Volcano

Currently, no. But in the next version of SB, yes (it was added recently). Of course that means if someone is simulating the old non-TIS TOW, then they will have to damage the imager in their mission.

Hmm, yes, I see the view swivel to one side when the tank is hung up on something and you attempt to pivot steer while it remains stuck on the object. I believe this is what you describe. Yes, I can see how that would be annoying - I will report it to be fixed in the future. In the mean time: besides changing views to fix it, you can (of course) recenter the view with the mouse. Thanks for the report.

Ok, thanks. That helps -- I will check into it.

Ok, I just tried what I think you described and I am not seeing it. Can you describe every step you do to see this happen? List the steps like a list please, so I can be sure to see the same thing you are seeing. For example: 1) Start to Mission Editor 2) Run in TEST mode 3) Get into the Leo 2E's driver's position 4) ..... One thing I need to know, are you driving the tank with the joystick or the keys? -------------------- BTW, moderators, can we move this thread to the Support forum please?

Ok, thanks. However, now that I think about it -- try it with the same tank you saw it on before but this time with map view turned on. That would probably be the best way to test if they are related.

Well, I couldn't tell from your original post that this was two different reports. The only thing I can say is, try this in another scenario with map turned on and, if possible, in other vehicles. As Ssnake said, they are possibly related. The issue with the view going through tank thing is related directly to the map problem, and my guess is if you saw this in the same session, the map view bug put SB in a strange state that cause it to occur again in the driver's position. But again, the best way to know is to see if it happens in another session with the map view turn on.

Yes, this is known and has already been fixed for the next update. One thing to keep in mind in the future: With no map view, the Leo 2E and Strv 122 does still have a working map (the bug you describe of the view moving through the tank should be gone), but you have to be in the TC's position to use it. Once in the TC's position F5 key or clicking on the map itself will activate it, but F5 key in any other position does nothing.

Well... what in that thread gives you the impression that it is being worked on? Is it the "maybe, maybe not" reply? Last I checked, that statement means nothing.

There is no rumor whatsoever of a playable M1A2 being in the works.

Sometimes they don't ricochet on purpose, it depends on the hardness of the ground in that particular spot and something else (angle of attack?). I was in a game the other day, saw 105mm KE round fly through T-72M side, out the back and ricochet into the sky. Very nice. :smilelove-1:

Apparently you like bulldozers.

Here's a great answer: Maybe, maybe not.

Yes indeed, it would be a terrible exploit that would allow exact ranges to contacts or terrain features on the map. No LRF? No problem: use the exacto-range estimator tool! Now jump to sight and punch in the range and fire.

...well, at least the AFVSim controls will work well. :eek2:

Wow, how many fingers and toes does a normal person have? About 80?

Well, as someone once said, "imagine harder". Just less than a year ago we didn't have the M1A0, M60A3, T-55, T-62. So, I guess what I am trying to say is: be patient and accept what comes along when it comes along. Most people around here have been playing SB for over 10 years now when you could count the vehicles in SB on two hands...

NUM PAD+ is your friend (NVGs if the unit is equipped with them).

Very nice videos.

No, currently it impacts exactly where it is called. Needless to say, it needs a little improvement one day.

The best thing to do would be to create a new page "Order of Battle" or something like that. Just do whatever you like to it and then we can integrate it into the Scenario Design page somehow. My guess is, this would be better created as a new page because other people may want to add to it (ie. different ORBAT for different units).

Well... what vehicle are you talking about? Are you talking about the fire control system or the fire control in the mission editor / planning? Ah, I suppose you are talking about the latter (I misread it the first time). OK, if the latter, then the vehicles will start shooting before the enemy reaches the specified range IF they are taking fire or have gotten shot at while they are in the position.

Someone will reply that knows more than I do, but I want to say no, it is not normal. Go to http://www.esimgames.com/support.htm ...and fill out a comments form about it. Be sure to include info that can make it helpful to find which order it was. Sorry about that. In the mean time, you can do without the disc if you do have the dongle, just go here and download and install it 538, then update it to 546: http://www.esimgames.com/Downloads.htm#Steel Beasts Pro PE 2.538 download

You know, I just never thought about that before. Great idea! No, I am kidding, of course I have thought about it. There are various technical details on why this has not been done, not the least related to the fact that we need a whole new sound engine/API first (because that involves a major rework of the sound engine, so that effort may as well be spent on something important, like integrating a new sound engine/API). Secondly, it is not as easy as you think: SB does not feature one single vehicle nor a handful of vehicles. The plethora of vehicles that everyone wants only makes it more difficult to change and improve something, especially something like this where it must be done across the board. If SB was like game X which simulated one two or three tanks, then the tanks could be modeled in exceptional detail in both audio and visual, but that is just not practical at the present time. Maybe if the audio department consisted of one lead and 15-20 designers and engineers like a major production house then yes. But it really comes down to modeling a handful of vehicles in great detail or a lot of vehicles in good detail (think of all the playable vehicles in SB that lack 3D interiors or are skimpy on the visual detail/texture side, or still have old models, same thing -- limited resources). Yes, we all want gear changes, yes we want doppler effect, yes we want "true" 3D audio, EAX/environmental effects, LFE channel, pitch variation specified by resource file, sound classes to allow volume sliders, the ability to mix two sounds together to play one cue that is randomly chosen from X number of sounds. I could fill a page with desires which might sound like a bunch of nonsense to most people. Everyone can assume that I know about all of this and want it myself. At this point, 10 years from SB 1.0, I am a realist. I would rather have some graphics improvements first, and the sound engine will hopefully follow later. In any case, I am tired of thinking about it -- I know what SB has and what it has not intimately. I don't need to be asked or told what it has or should have, I have what I have and work with what I can. Again, you can assume that I am constantly trying to push it forward, but as with everything else there is only so much that can be done at the current time. It should be implied that if improvements can be made, then they WILL be made. But it is not all bad news, there have been some sound improvements lately for the next update (and no I will not/can not talk about it). Now back to the discussion about the mod...

Right, but I think the point is that the tracks clack when it is moving at slower speeds (and on pavement), ie. not fast to top speeds and not cross country, (the slack in the track is the main thing that causes this). But what can you do, either it will sound good moving slow or sound good moving fast, seldom both.

Well, in regards to your statement: there is a different voice for the radio, the TC, the gunner, the loader. Obviously more voices would be better (it is implied) but not all voices are coming from the same person, unless of course you have it set on Spanish or something like that. And no, the design decision has always been that we never wanted voices for the entity you are currently occupying, because it is YOU, not the AI. If it were the other way around, then the situation you describe would be worse (not knowing who is saying what for what reason).