Jump to content

dejawolf

Members
  • Content Count

    5,269
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dejawolf

  1. 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. other target interactions are possible however, such as "plugging" as well as non-penetrating hits that still cause spalling. this effect can also be seen in numerous images from the gulf wars, along with a large number of declassified documents describing post-penetration effects, and it's effects on crew.
  2. i've brought it onto a few other interior models more recently, namely the DF30/90 interiors.
  3. Thanks. i created a new system of making interior models with it, to reduce the amount of time needed to make interior models, both to save cost and time. i first went through the model and compared different components in other russian vehicles to get a sense of what could be re-used, then i created a shared texture for all the bolts, cables and minor details that was shared with other vehicles. this allowed me to cut down the time needed to be spent on subsequent T-72 variants to 50 and 20 hours. it also cut the time spent on the BMP-2 interior with approximately 70-100 hours, to a mere 250 hours. Ssnake was initially furious at me for spending so much time on it, not realizing i was spending time to save time. and i've always been fascinated by russian thinking on tank design, so wanted to do something special with it. whereas western thinking on tank-design tends towards specialization, russian thinking tends towards generalization. for example the TKN-3 sight the commander uses on the T-72. is basically the same sight used on the BMP-2 and BMP-1 as well. and the engine the T-72 uses is an upgrade of the engine designed for the T-34 in WW2. It seemed efficient, so i wanted to reflect this in the way i created the model.
  4. thanks. took me about 600 hours to finish the interior model.
  5. It is constructive critiscism. If they aren't able to take that, this project is dead in the water.
  6. yeah, i don't see how this can even be close to realistic with the current control scheme. it's like trying to work the challenger 1's FCS, but it's an M1A2.. like most other sims before it, they seem to stumble on the old block of focusing on driving mechanics first, gunnery mechanics second. but well, it's still early days, maybe they'll fix it up properly, and it'll become a viable competitor to SB pro PE on the civvie market.
  7. (Q3) should switch LRF from automatic to manual mode. there's a wheel above the control handles for adjusting range manually.
  8. well sure, but that's already an issue in SB as well. The AI is way too good and fast at ID'ing targets as either enemy/friendly, especially on older vehicles. in some scenarios, especially low-light ones, you're better off just letting the AI do all the shooting, since you don't have a hope of finding that abrams tank that just went down below that hill, between those trees over there behind that artillery smoke floating by. in this case i'd say the proposed AI behaviour in IR-illuminated night combat is on par with what already exists in SB. it's far from perfect, but "vell, it vörks". you could have yourself a little bit of broken fun with it before going back to the usual MP fare of 30 minute planning session turning into 2 hours because 12Alfa keeps dropping. but hey, i've gotten plenty of work done on SB tank models in those 4AM-6AM sessions. maybe even cheated in an extra half an hour of modeling work on that M60A3 by routing units and waiting for them to reach their destination and getting engaged.
  9. put this into the normal SB target priority routine, and have each spotted light source act as a target. and give it appropriate target priority. but we all know that the SB targeting priority routine is flawed. i've lost count of the number of times i've got a tank in my sight, and just about to pull the trigger when my asshole TC decides that a bunch of troops hiding close by in a bunch of grass that i can't even see because of said grass is higher priority than that T-80U which just sent a depleted uranium dart into the air, and which is also now on it's way to the side of my fucking turret because of the previously aforementioned TC.
  10. 1-2. well, the tanks would have to be in a platoon in the first place for this to work, so as soon as the platoon is split, this behaviour would be disabled. other than that, it'd work like a strobe. where you cycle through the platoon, and activate illumination one tank after the other. with a set on-time/off time for each vehicle. 3. again, nothing complex. just simple LOS calculation, if the vehicles IR light is on, spotting range is extended. tricky bit would be making the AI remember the light spot, and fire at it, and not the tank, and simultaneously not waste their ammo on it. the best way would probably be this: after the light has been turned off. you'd have to make a separate "target" frame at the spot where the light was located(this would be added to the tank model anyways as a source of light) so you'd do an inverse transform of the tanks spotlight location to worldspace, so it won't move with the tank, then after a set amount of time, you'd delete that spotlight location. any tank on the opposing team that sees this frame will fire at it while it exists. you could also give the frame the previous velocity of the vehicle it was on, if it's over... say 5kph, that way the target won't wander off if it's standing still on a hill.
  11. hmm, looks a bit potato currently tho, even on highest settings? not sure if i'm doing something wrong here. mouse controls as well are not good. WOT-like mouse, instead of SB-like makes tracking targets and adding lead nearly impossible.
  12. well, figuring out a system and setting up the AI isn't such a big issue, making that new code work with the existing codebase however is where the nightmares begin. you could cheat it quite easily with a ray and angle comparison + ray length comparison. say FOV of the gunner is 15 degrees, if the unobstructed ray from GPS forward view to enemy tank with illumination is within 15 degrees of the gunners sight, and searchlight is on, the unit is spotted. it's fast, it's cheap, and it works. for the gunners AI, you simply limit it's view range, the rest would be standard SB fare. when on route X turn on illumination, when in X type of battle position, turn off lights etc. you could even fake some of the illumination with a 3d model of the light. what you would not be able to do however, is create a light cone, that illuminates things properly. you might be able to fake one with 3d stencils tho. as for sensible behaviour of AI.. when has that ever stopped us from implementing something before. snipers were added in without the ability to snipe TCs. snipers are a major threat to TCs, making snipers able to snipe TCs would force players to keep their heads down. but instead, because you can't order the AI to stay in umbrella position, or buttoned up, it was instead decided that snipers won't be able to snipe TCs.
  13. FWIW, the autoloader in the T-72 has been set up to be able to reload. and the ammunition doors in the abrams and leo have ammunition racks behind them. the programmers just never had time to actually make them move. as for IR searchlights for night combat. not with the current engine. for something like that to be viable, you'd have to basically rewrite the entire graphics engine.
  14. didn't play any tanksims before SB1. i bought SB because i was working on a tank game, and wanted to understand how tanks really worked. choice was betweeb M1TP and SB, i saw all the labels of "worlds best tank simulator" on the cover, and was sold. installed the game, started SB, and the graphics were so ugly i nearly threw up on my keyboard. to put it mildly, i felt ripped off, and wanted to uninstall the abomination immediately, but decided to give it a shot, since i had paid good money for it. and well, here i am, over 15 years later.
  15. a decent roof model, and good vision block models for the commander is what is essential. a full-on 500 hour grail quest T-72 interior.. not so much. the only way a full-on interior would be useful for casuals, is if could double as a tutorial. e.g if you mouse over buttons or panels, they would explain to you how to use them, and display keyboard shortcuts. in any case, looks like they(possibly he?) is off to a good start. 407 people sponsoring, making around 2100$ a month from patreon. could very well end up like steel armor tho. years of work for very little gain.
  16. it's an israeli sho't painted green.
  17. Ukraine is home to one of the most famous Soviet tank Design bureaus, Kharkiv Morozov, who designed the T-34, T-54, T-64, and T-80UD. Their tanks have time and again revolutionized tank designs. and basically caused a "red scare" every time they made something new.
  18. dejawolf

    T-72 vulnerability

    yes, this is a feature. right around the drivers vision block, the armour is significantly weakened in order to make room for the vision block. russians wanted to save weight... it's worse in the older T-72s, where they have composites all the way up to the vision block. on the T-90, the poor APFSDS protection has been alleviated by adding a block of steel near the vision block, although this reduces HEAT protection somewhat.
  19. the slow speed is an illusion. the tank appears to drive slow because the 2D screen gives you no depth perception, and you have a very limited FOV. you can see the same effect when you film while you drive, then watch the film of you driving afterwards. Real life will seem much faster than the film. the one issue SB might have is that our tanks have somewhat slow acceleration.
  20. I'd rather have improved infantry over an accurate star map of the sky complete with adjustable star brighhtness.
  21. it's been 16 years. people have complained the entire time. something should have been done 11 years ago.
  22. crew morale depends on if you're driving around in top modern western tank, or outdated soviet monkey model tincan.
  23. All ERA is most effective when sloped. the heavier the slope, the more effective it is, since it gives the ERA more time to affect the penetrator, and also induces a twisting and shearing motion on the penetrator. however attacking from the top, the protection of the ERA is reduced to a negligible amount, since the ERA bricks on the T-72 roof is angled to defeat incoming threats from the front, and offer close to no protection from the top. another important factor is that ERA reduces the penetration power by a percentage of the penetrators original penetration. as for modern heavy ERA, it is even effective against APFSDS penetrators. however, it too has reduced protection against top-attack slugs, due to the near perpendicular angle they are struck at.
×
×
  • Create New...