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.
Search the Community: Showing results for tags 'steel beasts'.
Found 4 results
I enjoy both Steel Beasts Pro PE and War Thunder very much. This week i had an argument with a couple of War Thunder forum members concerning the ability predict armor and ammunition performance using tools like the Lanz-Odermatt equation, armor distribution schemes, pictures, publications, reports, etc. One point of argument was that the performance of many rounds can be predicted with a relative high degree of accuracy if proper tools are used. I went on to argue that Gaijin could follow Esim's approach but this was rejected by community members because a bunch of pictures, equations, journals, ballistic models, books, will not be good enough to predict the actual behavior of the ammuntion or the armor protection of a given MBT. One big issue of contention was that i was convinced that the performance of the British L23A1 round could be determined using the Lanz-Odermatt equation and the known variables. I was quickly shot down by the nay-sayers on the War Thunder forum stating that was not good enough. Low and behold, parts of the L23A1 ballistic report have been declassified. As anyone can see below, at 2000m we have a penetration of 431-443 mm for the practically tested round and we have a penetration of 430 mm for the theoretically calculated round. Yet using the Esim approach for ammuntion modelling and armor modelling is dismissed because it is not "good enough" for the War Thunder Community. This continuous dismissive attitude frustrates me greatly and unfortunately it got the better of me yesterday: like armored warfare? No! like Steel Beasts Pro ...but oh wait...its "classified" (tm)! 2nd post: it is "classified" muh! klesifyd muuuh !!11 klesifyd muh klesifydddd 3rd post: its klesifyd...go away because its klesifyeeeedd! 4th post: lies klesifyed muh klesifyd 5th post: blah blah its klesifyd blah blah move along nothing to see here blah blah klesifyd... 6th post: they wont have to worry , you know why ? Because its klesifyyyddd!vv birch tri pulis, dekrit dokumint klesufydd duhh blargh duhh klesiblarghafyd dahur dur 7th post: blerrgh ze thread cant be locked bluurggh bcuz its klesifffydddd urg uf mug blarghh 8th post: its dizqusing klesifyd sufff..meeninlush klesifyd suf blarghhh One of the forum administrators responded by blocking me of posting on the forum and saying: Please limit yourself to discussing the topic and don't disrupt the thread with insulting and inflammatory comments . I cannot stress strongly enough how, by the sheer fortune of no previous recorded infractions, you avoided a rule break point for this. 8 posts!?! However, your perfect record is no more and you will not be able to count on it to mitigate the next response. How should i have better handled the matter ?
lavictoireestlavie posted a topic in Ground ZeroHello Everyone, I had a conversation on the War Thunder forum concerning the ability of a company to create fairly realistic and/or accurate armor/protection models of modern main battle tanks given the available data that is out there. To make a long story short, I argued that Gaijin could follow the Esim approach of armor and damage model modelling. Not surprisingly; I was shot down by many nay sayers, saying that the information is classified and that there is little to no information out there to realistically or accurately model the armor and damage model of tanks such as the Abrams, Leopard 2, T-64, T-72, etc. One of the individuals named Choogleblitz had the following to say: "TFW WT(War Thunder) has more advanced penetration mechanics, armour mechanics, and damage models, than a "professional simulator"(Steel Beasts Professional) so therefore WT can (not) do it without the needed data to be modelled correctly." My question: Is the damage model of Steel Beasts Pro less advanced than that of War Thunder Ground Forces ? P.S: Gaijin actually had an event in early April where they had modelled both the T-90A and Leopard 2A5. I was surprised to see that they had actually accurately depicted the weak zones of both tanks. Now the front turret armor of the Leopard 2A5 seemed a bit soft to me at times but overall i was very impressed by their efforts.
Steel Beast Pro PE video after action report Mission: cover a withdrawal from Pyssykylä in the south-east while a mechanized company-sized enemy is attacking from the north-west. lLIhnjZFQ0M Mission and game hosting by Espi (a.k.a. haukka81 at http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/ ). This take was the last of maybe six, the rest were complete disasters. This time we survived, but the withdrawal was seriously hindered, so even this attempt was actually a failure... We'll nail this one too, one day. My voice is barely audible while the others come out too loud. There was little I could do in editing, however, or the simulation sounds would not play either. Maybe capture Teamspeak voice separately next time?