Jump to content

KillKess

Members
  • Content Count

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KillKess

  1. I could not find a recent "up to date" hardware thread in the forum: Im planning to upgrade my rig to i5 8600k or I7 8700K with a 1070TI. Whats the commen sence on this subject SB-whise? Thx for all kind replies
  2. So where do i find the information which maps do use which resolution? Anyway, having lower resolution maps doesnt mean you have to use them in the same condition you bought. Like Rotreneg demostrated u can smoothen each map with some form of algorithm. How did u edit the height map?
  3. KillKess

    Puma

    Dont foget: IT IS SO UGLY
  4. Which is meaningless if u dont provide customers with high resolution height maps. In most scenarious i see plenty of those jaggies and often "ridgelines" look like beeing cut with a chainsaw. At least when we dont talk about very flat terrain.
  5. While SB Pro might offer more modern grafics SB1 did a better job recreating a natural feel to the terrain. One of the big drawbacks of the new engine is that it tend to create very sharp changes in height differences which simply looks awfull/unnatural. SB1 created nice rolling terrain with kinda "gentle" changes in elevation. Or look at how streets are placed in uneven errain and how it intersects with the terrain, that looks not less weird than the whole grafic of SB1.
  6. Yeah, the use of IR-lights is like a big "here i am sign". But the whole system used without active illumination is like trying to see throught closed eyelids. BTW which western vehicle has a IR sensor on board these days? the TIS should not be able to see the light itself so what is left is the NV googles of the crew? Are these commonly used?
  7. I think the main problem with the IR-system of the 72 is that we are currently not able to switch on the IR-ilumination-light. The IR-system isnt a passive sensor like the thermals, it needs an active IR-source to work properly. BTW what sais the "LIST" to adding this feature?
  8. What will be the dispersion for shots at 10km? Would it be worth to take a shot at all?
  9. I am sorry but 23 pm is out of scope for me.
  10. I am highly interested as long as the timezone fits.
  11. I still think that SB Pro isnt suitable for simulating mout situations. Infantry doesnt have the needed AI and capabilities nor do we have a realy good representation of cities.
  12. Quick important question: is it planned to include shadows as a mere candy or will it have influence on spotting and AI behaviour?
  13. First: I am not mad about anything, i just pointed out, that changing the theme doesnt help anything if you dont change the whole mission scripting for computercontrolled units. And sorry if i reply to "false" suggestions which were made within the thread. And honestly: your way of getting personal doesnt help to stay on track with this thread either.
  14. It is simply not enough to simply change the theme-settings. Due to time restricitons i mostly play offline against the "AI". One would have to change the whole mission scripting for the AI plan to get something usefull. Otherwhise the AI will still drive cross country.... Its been a very long time since i played online last time. Which settings are mostly used online?
  15. At the moment most maps dont realy give any penalty for always driving cross country. Almost no bogging, to fast movement. I guess with better map settings rouds and other ways would be used much more frequently but it seemy to be a design issue.
  16. While i think that the grafics for vehicles, buildings and vegetation are still more than satisfying i am often kinda dissappointed by the terrain itself. In SB1 we had wonderfull "rolling" landscapes which had a beautifull natural feeling. SB2 often has problems with changes in elevation which results in unnatural "rough" terrain. Often if i drive to a hulldown position i can see that the "crest" is not soft change but a sudden drop in elevation which looks essentialy like a linear function. Take a look at these: What imho is urgently needed is some kind of algorithm to "soften" such elevation changes. I even had suspensions damageges while driving on a road! Another point i dont realy like is the look of roads, paveways and such.
  17. Can anyone pls give me a quick overview about the protection levels of the side armor of the differnt vehicles? Are there big differences between the tank families?
  18. One might explain the mathematics behind this?
  19. Thx deja, i apreciate your comment. But actually our little dispute was about the possible difference between the A1-A3 variants and the A4. I never said a word about differences between A1s to A3s. You might have anything to add?
  20. Tell me, how often have you seen the armor inserts during the 8 years? And honestly: You realy lack in discussion-culture.
  21. So far it´s you who should try to proof something. It was actually you who provided a source for my statement about the upgraded armor. Besides "You dont know, i know better" you havent shown much of a proof for your thesis. These are no proofs, but at least something that indicates some more people think there was some kind of change: The Leopard 2A4 has improved armour over the very first versions, and fire supression and other passive protection systems, which have since become standard. steelbeasts.com Das Baulos 6 mit 150 Fahrzeugen ging zwischen Januar 1988 und Mai 1989 in Produktion. Der Panzerschutz wurde an Turm und Fahrgestellfront nochmals verbessert und die Fahrzeuge erhielten neue schwere Kettenschürzen. Darüber hinaus kamen jetzt wartungsfreie Batterien zum Einbau. panzerbaer Baulos 6 verfügte ab dem 97. Fahrzeug über einen verbesserten Panzerschutz der Turm- und Wannenfront, eine neue schwere Kettenschürze, neue Diehlkette, wartungsarme Batterien und instandsetzungsfreundliche Leitradabdeckungen. http://www.scale87.de alongside the upgraded turret with the added bonus of flat titanium/tungsten armour. http://www.armedforces-int.com The Leopard 2A4 became the most numerous of the Leopard 2 series. For the most part, it is identical to the Leopard 2A3, but it also featured upgrades to the automatic fire detection and suppression system and a new digital fire control module able to compute fire with newer projectile types. However, the most substantial change was the replacement of part of the turret armor with a titanium/tungsten/steel sandwich http://www.pmulcahy.com/tanks/german_tanks.html 1987 6. Baulos (150); die Hälfte davon mit verbesserter Panzerung http://www.whq-forum.de/cms/27.0.html Also Paul Lakowski would agree in his "Armor Basics" Snippet. That was about 2 mins of googling, i stop here due to lack of time.
  22. Wouldnt you agree that even Chobham armor works better the greater its thickness is? Given a fixed size for the armor inlet you cant improve LOS, you simply can improve the materials used. And that, as far as i´ve read, is what happened between versions a3 and a4. They changed the materials and the layering of the armor inlets. But anyway, you say its a rumor so everyone else must be wrong. Thx for your conclusive proof.
  23. Which ones were upgraded to a5´s? I thought a4´s underwent the upgrade. I dont realy understand that logic: Following your agument there is no need for any a5´s or a6 out there. The space in the "cavities" inside the turret armor it limited. You can put better inserts in there but there is a constructional limit. You basicly always stay at the same maximum LOS-thickness. Not the best picture but enough to illustrate. With the addon-armor of a5 and up you can further improve the protection without changing the basic turret design.
×
×
  • Create New...