Jump to content

Whisky-Delta

Members
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Whisky-Delta

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 09/08/1986
  1. At the raw material costs, yes this is true, however various reports on the DTIC website suggest that through life cost comparison between WA and DU actually make them virtually the same due to the "clean up" costs, special handling and machining of the rounds, disposal of DU but also the high scrap value of WA. After writing a report on the mater i am also less convinced about the whole "environmental" and political argument against DU. Yes it is radioactive but to such a low level it can be handled safely, but also research has been published whereby if Tungsten is absorbed into soft tissue (tested on rats) then it leads to cancerous growths as problematic as potential DU ingestion. This coupled with the fact DU can be recovered on a battlefield or training area by the use of radiation detection devices, a luxury Tungsten does not offer, so arguably WA actually leads to "dirtier" battlefields.... i digress, but it is interesting, that it appears its just a niave view that "Its radioactive!!!..... we are all going to sprout 3 heads and die slowly" that is forcing DU out. Whisky
  2. At the risk of dragging up another discussion about the performance of the charm 3 round and it's depiction in SB I do have some observations/ questions. Firstly I would like to point out I do understand SB implementing of charm 3 and all rounds for that matter are based on as much credible information as is available and best guess, that being said...here I go. 1. Below is extract from SB ammunition data wiki 120mm L30: L27 CHARM3 3500 510 1675 1999 120mm L30: L28 3500 510 1670 2000s So my first question is why does the l27 and l28 have the same penetrative value? One is a tungsten training round and the other is the core round designed for CR2 and most research I have read suggests du had around 10% greater armour piercing capability. These are credible sources as I have just used them for an essay submission for my MSC but I don't have them to hand right now, will dig them out if this statement is viewed as nonsense 2. Another extract from the ammunition table, this time for a 1980's 105mm L7 round 105mm L7: CMC105 3500 520 1501 1980s While I couldn't find much info about this specific round it does seem curious a 105mm round developed in the 1980's for a tank gun 2 generations behind the L30 had the same penetrative value yet at a lower velocity? 3. Again.....This time of the German dm33 round which as a best guess appears to be around the same size pentrator size ad charm 3....I could be wrong though. 120mm RM: DM33 (L44) 3500 600 1650 1987 120mm RM: DM33 (L55) 3500 660 1710 1987 But again it seems curious a tungsten based round fired from a lower caliber weapon (44 calibre versus 55 of the L30)system outperforms charm 3 by such a margin, especially when there is 20 years between the rounds. I know rifling is said to loose an element of pressure due to gases escaping around the round in the barrel but some experts (i know it is a cop out but i would rather not say who and where i spoke to them on a public forum) suggest this would only equate to 1% loss in velocity. Yet the dm53 round which due to its length would potentially weigh more and surface area is greater so drag coefficient would be higher. Is the data in SB Pro therefore assuming pressures in the gun barrel and propellant technology of charm 3 is far lower than the dm53 by such a margin? Please do not think this is a flame against eSim or questioning your competency. ...far from it!! I know data on these sorts of things are hard to get solid information on and not biased opinion, but with the data that is present in the ammunition data tables and the high level facts such as du versus wa and effects of higher calibre weapon systems on these rounds etc it just appears to me there is some "inconsistency". I say it in speech marks as while it may appear to be inconsistency to me, it could very well be reasons for that. I know it is easy to get hung up on these headline figures when in reality it is not as clear cut as velocity and rhae performance = probability of kill versus vehicle x but it's the information we have to hand right now Regards Whisky
  3. Yes sorry Gui. ....sometimes auto complete text catches me out :bigsmile: Cheers for the info, will give it a try, hopefully tommorow night but thinking my MSC essay on long rod penetrators may take precedence over SB. ..not all bad though :bigsmile: Whisky
  4. Aaaah. ...was not aware of such a thread and yes it seems it has already been mentioned. Curious however that it was mentioned quite some time ago and yet hasn't been fixed? ! Whisky
  5. Cheers for the response Trying to guess what this will do...I assume I would change the language in the options but through copying everything except the voices folder all the guy and briefings remain in English but just the voices change to what language I set? Whisky
  6. Hello After playing a few hours of SB I noticed that if you play the quick mission in the challenger 2, the commander loads smoke when in fact he should load hesh . I have been getting around the problem but jumping to the tc position change the round in the breech (I know...bad practice) and back to gunner but I thought I would see if anyone else gets this issue? Whisky
  7. Evening It only occurred to me today that if I set the language in SB to UK I get British voices and order commands. The same if I set it to US English but also if I change languages to German or Russian you get the correct lingual for a given vehicles usage and country of operation which is great. The downside is the fact the language in the sum changes which means I can't understand briefings and I have not navigate through memory. As the sound files already exist what would the possibility be of extracting the sound files of the commands and associating them with specific vehicles and put them in the mod/fx folder for example. That way I can keep the English language in the guy but have appropriate lingual for a given vehicle? Whisky
  8. Like I said, it is meant to slightly more representative than using a joystick, so while I appreciate what you are saying in regards to the pressure as opposed to movement of the thumb stick and resolution may be lower, I doubt the resolution of the thumb stick is much lower than my £10, 5 year old joystick Which I Can Track Targets Very Smoothly. obviously due to the height differential between the joystick and thumb stick means it is easier to make small corrections but again when using a joystick in SB you only ever use the first 20% ish of full axis movement and the remainder if you need to spend the turret round double time. So while I appreciate the x360 controller may not be as accurate as the real thing or the controller you mention, I am sure there is a settings which can be adjusted so instead of using of the thumb stick to maximum torrent traverse being a 1 to 1 relationship, I can reduce the sensitivity so 100 axis movement of the stick equates to half the turret traverse speed, resulting in more precision. I just can't find a third party tool to enable that, xpadder notionaly can but it seemed to make no difference in my test. Regards Whisky
  9. Hello As titled I am attempting to reduce the controller sensitiviry for controlling the main sights. I have essentially bought an xbox 360 game pad with the intent of using for a slightly more realistic representation of the challenger 2 grip. However, I have calibrating the game pad but when in steel beasts it is just too sensitive. I tried with more practice but it was impossible to smoothly track targets and find that I only end up moving the thumb stick within 20% of its extents as beyond that you rotate the turret/ sights far faster than is use able. I can't see anything inside steel beasts to adjust such a setting and I did try x ladder 5.3 but from what I can see it has made no difference. Any ideas? Any one tried using a psi controller on the pc? Regards Whisky
  10. Found the source of my info and it is correct the SB Pro CR2 is already modeled as the 74 ton combat weight http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=18881&page=4 Just scroll down to Ssnake post, the wiki must be out of date It seems originally when released it was an error and modeled at the 62.5 tons but has since been rectified. So CR2 commander are you suggesting a current 1200bhp engine and gearbox CR2 was compared to a MTU 1500bhp equipped CR2 and the original came out on top? Whisky
  11. I think that is the same weight as the current version of the CR2 in SB Pro is it not? I'm sure I read that in the "challenger 2 any good thread" but I could be wrong I don't think we are far off Mark with current game engine technology. That's why I love Unity, it's so cheap and easy to design content for and with the correct shades like "hard surface" shades or marmoset content can look really good. I personally love making a 3d model which is actually a really low polycount but through the use of normal, spec, gloss and reflection maps, it looks very high poly. Off topic has anyone tried the the "Spin Tyres" demo? I advise you all too if you have not. While the graphics are good the terrain deformation and physics is just like nothing else. I am not often "blown away" by games any more as most just focus on amazing graphics which is impressive up to a point.....This on the other hand.... http://spintires.com/#!/demo Dare I say "imagine that in SB Pro!!" Whisky
  12. Depends...when developing content for Unity or VBS2 which are quite up to date engines then yes. If that said model is one of the focal points of the simulation/ visualisation. if however the model is for more legacy systems or software that uses Openflight, or the model is more clutter than the focal point, then it would most likely be less in polygons and texture res. now a days polygon count and texture resolution is just pub talk numbers. Its more important to structure your models and textures to reduce the number of draw calls or state changes as modern gpu's can compute 10s of millioms of triangles per frame and many hundreds of megs of textures. However a scene/ model of just a few thousands could bring fps crashing down if model and texture design is not thoight out. Such as it can be more beneficial in some cases to have a higher res texture and have one than have multiple lower res textures etc Also its worth noting the polycount of the model is not the "on card" polycount of the model when it is rendered. This is because hard or smooth edges as well as uv splits also affect the end result of the models performance at run time, but rhis is a whole other discussion End of the day it is down to the specific application and target hardware/ software the model is intended for and it needs to be designed appropriately. For my "hobby" CR2 I chose roughly those design targets, for a SB Pro model I imagine it would be different hut that would be why I would liase with the eSim developers as I have no experience with the SB Pro core software. Hope this answers your question Whisky
  13. Everything is possible, however......... from my perspective as a hobbyist Steel Beasts player, and the fact while i am professionally a 3D Modeller, doing tanks is again purely Hobby (my company is more air focused), so it is a case of of whether i have enough time, but also enough passion to pursue it through to the end. I do for the CR2 TES version, but i am planning on doing something different after that, say a Foxhound, MLRS or a M1A2 Tusk 2, so i shall i have to see. From eSim (Ssnake's) perspective, correct me if i am wrong, but for a hobbyist to do the art content, there is no guarantee on quality or timely delivery and the eSim guys may need to spend extra up paid time getting the model implemented and working and that's even if the model is spot on as per their requirements. If there are problems, the time can increase exponentially. The alternative is for a paying military customer to request the content to be modelled, which will be unlikely for the Chieftain and CR1 due to the number, or lack of countries who use them. Also bear in mind both CR1 and Chieftain have drastically different FCS's than CR2 and i imagine this is where the lion share of the eSim developers time lies when implementing a new model. Not trying to burst your bubble, but just being honest. I was thinking from the perspective of the CR2 TES, it could just be a model swop, but ideally armour values will need to be adjusted and the functionality of the RWS implemented which i imagine is no small task. Whisky
  14. Cheers for the positive comments guys. Ssnake - Absolutely, these are renders of my High Res model that will be used for Ambient Occlusion and Texture Baking only and not for the real time model. I have yet to properly start the low res, real time model. The model in those renders is in excess of 10 million polygons with 2 levels of sub division so by no means real time. The low res model, i havnt decided yet but may be around 20k - 30k triangles, but i will just see how it goes. Texture wise, planning on 2 atlases, 1 x 4096 for hull, turret and basically everything except the tracks, then 1 x 512 or 1024 for the tracks, so basically 2 textures in total. I will then create normal maps, spec maps and gloss maps and use when applicable in different engines. E.g. Vega Prime and Openflight will just be diffuse, Unity will use all the bells and whistles. EDIT: Thought i would clarify also, while this may be a hobby project, i do 3D modelling as my profession in a Simulation and Training Team Regards Whisky
×
×
  • Create New...