Rangoon

I have noticed, playing 3.017 beta, that frequently I will jump to a unit (so far always a SINGLE tank which was divided away from his unit, and so far only M1A1(HA)) which was sent on a route and given a battle position. When I jump to him, he is facing a wrong direction, and suddenly turns to face the correct one.

Do I need to keep applying that "link to height map" every time when editing and saving the mission? Or only one time initially when saving a downloaded mission using a problematic map on my computer?

Hm. Mine doesn't show that. Do I just need to change the initial "or" to an "and"? I didn't notice until now that this one was unlike the other two in that way. I don't recall at the moment, but mine obviously must have had the mission time condition and I deselected it. Maybe by not changing to "and" it somehow didn't actually do away with it. I'll try it now.

I looked through all of the conditions. None of them have an "or". Only the initial "and" box checked (the green one). Then just a single condition. Nothing having to do with time except the victory condition which doesn't send a message until 20 seconds have elapsed holding the objective. Is there another place this could be hiding?

I am modifying Camp Hornfelt Tactical Movement for my own purposes because I like using that basic setup to practice tactics while adding various units to the mix. It has a default 90 minute time limit, and a No Go event is triggered at that point. I removed the mission time limit (set to none). I see three events listed, including the No Go event that is being triggered. However, this event is triggered when more than one of your AFVs is destroyed. So why is this event always still firing at the 90-minute point? What am I missing here?

I changed all of the Blue artillery in one of the missions I've been modifying to on-screen M109's. I must say that it really adds a potent element to the experience. Yes, it's more to manage. But, the sounds (distant rumbling of guns firing, shells whizzing past over head, etc.) are so immersive. The fact of knowing those guns are physically back there on the hill is compelling. Moving them around to keep the enemy guessing (if just for the fun of it) is somehow satisfying. As is keeping the guns supplied.

Thanks for these helpful replies.

What I meant is that the "reason" given for why off-screen artillery becomes unavailable is due to repositioning after firing, since enemy will calculate a return-fire solution based on the incoming rounds. In the case of on-screen artillery, I assume the AI doesn't actually make such return-fire calculations. Does it? Assuming not, there is no motivation to move the guns after firing, other than the simple possibility of enemy actually getting eyes on the guns just like any other unit (but not through reverse-trajectory calculations, or whatever you would call it). I can see that where both sides are using on-screen artillery, you have set up some very fair and very compelling simulation based on the fact that a player (though presumably not AI) will have some rough idea but nothing precise when it comes to determining the source of incoming enemy artillery. I do like the realism of having actual assets on the map, though, with limitations of range and the mortality of on-screen units. If both sides are utilizing a "fair" array of off-screen and/or on-screen artillery, it all works out well either way. Just rather different in nature.

I have been experimenting with the on-screen artillery. Am I correct that there are two fundamental differences when compared with off-screen artillery? 1. On-screen guns only fire in synchronized volleys, so all rounds impact at roughly the same time, followed by a lull. Off-screen fires in a more continuous mode where rounds are almost constantly impacting in the target area. 2. On-screen doesn't automatically reposition after firing. I didn't test this, but wouldn't this imply you could always have artillery in under three minutes and never have the "waiting for approval" delay? I'm guessing the AI doesn't actually calculate the trajectory and target the origination point, rendering the movement only necessary when it comes to enemy units physically spotting your guns. Other than that, you have issues with supply and such, but are these the basic differences?

+1 I can't agree more, how helpful these missions are for getting familiarized.

I have read that if you don't see a time listed to repair a damaged item (as is the case with a coolant leak) that it cannot be repaired. I'm just wondering if that holds true still today in the latest version. I have an M1 with a coolant leak, two M113 Repair vehicles nearby, M1 engine shut off, and the green "repair" flashing in the lower left (it's this last part that has my hopes up). But it seems to not finish repairing. Is it a lost cause?

Thanks!

I can't find this detail in the manual nor in the wiki. Why are some units under "add unit" grayed out and others are black text? I am still able to add the gray text items, so it must serve some other purpose.

Ah, I will try this! EDIT: Yep, that was it. Thanks! Familiar indeed...

Yes, that I did. I had my initial modification, but then I re-opened the original file again, added one unit, and saved it as something else (new file). Still a broken bridge. When I open the original, and view it on the map, the bridge seam appears fine. When I then SAVE AS, without creating a navmesh anywhere in the process, the bridge is broken. It seems that I can predict the broken bridge by viewing the seam. When I come upon the bridge in mission, the original appears fine and works fine. The modded version appears broken and is broken. I can view it in the map without Testing it, in the original, and it appears fine. But once I save it (with or without creating a navmesh) the bridge is broken. EDIT: I retested this again, and literally didn't change anything in the mission. I reloaded the original version (in tact from download). I viewed it in the map and the bridge appeared normal. I saved it as another file name, but did nothing to the file. I tested that new file and the bridge appeared slightly different at the seam when viewed, then when I came to it in the 3D world I couldn't cross it and the seam appeared even worse. I couldn't cross it with AI road pathing, nor with manual driving.

Stone 2-lane. No. Just hits the seam and bounces back. I tried purging the navmesh. No luck. I also tried reloading the mission in the editor and then NOT having it build a navmesh. No luck. I tried opening the original in a single-player session. Works fine. I then tried opening the mission I saved (the 2nd one, without ever having created the navmesh). Same problem with the bridge. I just assumed that it was correct to create the navmesh, but now I understand the orginal never had a navmesh and so my modified version wouldn't. Unfortunately for whatever reason, opening the mission in the editor and then saving it breaks the bridge. I also tried just opening the original and testing it there without making any changes, but it requires me to save it before testing it. So I didn't save it. The only single change I was making to the mission is adding another unit. Playing the original again, I verified that I can see a clean seam at the bridge. In the editor, I see a bad seam with grass/stone in a bad arrangement. One other thing that came to mind is that when I go to load a map in the editor, the map in question isn't in my list. Could that be the issue? How can I not have the map if I have the mission that uses that map?

Looks like concrete bricks. The seam shows a mix of grass and bridge rather than a clean transition. EDIT: that same bridge in another location (also over a river) works fine. But the bridge I normally take in this mission (pre-modified) now cannot be crossed.

Scenario: Camp_Hornfelt(1)-Tactical_Movement.sce Terrain Map: Blauheim.ter Height Map: plain41.raw Mission was uploaded in November 2009. Not sure what version it was made for. Does this date imply it's too old for me to easily modify like this?

I've modified a mission (one I downloaded from this site) which was working perfectly fine. I simply added another unit, but now my tanks can't cross a river using a bridge. It asked about building a navmesh. I said yes. I even tried having it rebuild the navmesh. Everything seems to go fine. I look at the map and the bridge appears normal. However, after assigning a route (with shift key to follow roads as usual), the tanks reach the bridge and get stuck. This doesn't happen with the original. How might I fix this?

First, Rotareneg thanks for posting that comparison video. It does show that the differences from that perspective are minimal. I do still see a marginally more abrupt movement in the current version, but it is very minor. Maybe it's the softness from the video resolution more than anything. Ssnake, I completely agree that they are trade-offs and as I said I wouldn't trade back. No way, no how. Everything you identified makes perfect sense, is better, and is as it should be. Still, as was pointed out by wolfstriked, I think the perception is largely tied to the starting/stopping/etc. when in first-person TC view while observing your own tank, not as much other tanks. I remember my "a ha" moment was while sitting TC, creeping in and out of valleys, starting, stopping, banking, pitching. And I think it has a lot to do with the stability of the TC's head and the gun vs. the chassis/hull. I'm sure there isn't a perfect balance to strike with the stability of the TC's head (which couldn't be perfectly stable in reality, of course). And obviously I'm either alone or in a very small minority who latched onto that original method and found it preferable in that one way. Maybe the view of the TC should be (more) stable when not using binocs, but unstable while using them? And maybe I am just playing the wrong maps in SB Pro, without really getting the same undulations to get a fair comparison. I don't want to belabor this and waste your time, but I think it's a fascinating detail. (clearly :c: )

Thanks for that explanation.

That's really cool, although if it's the track being lost, how can he come forward with that right yaw like he does immediately after the hit (sorry, aviation term...)? It seems more like it's the momentum from the round hitting the far rear (far from the center of gravity) causing it to swing. Also, though, really cool. Whichever the cause may be. Maybe he was on wet grass (the river bank). I vividly remember that moment I "grew a turret" over Steel Beasts (sorry), though, and it was about the revelation in real terms that I was not driving a gocart, or a car, or a truck, or a boat, or a submarine, but a huge f***ing tank. In SB PRO I lost that sensation, but gained an immensely beautiful thing that looks like a tank and acts like a tank, even if it doesn't feel like one. (Not that I've driven one IRL.) So I wouldn't trade this one in for the original, I just hope that the day comes we get that feeling back. I still love this version for all of its improvements. But miss the thing that made me want to be an armchair tanker. All the fascinating bits (tactics, ammunition choice, communication, recon, formations, armor, stealth, etc.) came after that initial "you had me at...inertia" moment. EDIT: also, in that first video posted, look at 2:41-2:48 - notice how the vehicle surges forward and the chassis shifts with the suspension, and then when the camera pans, how the tracks hug the terrain from left to right and fore to aft. They follow the terrain instead of just popping onto it. And 3:29-3:34 the starting stopping, the swaying of the gun as the TC stays level and the chassis flows with the inertia and then the waving terrain.

It's true; it's a known bug.

Wow, and look at 1:57 the way the impact hitting the target in the rear left swings it around. Would that ever happen in the current version? And/or is that realistic? But yes, thanks for finding that video! It really does demonstrate what I'm talking about. You hit at least one of the nails on the head with that starting/stopping observation. That is a big part of what I'm remembering. I knew I wasn't totally off my rocker. Oddly enough, everything looks and "feels" smooth in that version. Feels like there is more inertia simulated or something, and the rounded hills seem more round rather than stepped while being driven over. The impacts, the starts/stops, the terrain. And insanely heavy vehicles.

Sorry to dig this back up, but every time I play, I notice this. And even if it's just my perception and/or I'm not remembering it right, I thought of another way to describe it. And don't get me wrong: while I stay for all the detail, depth, and sophistication of this sim, and certainly the emphasis on tactical combat, the thing that made me fall in love with Steel Beasts way back when was the feel of the ride. Stupid, I know. So what I notice now is that the tanks slide over the ground rather than drive over it. The tracks move, and they angle with the terrain sort of, but they don't feel or appear to grip and drive and roll with the terrain. And I doubt they did back in [EDIT: Original Steel Beasts], but I had the impression of driving that tank over the rolling terrain. So even if I'm observing a tank, I see it move up/down/angle in fits, not smoothly. Things jerk into their new position or angle rather than blend naturally. So that combined with the lack of feel in the suspension (up/down of the TC in the hatch) leaves me nostalgic for that initial "a ha" moment I had while rolling along those old maps, peering over the next hill and it all just feeling so awesome. And this is not me complaining at this point. I'm just wondering if that is a value that eSim holds for the future? Do you think it will be incorporated into this engine (not sure if it's possible) or is something like that just way too far down on the list of priorities to think about? Obviously in Steel Beasts 10, it will be there, but will it be in 3? 5?