Captain_Colossus

GHPC looks like a budget title- which has nothing to do with the graphics, that is to say, it looks like something which could be developed for a mobile device. missions seem to be a form of point and click and shoot the waves of tanks with little else based on the videos i have seen. there are not many types of targets or objectives other than AFVs shooting one another; there does not appear to be a varied choice of maps, and i am not sure there is any joystick support (based on the videos i have seen, feel free to correct me here) in sum it's a difficult niche they maneuvered into being neither real enthusiast level nor satisfying instant action with multiplayer like battlefield where players have the choice between air and land vehicles or infantry roles or something of the sort- it's not whether it is in alpha or beta state, it is more the scope and the concept of what it intends to be where i lose interest. no sandbox or map editor, infantry seems to represented the way they were depicted in older games from the 1990s where at most you tended to see a single or two man detachment with a bazooka. other than the graphics and sound, which admittedly are nice, the gameplay doesn't offer anything i would keep coming back for- i would be willing to spend more than the asking price if it did more, but even if the bugs were worked, there is not much depth there from what i can tell

i don't believe any of those are T-72; they are t-80 based vehicles. the t-72 has a single vision block for the driver, all of those tanks have the t-80 style "3 piece" vision ports, and further more you can see the turbine exhaust port at the rear

under the umbrella of the combined heat blur, destroyed textures and blown off doors and hatches on vehicles, it gives the impression of a much more polished product; sure there is nice content like new vehicles and my favorite, the infantry trenches, but overall my impression is there is more polish, including the missile flight characteristics; it might even be argued that the destroyed vehicles could fall more on the entertainment side than being necessary for pure training value, but it is appreciated nonetheless. it aids the illusion better

all tanks which survive a HEAT impact experience at the minimum loss of stabilization and radio comms- hit location does not matter. it is 100 percent likely to occur; it is just that players may not notice the effect as much if they use say, the leopard I, t-72, t-62 or t-55, since the damage often comes with additional damages or outright kills the vehicle, then the effect looks more random and goes unnoticed. but in a vehicle like the M1A1 or leopard 2, where the HEAT impact often is just limited to loss of radio and stabilization, then the pattern becomes more noticeable. i wouldn't care about it if it weren't for the fact that my brain and my reflexes are already trained to respond to it- even when i see the rockets and the rounds in the air, i know immediately i am about to lose stabilization and i am ready to switch modes- which is probably not particularly good training value. but you have to see the pattern first to understand it- and once that happens, it cannot be unseen

to what extent? inserts in the armor sandwich of western tanks already behave like ERA- for example it is inferred from ceramic tile inserts observed under high speed x-ray tests will atomize in the path of incoming HEAT penetration in order to disrupt the flow of material- it's just that the "ERA" effect is inherent to the base armor rather than bolted on the outside. the compound armors in western tanks and their inherent designs already protect well enough to defeat threats better than their competitors in russia or china or iran which use applique armor more as a stopgap; if you look at those designs, the ERA exists as add on because the base armor is comparatively weak, it is a way to extend the life of vehicles on the cheap rather than design and produce new vehicles from scratch: tank production is not easy, which is why relatively few countries have the heavy industry to support it; from the standpoint of add on ERA, you can see for yourself that coverage on tanks which have it can be rather haphazard- lacking uniform coverage on the front or the turret top or it would block essential components or components which cannot be easily removed like the coaxial machine gun port or the tank's sensors

steel beasts gives you the option of creating your own maps from a limited set of tile images- you can find the terrain and correlated TIS images in your installation directory; steel beasts is neither technologically advanced nor financially independent enough to do it all- you can construct your own maps, but they often will not quite offer the same results as pre-rendered maps which cannot be altered by the user which you see in other software. the flexibility of a sandbox editor comes at a cost in some graphic details you might get with pre-rendered environments; in fact you don't really see software which does it all anywhere- you might see a game developer invest their resources to produce images like this, but you don't get the same level of simulated vehicle systems or custom map or scenario creation. everyone must pick and choose their battles. some graphics situations look good in war thunder- primarily at close range, which is what that engine was developed for, not relatively long range engagements on maps which can be created from scratch and edited by the user. electronic arts is capable of putting out good looking games, but this is paired with gameplay that relies almost purely on visual images and sound and usually are more like interactive movies on rails; this isn't to say of course nobody wants as much as they can get, but if you look at all games available- all of them in some way have a focus given their resources or target audience or goals or what have you

i just took a look at this map, and i would suggest only replacing a few buildings at most- the custom buildings are much lower resolution geometry but at the gain of higher FPS; if the whole point is to represent a city of this size, i think replacing the buildings would wind up costing you in performance unless the visibility distance were made to look like a perpetual fog or something of this kind. i would consider adding a few structures which can be occupied rather than wholly replacing them; saves a lot of editing effort and performance gain for a scenario

to close my issue off in this thread as mirzayev says these maps are rather slow loading

after all i extend my compliments to the creators, since these objects are useful and look good. if they were permitted to be incorporated into use, there would be more exposure to their efforts. i don't want to overstep anyone though

does esim have a problem with transferring custom map objects from the new maps to other maps? i want to upload custom maps which makes use of the new map objects, unless there is an issue there. i have no problem giving credit to the artists and modellers for creating them, although i would need to know who all of them are in this thread here unless this is not good practice to begin with

i think i have a related issue. i didn't see a message such as a 'map download failed' although i wasn't looking for it if it did; however i simply cannot open up any of the new maps in either the map editor or the mission editor; they show up in the published maps list, they just freeze when loading; the map packages are physically there in the directory taking up space. even more strange, i deleted one of the map packages in order to download again to troubleshoot, and the map package installer tells me that the map already is present, despite being deleted

it may be tempting the first time a user gets exposure to the advanced FCS for the t-72b3 and believe that the whole vehicle is upgraded at the level of an M1A2 SEP or better based on that initial impression; the ability to gun fire an ATGM may also further lend to the deception. then you start to realize you are still strapped in a t-72 being overpowered by the better western ammunition against you, which are coming at you in higher volume because they reload and fire faster in between your autoloading carousel ammo selection and reload cycles; i would say the slower t-72 response times and generally the way the vehicle works makes it feel as though it is moving in slow motion comparatively

i'm not saying to remove it or not include it. i am saying that i would not use it for those purposes, in particular for the tank range. i would never argue for less content, or removing player choice. what i am saying it will up to players for themselves to decide if they like it. i don't believe i would be alone in not using the t-72b3 in those kinds of setups. but do it if it pleases you

not at all- as ssnake said, if the point of the tank range is to achieve a perfect score in order to influence the competency of the player's forces, in a way it would a 'cheat' to use this vehicle. if practice blasting away without consequences is all you wanted, you can do that in the tutorial for the t-72b3, or set up a simple scenario to do that

after trying it out, the t-72b3 is the most bizarre vehicle in the stable. the automatic lead makes gunnery a lot less of a challenge- the only factor that keeps this vehicle interesting for instant action is that it is vulnerable as t-72s tend to go. otherwise i wouldn't really be so interested in such a powerful FCS for instant action, because gunnery is taken care of without you. the challenge comes by way of still being a vehicle you don't want to trade exposed shots if you can help it, since the ERA coverage on the turret is a bit haphazard. worse still for the tank range, it would appear to be 'unbalanced', you cannot really miss; since the targets aren't shooting back it's just a formality to earn a perfectt score. if the challenger 2, M1 or leopard family of vehicles had this kind of FCS, i probably would spend a lot less time with them; too 'easy,' 😁

the heat blur was on my wishlist waiting for version sb pro pe 2.0 to roll out ever since i first saw anyeffect like that in the precursor to DCS, which used to be called lock on, if i'm not mistaken. the cooked vehicle textures are also one of my oldest requests since 2.0. including the infantry trenches and added recoil effects, many of my oldest wish list items are effectively settled. however, in the hype videos, we see what look like concrete fortifications (another of my older checkboxes). i cannot find this in the mission or map editor as an obstacle or structure. are these included in the personal edition or a military customer option only?

i cannot install until next week. what is the new effect?

my initial plans for this industrial plant was a large scale complex, but at this point it is killing framerates and my computer fan is getting noisy.

i'd rather hope this isn't possible in the current state. there is already a disadvantage to the missile launcher which is related to the fact that unbuttoned vehicle commanders can never be shot. anytime a missile is launched at a vehicle, that vehicle is always instantly alerted it is being fired upon. it may not necessarily know the direction or the source, but it knows there is a missile inbound coming from somewhere at the exact instant the missile operator pulls the trigger, sending the vehicle into search mode looking for the launcher (you'll notice this yourself if you are the gunner and suddenly you hear the TC buttoning up for no obvious reason- this is often the AI of your TC sensing a missile launch). there have been many times a vehicle such as a tank which has killed me when i had the drop on it and fired a missile first- even at the tank's rear aspect from 2 or 3 km away, which was enough time for the vehicle to detect the launch, spin 180 degrees and get a shot off and kill me. this is related to the fact that the moment you try and shoot an exposed TC with machine guns, coax, .50 cal, drop artillery, or whatever, the moment you pull the trigger or the moment the artillery rounds are is withing range, the AI TC automatically knows it and goes straight down the hatch and cannot be killed. so, it doesn't matter how distant or how exposed or under concealment or cover the ATGM launcher is, the moment the trigger is pulled, you are telegraphing yourself to the AI- the ability to consistently shoot down the missile on top of being detected just would compound the risk exposure for the ATGM operators

i saw the new helicopter destruction effects in the hype thread- let's see that also with all the vehicles please

"refinery"