Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Ryujin's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. Nice work around for the transparency issue, looking good.
  2. Don't mind at all, feel free to do whatever you like
  3. Very nice! Wipped up a quick AK->Rk95 mod, should effect just finns if you put it in the same folder as the infantry textures. I can't get the transperency working on the gun no matter what sort of .dds I use, so the AK front sight is still on and the stock had to be filled in. Looks a bit strange, but not much more than modern finns with AKMs. RK95.rar
  4. Version 1.0


    Replaces the US 1990s desert camo with a more accurate 3 color DCU and woodland interceptor vest.
  5. Ryujin

    US DCU Infantry

    Changed the '90s infantry to a more accurate DCU instead of that MARPAT/no body armor thing they had going on. Since it's on the '90s infantry the bodyarmor and NVG mount is just textured on, but it's compatible with any scenarios using the '90s era troops. I don't think it's really noticeable from your AFV and not too bad up close. I can do a version for the US 2000 model if anyone wants it and also let me know if you want the .psd file, it's got a lot of stiching, wrinkles and cloth details on layers so you can insert camo underneath. It's a bit of a rush job, but it might provide a starting point. Went a little crazy taking pictures :rolleyes: EDIT: Also appears to be no infantry skins area on the site yet US_DCU.rar
  6. I wouldn't be surprised if you could remove it via alpha channel so it's completely transparent.
  7. As far as I know, Chinese soldiers have been in SB pro for some time ("CN" infantry nationality for troops). While it would be nice, I don't *think* it's an indicator, I think they're just doing 3d versions of all the troop sprite nationalities. Will we see more detailed thermal modeling at some point? I.e. gun barrels, tries/tracks, and engines glowing base on use, not starting glowing? So that parked cars or unfired guns won't glow.
  8. In the quote you use I meant "they" being casualties, not the unit as a whole if that's what you thought it meant. To clarify, I don't have any first hand experience of this, I was going off reports/statistics that units that started taking serious casualties (double digit percents) would be progressively more suppressed and occupied with the wounded. If they have say 70% casualties, not only would most guys be down, the remaining would be either try to tend to casualties or cover those who were. With more casualties than remaining men, it would seem difficult for them to do anything else. Taking one casualty on the other hand might force them to stop for a short while and occupy one or two guys. As I said this isn't from experience or anything, so if I got it all wrong, please feel free to correct me. I'd appreciate it.
  9. I think pretty much any hit would take an infantryman out of action, so I'm not sure they need a complex damage model within SB. However at the squad level perhaps they could have a "buddy aid" or "casualties" damage. It would immobilize and significantly reduce the fire output as they tend to casualties, time adding and penalty up for each additional casualty and could only be addressed when not under direct fire (as the timer would be stabilizing and evacuating casualties and quite slow). Possibly sped up by the presence of a medical M113 (but not requiring a medical vehicle to abstract some ability to slowly extract casualties on their own without the player micromanaging some infantry medics). A unit with casualties would be pretty much useless due to penalties adding up until they were evacuated. It'd also have the side effect of keeping the survivors in cover and less prone to letting themselves be picked off one by one in a suicidal situation and instead staying pinned down. However, lingering penalties would be hard to model without going into moral and such. Though on the other hand it seems that totally immobilizing them would backfire in extreme situations. It's a tricky issue to address without adding lots of player management. Also on the topic of artillery, it'd be nice if the scenario designer could set the artillery response time and accuracy for FOs and non-Fos for each side (with an option for some variation). Both to break up the predictability of the current fixed time and to give some longer and probably more realistic response times when applicable. For example an OPFOR BMP commander or infantryman landing dead on first round fire for effect rounds within 2:30 of spotting the enemy does seem a bit speedy (in my unqualified opinion).
  10. Sorry, to be more clear, I mean that players can always do things that no sane individual, in an AFV or not, would ever attempt. There really isn't a way around that without removing all control. Even the AI will often take completely suicidal AT shots where it's a squad with one RPG vs the front armor of a platoon tanks, leading to their swift demise. Or they'll pop up to shoot at some infantry in the distance with a bunch of AFVs staring at their position. If anything I'd make AI even more cautious around enemy AFVs. I'd argue they probably could use even more self preservation. I also imagine suppression could be abstracted to some degree on infantry. Perhaps just have suppressed infantry become uncontrollable and/or less accurate. The player would not be able to override the infantry taking cover from effective incoming fire and/or low moral. Units that had taken casualties could just be suppressed very easily. While the player may be able to get the AI to do some insane things, it could be limited. Well this is getting a bit long winded, I'll just leave it to the experts
  11. To play devils advocate, by that logic there shouldn't be any tank controls either. The infantry do handle quite awkwardly at times, especially in urban environments, and it becomes near impossible to advance without taking losses for dumb reasons like PVT Johnson had to stand up and run to move 1m forward so he could see over the edge of the ditch while prone. The abstracted cover from bumpy terrain has really helped, but there's still a few issues. While direct shooting wouldn't be at the top of my infantry wish list, it would be nice to have some more options like crawling and a more intuitive way to order them to enter buildings. A handful of formations would be nice, especially if you just want to put everyone in a column so the point man can discreetly peak around something or over the crest of something. I'll accept that infantry will never be fully featured enough to avoid some casualties due to game limitations, but some times it can be pretty frustrating.
  12. Yeah, rolling around Terrasta fighting the Terraban and their pickup trucks is pretty smooth. Just need more features/support for COIN (not too shabby as is though). Just a few shots from various missions while playing around with that ENBseries and effects like depth of field.
  13. Thanks, I think I'll go for a counter-recon mission :cool3: .
  14. I guess this falls under this thread... apologies if this isn't the right spot. What sort of TO&E would a Centauro be in? What other vehicles would it be working with? As I understand it, we have the "reconnaissance anti-tank vehicle" version in SB pro at the moment. While I can draw some information from that description, I'm seeking a bit more info about how it is employed by the Spanish army for a plausible scenario focused around it.
  15. While I might have orginally said the lemur system, while still great, the centauro is growing on me. Makes a nice change from the ATGM only AT vehicles. Much more flexible and quite nice in shorter range ambushes, can get two aimed shots off pretty fast. Being able to actually unload the 105 and change round types is a nice feature too, espcially with a standard load of 10x each of KE, HEAT, HESH, and HE. Still trying to get used to the 105's performance and which round to use for each target. In short, yeah, it's pretty good :biggrin:
  • Create New...