Jump to content

dejawolf

Members
  • Content Count

    5,299
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About dejawolf

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    Norway
  • Occupation
    making 3d models for esim

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. it would mean a change to the ammunition layout as well, RH 120 rounds are longer and would not fit in the current challenger ammunition compartments.
  2. Loading it with HEAT or ICM capable of taking out an armoured vehicle, would mean it wouldn't have much of a loiter time. maybe at most 3-10 minutes before batteries run too low. it'd probably be better paired up with artillery or mortars for precision guidance of artillery fire.
  3. yeah, i've made enough turret bustles to know what it is.
  4. yeah, wouldn't barrel collison be great.. i mean, it's 2021 after all. but it's not possible with steel beasts. you need multiple things that steel beasts lack. basic physics, collision meshes for each vehicle, and some way for the AI to not break the guns. basic physics is a massive can of worms, that will inevitably break SB. collision meshes for each vehicle is a huge undertaking. a stop gap solution tho.. You could fake it with a ray intersect test, where you set the rays length for each vehicle. then if the "barrel ray" intersects a building, one of two
  5. hmmh, well checking my file dates, oldest CV90 exterior files are dated 02.12.2005.. interior reference is dated 22.02.2006 pizarro reference is dated 18.10.2005, which is the time i started work on the pizarro interior. so CV9040B exterior was finished december 2012, and interior was started february 2006. the oldest finished pizarro interior file is 13.09.2006. and oldest finished CV9040 interior file is dated 24.03.2006 i guess what happened is that i gathered reference for the pizarro in 2005 and started work on the interior. got reassigned to the CV9040B, and finished tha
  6. realism isn't fun for everyone, but then again steel beasts isn't for everyone, it's for a niche. if we dumbed down SB, we'd essentially turn SB into war thunder, but uglier, which would more or less give SB zero competitive edge. for this reason, the thermal on the fennek is garbage, the T-72 reverse gear is non-existent, and it's IR night sight is a joke. IRL, the T-72 IR night sight is even worse, since you have to spend time unscrewing 4 bolts of a plate in front of the IR night sight, since bright lights might actually damage the sensor.
  7. thanks. the CV9040B and CV9040C were some of the first vehicles created for steel beasts pro pe way back in 2006, after the danish leopard 2A5DK and pizarro, and the second real military vehicle i ever got to explore the insides of in person. i remember sitting for the better part of 3 whole days inside the CV9040B troop compartment with my laptop, taking measures, pictures, asking the crew about specific details on the vehicle and modeling the interior.. needless to say, the exterior model was in dire need of a proper update. and yes, the vehicles in general look better now,
  8. well, actually this piece is not missing. it is called "cloth" which should rotate with the mantlet. for some unknown reason this mesh got turned off in-game..
  9. on the challenger 2, the propellant is stored below the turret ring, and scattered across the hull in protective water bins, while the APFSDS projectiles are stored above ring.
  10. cool. i'll be looking forward to seeing it in about 10 years time, once the programmers are done stuffing their faces with truffles in their mansions, and going on expensive vacations.
  11. to be fair, the challenger is still a good platform for further upgrades. the running gear is sturdy enough to carry 70+ tonnes into battle. with a new powerpack, RWS turret with a rheinmetall 120mm or 130mm, and crew in hull, and you have a potent challenger to the armata.
×
×
  • Create New...