Chaplain

Skybird, fixing a problem like this almost always requires debugging the code at the point where the buy occurs. If you look at the code by itself, you won't find the problem. Al needs to have a scenario where the bug shows itself because he has to have that bug show up while he is looking at the code. You are exaggerating when you say that Al, Ssnake or Volcano won't look at a bug unless it occurs with absolute predictability. Neither Ssnake nor Volcano said that. What they did say is that they have to see the bug occur, and they have not seen it occur to date - not even once. Esim hasn't seen it. No military customer has seen it, no beta tester has seen it, no other player has reported seeing it. So far, it is just you. 2.483 has been out for a long enough time that this should have been seen by other people if the problem is ONLY with 2.483.

I think you need to remember that every computer installation is unique, with many millions of lines of code in the OS, drivers, applications, etc. Even if you install Windows and applications with the same options on two computers of the same model number, the installations will NOT be exactly the same. Unless you use imaging software, of course, but then they are only the same until you actually run both computers for the first time. It is quite possible that there is a minor difference between 2.370 and 2.483, and that difference causes all sorts of problems on your computer. However, if that minor difference only causes problems on your computer, and not on any other known computer, then it is nearly impossible for Al to find and fix the problem, no? He could only do it if he had access to your computer, could he not? So, if you really want this problem fixed, how about offering to send your computer to eSim for a week or two, so that Al can analyze what is happening on it? If you are willing to offer that, and Al turns you down, then you might have a point that eSim doesn't care about the problems that users of SB Pro PE encounter. :-)

I went from XP Pro x86 with 2 GB of RAM to Vista Business x86 with 3 GB of RAM to Windows 7 Pro x64 with 4 GB of RAM. I also switched hard drives when I went to Windows 7. My new drive was the same speed as the original one, but double the size. I split it into two partitions, so my games and the system drive are on the first half of the drive, and my other data is on the second half of the partition. Both the increase in RAM and the change in the hard drive set up should have helped.

I didn't notice any change from XP to Vista, but I noticed a significant improvement from Vista to Windows 7. That improvement shows up in both Flight Simulator X and SB Pro PE.

I have been using the release version of Windows 7 Pro x64 for more than two months. (I subscribe to MS Technet.) I believe that SP Pro PE runs very smoothly, and loads scenarios faster, than it did under XP Pro x86. That is subjective. I didn't time things before the switch, and of course I'm not about to go back to XP Pro on my laptop just to find that out. :-)

In reality, you beat up the little guys and fight using proxies against the big guys, all the while trading Stoli vodka and McDonald's.

It seems to me that we are going through another phase of the cycle. The Cold War was fought via proxy states. Now, many of the proxy states seem to be trying to band together against the major powers. The USA has kind of dropped its proxy states in the Asia-Pacific region. Who will be the proxies when the USA and China clash more strongly than they do already? Venezuela and Colombia?

Before WWI, Britain, France and Germany, among others, were waging a campaign to accumulate proxy states. The events in North America around the time of the American Revolution were in part a proxy fight between France and England. Yet, major wars between European powers followed after each period of clashes via proxy states.

In fact, the ease with which Japan took over the German colonies in China was a great encouragement to it to go to war with Britain and the USA a few decades later. The rapid collapse of a proxy state can give an opponent the idea that the major power behind the proxy is really just a pushover. Human history shows that once one side thinks the other is a pushover, military conflict generally follows in short order.

Another way of putting it: When all of that lovely military hardware is put on display, there are people who will find compelling reasons to test it on the fields of battle. Will saner heads prevail?

Nah. If one needs proof, he only needs to look at these forums.

Yes, I agree that individuals change a great deal over time. Societies tend to change, too, though some are surprisingly resistent even under intense pressure to change.

I also agree that if the USA goes to war with China anytime soon, people had better be prepared to start life over again once the war ends. It might not be as bad as when the South picked up the pieces after the Civil War, but it won't be like coming home from WWII.

However, I do believe quite strongly that "people" don't change. As I have studied history, I see the same patterns of behaviour since the dawn of recorded history. Exceptions exist, but they are always on a small scale and/or only short lived. I could discuss particulars, but that would lead to a discussion of politics and religion. :eek2:

I hear the drums of war starting to beat to Europe again. I think we'll see a major fighting war between at least two European powers before this century is out. I believe that the peace they have had recently was an aberration caused by the bigger conflict between the USA & USSR. Now that said conflict has waned, the European powers are again edging for preeminence on the world stage. Sooner or later it will result in armed conflict. I feel that I can hold out hope it will be on a smaller scale than the recent World Wars. I don't hold out any hope that "people" have changed such that the early signs of war that I see now might fail to pan out in time.

Then make the case the situation was the same then as it is now- is it analogous?

My point is the people are the same today as they were then. The similarity of the economic situation doesn’t matter all that much. Back then, people ignored the warnings (correct or not) about economic suicide. They rushed into the breach then, and they would do it again.

You can argue how stupid it would be for the US to go to war with China, and your argument will fall largely on deaf ears. That’s not necessarily because your argument is logically weak. Rather, it is because arguments based on more tangible things are inherently stronger to most people.

In any case, I think that our global economy is facing another brick wall in the not-too-distant future. We are in an “economic correction” right now, but the pain it has caused won’t be enough to get us through another generation without at least one more bout of major turmoil. Both WWI and WWII can be seen, in part, as economic corrections. Maybe a war between the USA and China will be the next big one. Worse things could happen.

Remember that before World War I, there were similar predictions that Europe nations, and the rest of the world, were too economically connected to survive a major war. Those predictions didn't stop the war from happening. In fact, my impression is that they didn't even cause those in power to blink. The rush to conflict continued on its merry way.

I have a Thinkpad T61 with a an NVidia Quadro NVS 140M and I'm quite pleased with it. Using Windows 7 x64, I can play Flight Simulator X nicely at full screen (1440x900) and at almost the highest detail settings. I got it used through eBay recently for about $700. It still has more than a year of the warranty left, too. If you don't have several thousand dollars handy to throw at a new laptop, something like mine should be a good option.

But then its usually your job as CO to link up with the other CO's...and file a request to move left/right border. From my experince Bn Cdr's turn down these requests only in rare cases.

I'm glad to hear of your experience. My personal experience of trying to coordinate a better position with adjecent units resulted in my CO overruling me on the grounds that our BC did not tolerate deviations from his orders on such things. And no, the BC had not seen that ground before he drew up his orders. I hope me experience was atypical.

Is it just me, or do military planners have a real problem understanding that units of differing equipment or internal structure can't always fight along the same frontage? Or that things like hills, rivers and towns effect the frontage that should be assinged to a given number of soldiers/heavy weapons?

During training, it always bothered me that I was expected to divide up my platoon into more-or-less equal elements and divide my area of responsibility into that many more-or-less equal areas. I got the feeling that everyone up the chain just assumed that is the way it had to be done. Maybe that is only in the infantry, though.

http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/systems/TOW.html

"1973 The TOW thermal night sight (AN/TAS-4) program began."

"November 78 Texas Instruments delivered the first AN/TAS-4 TOW production night sight."

"September 79 Deployment of the AN/TAS-4 TOW production night sight began with fieldings to training bases in the continental United States (CONUS) and U.S. Army, Europe (USAREUR)."

"January 80 The AN/TAS-4 TOW night sight achieved IOC."

"September 80 The first U.S. Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) received the TOW night sight."

I knew this had been around awhile - my platoon of broken-down M901s had well-worn TOW-II systems with well-worn thermal sights back in 1991.

I just got a ThinkPad T61 with Vista Business (32-bit) on it. I downloaded the DirectX 9c installer from Microsoft and ran it. I then ran the beta installer for Steel Bests Pro PE. SB just worked.

Oscar, you need to do the work at your end before you demand help. It does not matter that you paid $125 - you paid that money for a program that was designed for Windows XP, and it was your choice to upgrade. That means that YOU, not eSim, are responsible to do the leg work.

If you take the effort to get some real diagnostic information for eSim, I'm sure they will try to figure out what the problem is. Until you do that, well, you don't have any right to expect much assistance from either eSim or the community here.

Chaplain - Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer: Security (Windows 2003 Server & Windows XP Professional)

tastes good raw

In other words, your seemingly friendly thread about pets was actually trolling. Silly me for biting.

Our dragons: Wisky and Safety. Safety is the bigger one, with the long tail.

I have had more than one sermon inspiration come from the SB community. I feel another one coming on. :angel:

Server IP is 96.245.11.162

Fair enough, its ok when you are building a superpower, but it isn't on when the heathens want to do the same today

Keep in mind that I am listed as 15/64 Cherokee based on the Dawes roles and am a card-carrying member of the Cherokee Nation. I'm probably actually 1/4 Cherokee, as they believe my grandmother fudged her ancestry to keep from being put on a reservation.

I agree with Tankhunter that as a military solution, the way the Native Americans were treated was effective. There has been no significant uprising within the Native American community since the end of the Indian Wars. That doesn't mean it was morally right, just that it was effective.

I think what can be said is that we either need to learn to live with conflict, or we have to force total and unconditional surrender on the opponent. Forcing that issue requires inflicting serious devastation on the opponent. It sometimes requires near total destruction of the opponent. It also often requires a level of totalitarianism within the winner that most Westerners would be quite uncomfortable with.

One thing we Westerners seem to have forgotten in recent years is that conflict among peoples is normal. It won't go away anytime soon. If we try to suppress completely those we are in conflict with, we are likely going to become like those we hate.

Instead of thanking God for the relative peace that the West has experienced in recent history, we tend to see that peace as normal and then condemn other nations that are in the midst of conflict. We should be watching them as learners, knowing that we will likely be enmeshed in war again ourselves within the next generation or two.

Which is better: insurgency, dictatorship, or periodic hot wars among nations? Take your pick. The third choice does allow for periods of peace, but don't expect them to last for generations as a time. Sorry, but long-term peace just isn't one of your options. I wish I could believe some optimistic people out there who say that modern society can put war behind it, but I cannot.

Getting back to the Native Americans: The ancient lifestyle of the Native American isn't all that it is sometimes made out to be. I'm not saying that it was good that the European settlers conquered them (us), but I would characterize it more as a clash between two warring cultures than a case of an aggressive, imperialistic culture invading and conquering a peaceful culture.

The really shareful thing about the treatment of the Native Americans is that a number of tribes westernized themselves and choose to live in harmony with the settlers. In most cases the settlers would have none of it, and US Army continued to drive those tribes out of areas that settlers wanted to claim. Other tribes agreed to live on reservations that were ill equipped to support them, with the US government promising to provide assistance. Those tribes have suffered for a long time because said assistance was rarely provided. When is was provided, corrupt tribal leaders often hoarded it and the rest of the tribe got little.

That, of course, is but further evidence that Native American tribes weren't the wonderful, pastoral groups of people that anthropologists sometimes make them out to have been. But that is another story.

I think you need to consider that tankers (and soldiers in general) tend to really give each other a hard time. I recommend that you learn to look at it as friendly ribbing instead of as personal attacks.

'Tis supposed to be. It is used in prepping equipment for air drops.

They look like normal gas-masks to me. The question is, did the one guy actually put Mickey Mouse ears on his helmet, or was that added in later?

Well, after a long weekend working on servers (last week) and a long day searching for missing persons & ELTs (today), I hope to be at home at a decent hour on Saturdays for awhile. Maybe next time I'll be able to participate. Just don't ask me to run any units - it's been more than three months since I actually played SB... :roll:

This is not funny Nils, I bought the game for the T72 and more then TWO years later you are here making fun. Do you think that this is good for business or better DO YOU THINK THAT IS POLITE??

Ssnake said the status is stable. Kitt made the joke the stable can mean dead. Ssnake responded in a joking way that it is NOT dead. I think you are exaggerating when you say that Ssnake is making fun of your question and/or your desire to see the playable T-72 in Steel Beasts.

Maybe the problem here is some are willing to live with what is feasible, while others are only willing to have either perfection or nothing?

I ran into the same argument in the active Army. We often had to do mediocre training. Sometimes it was because our unit was not at the top of the list for training resources. Other times it was because 2/3 of our unit was on some sort of detail, or we didn't have time available to make up a good training plan. Some of my fellow soldiers, both officers and NCOs, felt that imperfect training would do more harm than good. Others felt that it was right to use what you have available in as creative a way as possible. I'll admit that I defended both sides of this argument during my time in uniform.

I am now firmly in the latter camp. I believe that imperfect training is better than no training, just as a decent plan executed early is better than a perfect plan executed late.