Arch

2 minutes ago, Volcano said:

So looking into it, as I said it hasn't change for 10-15 years (really), but the M2/M3 was always set with a stab quality identical to the BMP-2. This of course seems too low, so we just changed it to be between a BMP-2 and the modern CV9035, given its age and the nature of the stab system.

 

If someone has real world experience with it and can testify that it was perfect, then of course we can raise it further, but in the mean time it is reasonable to assume that at should be at least 33% better than it is.

In some video, there was an anecdote about a Bradley doing a 180 and the gunner, looking through the sights, not being aware of the chassis having been turned because it was so stable. Chieftain's video perhaps?

Of course, this is a matter of vertical behavior, but food for thought.

Coulda sworn this was happening for me too. Likely other stabilizers are bugged too.

10 hours ago, mpow66m said:

please share😃

It will release when it's done sometime during the next two weeks.

FWIW I've been working on re-imagining Ben's Counterattack at Bommelsen and it's mostly done, so there might be a "Leopard 1A4" scenario coming out sometime.

15 minutes ago, iamfritz said:

Well, that Captain (now a Lt Col) and a couple of his vet/Guard buddies in the office called the M-113 "Gavin" a bunch. I'd thought it was just an Israeli designation, but they (Oregon Nat'l Guard) adopted it in Iraq.

Buuuut... now that I think about it, they hated it, so it might have been a troll-nick for it.

The Gavin is a meme. Aerogavin etc.

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

"Gavin"?

There was an airborne general of that name, but his name was never adopted for a vehicle. Some 20 years ago a borderline insane activist started a campaign to rename the M113 as "Gavin", primarily by referencing clueless people who had been duped by him first as circular logic "proof" that the name had already been adopted/everybody was doing it.

Please don't follow that madness.

At least it's not just outright fallacies and information warfare like the hybrid attack on US aeroframe procurement executed by the "Reformers", just a nutso with a delusion.

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Not helping, Arch.

What I'm trying to say is that if the system is installed by the same people with the same parameters, then it likely still has the same issue. Although I suppose it could simply be Google Chrome, somehow.

Something tells me that the system is messed up from the get-go. I would avoid spending money on making other people do a job you should really be doing yourself.

Is their initial order anything other than nothing? They might just be holding position at WP0.

7 hours ago, iamfritz said:

The nearest enemy troops were over 3 miles away.

This was amazing coding and realism.

Go take a look in the AAR. I've never seen this behavior nor do crews have ground models IIRC.

2 hours ago, RooksAndKings said:

Was this the same SB suggestion that tank engagements below 500 meters never happen? 

Just dropping this here; 

 

Clearly this proves the 500m max range is a bit optimistic, given that the typical engagement range is about 50m. War Thunder and World of Tanks simulate armored combat much better than SB in that regard.

These kind of posts about the failings of western equipment and capitalism can only be made by someone who lives in a capitalist country protected by western equipment.

There are several planes that can pull 9G for several seconds, it just won't show up on any of the public maps. Either way, common knowledge.

1 hour ago, iamfritz said:

The had crank isn't that difficult irl. At a museum exhibit in Oregon here they had a BRDM on display that someone cut the locks on it. My middle school age boys climbed inside and cranked the turret around -with ease. But cranking those wheels was still a workout.

I squeezed in and did it too. I feel the arrow keys is more accurate.

Jus' sayin'.

BRDMs have a pretty advantageous gear ratio, and it's reflected currently in SB as well, with the mouse functioning as the aiming device.

5 hours ago, thewood said:

Thats all good news.  I assume thats a year or two away.

I heard it was coming out in the next two weeks.

17 hours ago, iamfritz said:

So, in wondering what the raw 1 v 1 output of the \M-1A1 vs the T-90 is, I began an experiment where I lined up 4 M-1A1(HA)s vs four T-90s.

First few rounds are fought at 1 km, then I scooted them into 500 m , then 250, then all in a mixed line abreast encounter, then 50 m behind each other.

AI does all the fighting. I only poke in a few times when there seems to be some game logic bug and everybody's locked on but no triggers are getting pulled.

 

This is the first of many. I've included another same mission where I lined up vanilla M-1s vs T-72As.

 

Enjoy.

 

 

 

The results of the test will rely almost entirely on the ammo type selected.

5 hours ago, Red2112 said:

It´s more of a sim-cade I am afraid but It´s a fun oldschool Gunship 2000 like sim-cade.

There aren't a lot of genuine study sims worth playing. BMS is pretty much the only one, all of the other ones lack content severely or are just dysfunctional for simulation like DCS. If having simplified systems means the sim gets to have all the effort put into the FM, weapon modeling and scenarios, then it's probably gonna be a better (civilian) sim than a DCS module that has everything clickable, but a dysfunctional FM and no realistic content to use it in.

Of course I'd like everything to be quite simulated, but it is what it is. EECH and such have value, but they're a real pain to run on modern systems and haven't been kept modern like Falcon has. This one just might be a successor.

1 hour ago, Red2112 said:

 

Oh wow, I wasn't aware a new helo sim is in dev. I'll keep an eye out for this one, gotta build up my flightsim gearset again.

What counts as an identifier change? Does a CPU swap count? I would assume a MOBO swap definitely does.

FWIW I swapped from a GTX1650 to an RX6700 and did not need to do anything weird with SB, alongside 16GB RAM to 32GB.

Personally I support the idea of Mousecrank if not just for accessability reasons. People can do whatever in their own singleplayer/curated multiplayer experiences; I think SB is best played as an RTS at company/battalion level and most the playerbase plays it as a tank sim in platoon level; not sure why we can't have preferences for controls too.

Military clients are a different matter, but I'm not really familiar with that side of things.

Well, those were raids, not attacks. You don't need to defeat all of the enemy, secure all of the ground and then make sure you can stay there in a raid. The point of them was to test to see what kind of resistance would be encountered.

SB AI is quite brave and will happily fight to the last man unless you order them otherwise, so your mileage will vary entirely dependent on that. In my experience, most scenarios become very silly if you don't add in some kind of retreat or surrender mechanics.

I hear it's amazing when the famous purple stuffed worm in flap-jaw space with the tuning fork does a raw blink on Harry-curry Rock.

This seems like it will be a good STALKER-adjacent game.

I need scissors! 61!

T-72B3 TC position appears to have a dramatic FPS drop inherent to it when viewed from inside, and even when unbuttoned likely having to do with PIP screen rendering.

I compared it to M1A2SEP also with PIP thermal screens and the T-72B1 as a control.

Map used is ScaniaSE (2nd one), I could not reproduce an FPS drop on the default map, likely due to there not being anything of note to render in the PIP screens.