz to save memory since the difference is not noticeable. Also, you have to consider your source material too. If your source is recorded at a certain sampling rate, simply recording/converting it from the source material into a .wav file at higher sampling rate will not have any real effect. It would be like taking an image that has only 256 colors and raising the color count to 24 bit color and saving it -- the color in the image is the same but the file size is much larger. Another analogy would be that it would be like taking a mono source recording of a sound and converting it to a stereo sound: it is wasteful for no gain. You can of course enhance the original material though, but it is questionable how much enhancing you can do to justify the change in sampling rate. I would say that a good rule of thumb is: if you have a recording made in 44 kHz then you should keep it at that sampling rate when you make the sound effect, unless it is a sound of something that has very little dynamic range, or a very long sound.

I thought that was an Astromech droid on top of the turret.

Suggestion: try raising your engine idle sound by 2 semi-tones. It should sound just like your video if you do that.

I haven't noticed that anyone wanted either a playable M1A2 or a playable T-72.

No, it is still the same. The reason is that the splash damage on HE/HEAT/HESH/artillery is handled differently than all the rest so a change here is rather extensive. To make a long story short, these rounds cause direct impact damage (and those damages are not possible if the firing vehicle is impotent) but they also come with an added "proximity" type damage, which is hard to exclude. In the future this is planned to be handled differently but the reason it has taken so long is that some other things must be changed first. I recommend that if you have a scenario with impotent units then do not give those units HEAT rounds.

It might be better if you created a new thread about that and if we were more descriptive with thread titles (e.g. put a brief description of the bug in the title). In any case, if you have a method to recreate that bug then let us know.

Yes, it currently uses the x_M60engine sound (the engine sound is quite similar).

Right, like I said, this has been fixed for the next version.

BTW, just a reminder: Everyone can put their photo in the User album here... http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/sbgallery/main.php?g2_itemId=3687 ...at least I think you can...

Use a different missile in that match up. If you are talking about a tandem warhead missile, then (at the moment) the missile selection vs. vehicle selection is very important. Simply put, use the tandem warhead missiles when there are ERA equipped vehicles on the other side. If you want to know what has a tandem warhead, it is generally every ATGM with HEAT > 1000 RHA. As Raino said, this is one thing that needs to be improved -- it is on the list. But it goes to show that picking the correct missile type in relation to the type of targets on the other side is extremely important at the moment. Re: the TC's Peri that you say is slaved to the front, that is correct but it is only for looks AFAICR. The AI TC is using it -- it is scanning with it but visually you don't see it moving. Obviously this is an area to improve on for visual feedback purposes, but the way the system works is the AI TC has a flag which simply allows the AI TC to look around independently with thermal capable eyes. The peri needs to be slaved to his eyes. Yes, that has been fixed months ago for the next update (on several T-72s). The HMG is purely visual, and something was reversed in its orientation, or it had something to do with its starting position pointing to the rear, I don't remember which.

Nice two handed swords.

Yes: i_WheelHvyEngine.wav i_WheelHvyRumble.wav m_WheelHvyBrake.wav m_WheelHvyShutdown.wav x_WheelHvyEngine.wav x_WheelHvyRumble.wav i = internal x = external (also 3rd person) m = multipurpose (internal and external)

I think there might be some confusion. The press release: I think it will happen when he is able to do it. As for the actual release of the next update: at the end of the year (as usual) at best, and that will probably be announced in that press release, whenever that happens.

Well, we all have our own individual wants and wishes. Not everyone will be happy, but the good news is that not everyone will be unhappy either. One day it would be nice to have a playable T-72, just like it would be nice to have any other playable tank. I think if the goal is not to have a playable tank of every major tank ever made (from all time periods) then we are wrong. It is an unrealistic goal, yes, but an armor simulation game company should still strive for that goal, especially when the game company is filled with AFV enthusiasts. So, lets all calm down and take it one day at a time like we have been doing all these years. No need for anyone to trash someone's dream (playable) tank.

Just a reminder: Gun tube elevations are not recorded in AAR events (they are always at 0 degrees EL); perhaps they should be one day but that is a different story. Anyway the point is, what often seems like a shot down the barrel is usually never the case.

Yes, I suppose so, I was just saying it that way because it feels like it would be awkward to control a turret of a tank with only a thumb (difficult to track on a target I would think because of the limited range of motion that a thumb stick would provide). But who knows, I am just used to my cadillacs (never played around with the Challenger control handles). If AFV Sim would send me a Chally 2 control handle, I am sure I would love it.

Yes, it would be like controlling the turret with an Xbox 360 or PS3 thumbstick. Awesome idea! *sarcasm* :shocked:

Oh lighten up. There were plenty of bureaucracy laden boondoggle programs from both the Pentagon and the Kremlin throughout the Cold War.

Yay, AAR time. First off, thanks for putting together and running the campaign. I had a lot of fun and I think many others did as well. What I liked: Desert environment / Mog's map - it was a nice change of scenery that came with its own tactical considerations. Missiles anyone? The last scenario was a great deal of fun. There was a feeling of desperation on both sides. I think Red had a shot at taking back the "base", and I was a little concerned in the last 20 minutes of that scenario. Campaign coordinator switching sides each week was a good idea. As mentioned before, this approach helps lend to a fair and impartial feeling and I imagine that it helped you come up with some balancing adjustments based on what you were hearing from each side as the campaign went on. In the past I was thinking that a good approach would be for a campaign to have two coordinators, one that plays as XO on both sides, but your approach of one coordinator that plays on both sides is a good alternative to that. The UAV and CCP was a novel idea, especially the CCP which added an interesting dynamic to the campaign. Of course the trouble with both is that if one side uses either of these well and the other does not then there is no way to have any sort of balance, but some things just cannot be balanced and it is up to the participants on both sides to take advantage of the tools. And of course everyone loves hearing the "cha-ching" and seeing $ symbols float above enemy vehicles when they get killed. Seriously though, the whole point system to buy equipment is always fun. Suggestions for improvement (Variable 3): End Victory determination. I think that in a setup like Variable 2 where one side is attacking and one side is defending the victory should be determined as: Attacker is unable to capture objective by scenario X, Defender wins Attacker captures objective by scenario X, but Defender takes it back in scenario X+1 then Draw Attack captures objective scenario X, and Defender does not take it back in scenario X+1 then Attacker wins Define the final counter attack in the rules. Granted, no one knew what the counter attack force should have been at the beginning of Variable 2, so there is no real way for you to have defined it earlier, but at the end of Variable 2 I think there is a good idea on what it could be: the Defender's counter attack force should probably be something like, no points to spend on purchases but they get all of their (then) current strength plus every combat unit remaining in their ORBAT. Blue should probably, in that counter attack scenario, get a one time "defense" point bonus to spend on defenses to put anywhere on the map (just like how Red got the same bonus in the beginning). UAV circle. I do like the UAV circle idea, but I think it made it too difficult for the defender (Red) to actually hold an important area. What I mean is, when Blue wanted to take an area like an important objective or ridge, Blue would naturally put the UAV circle over it. This made it difficult, if not impossible, for Red to defend that place because Blue could constantly harass them with artillery and maneuver forces accordingly. While that sounds reasonable, my point is that this makes Red's job, which is already very difficult, much harder than it needs to be. Suggestion: Option 1: Cut the spotting % (the penalty) in the UAV zone by 1/2 or even 2/3. What was the current probability BTW (I just want to make a note of it). Cutting the probability in half would make it so that the report is still helpful, but not so accurate. Option 2: (This is the one I prefer) Do away with the UAV circle and provide both sides with an actual UAV vehicle. This would do many things to balance it out: First, it would allow both sides to actually kill the UAV, and it would also allow them to defend against the prying eyes of a UAV with the 2S6. If the enemy sees the ADA on the map, they simply will avoid flying anywhere near it. In this way, Red can park the ADA in a place where they don't want Blue looking, and it would go a long way to providing them with security and the ability to hold ground. The UAV unit would, by default, not be as accurate at spotting than a penalty spotting circle would. It would require someone to actually look for units on the ground and "tag" them. The UAV could be eliminated. Both sides should have the option to replace an eliminated UAV, but doing so should be extremely expensive (like 800 to 1000 points). So, it would be possible to replace it, but it wouldn't be done unless you were very well off with your point earnings. Naturally this means that the cost value of the unit would discourage it from being used recklessly and losing it might mean that you never have one again because you can't afford to spend the points to get it replaced (this is a good thing). Naturally, if a UAV unit existed, then it will have to be crewed by someone. I believe there is always someone willing to do it, and the CO and XO (at least on Blue) had ample time to man the UAV in Variable 2. //////////////////////////// Ok, there is my feedback. Like I said, it was a lot of fun - I just want to provide some constructive feedback and suggestions for future iterations. :smilelove-1:

Very nice. Good to see the new buildings being used.

Right. Firstly, it is the M1, not the M1A1 that has the HEP/HESH rounds. This is fixed in the future on the Gunnery Range: the HEP rounds are removed. However, this does not help when HEP rounds are in a scenario where the M1(A0) is present, but all I can say about that is - we are working on expanding the crew voices to have HEP/HESH in their vocabulary. Hopefully that change will happen in the next update as well. In the mean time, as DarkLabur said, look in the top right when you index ammo type in Gunner's position on the M1/M1A1. If the ammo text is blinking, you have the wrong ammo type selected. If it is HEP, then it is likely in the End key slot.

So, just out of curiousity, what maps do people want to have? Maybe it would be good idea for those that want maps to start a thread with a map wish list for SB? You never know what will happen if someone would just ask. What would be nice if someone provided the basic map like what Dark is saying, then whoever wants the map can devote time to add the details (buildings and objects).