Jump to content

dejawolf

Members
  • Content Count

    5,284
  • 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. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. yeah, well it's all down to Nils scheduling it.
  5. personally i would like to see popups when mousing over different switches. it could contain a short description of the switch, and the hotkey. e,g "laser, RMB" "autoloader, V" also, the ability to switch to an alternate overlay system, with more detailed information about each switch, sort of like a short tutorial. this would make it easier to jump from vehicle to vehicle, and you could study the switchology while driving to contact, if you need to brush up on some vehile-specific skills.
  6. The BMP-1 has 16mm armour protection on the sides in SB, and should be proof against 7.62mm. the marder 1 side protection is 15mm @60 degrees on the upper side, and 15mm on the lower side. whatever round you're using against the BMP-1 would penetrate the marder as well.
  7. Initial marders were death traps as well. only with the uparmour package did they become viable. armour protection on the first marders is actually equivalent to that of the BMP-1.
  8. man, those dushkas sure get some mileage on them. they're even used in 23rd century.
  9. yeah, my main point is that shell-casings are hotspots that can give away your position in thermal. especially when they are shot up through the roof, and over treetops and buildings. as an enemy vehicle, you could simply aim below where the shellcasings are, and kill the vehicle. so it's a design flaw that's not properly represented in SB.
  10. not to mention working blowoff panels, and shell ejection. paticularly for the CV9040 this is an issue, since it throws it's white-hot shells high into the air.
  11. well, the animation tools for vehicles in SB are practically non-existent, so a programmer has to go in and manually program in the movement. otherwise there would be a working animated autoloader inside the T-72 series, the ammunition doors on the leopard and abrams would move, and well.. a bunch of other things that i prepared for movement, but never happened.
  12. there are a few aspects of penetration values not taken into consideration in SB, namely "sabot wobble" during initial flight, and advanced HEAT target interactions. the first causes penetration values to fluctuate for the first 500 meters of flight, by quite a significant margin, the second can either cause the warhead to fail detonating, or "bend" into a target before penetrating. as for post-penetration effects.. this relies on a number of factors. the most common for a full penetration would be the shotgun like spray you see in popular tank games like WOT and WT.
  13. i've brought it onto a few other interior models more recently, namely the DF30/90 interiors.
×
×
  • Create New...