Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Captain_Colossus

  1. try adding more, delete the ones you don't intend to keep
  2. with raise roads tool, you can profoundly terraform maps to create terrain types you couldn't have in steel beasts before- i've been creating rocky cliffs and outcroppings with interesting shapes
  3. looks like the same issue is back. right
  4. i have changed the map and the scenario, but i will experiment to see if anything changes. certainly my own vehicle in the f8 external view could see the enemy unit and remained focused on it, trying to fire even high explosive rounds through the building and seems to be hitting the targets. then, an enemy unit fired through the building when i attempted to reposition. i don't know if it is related to these screenshots added below, but this building tends to disappear at close range outside a certain viewing arc, then pops back into view when i slew view closer to it back again- if it isn't just merely a visual problem, maybe the building is actually disappearing. i don't see other buildings with this same tendency:
  5. building type 234 appears to be transparent to the computer- the computer can acquire, track and shoot through it
  6. Version 1.0.0


    File for the BMP B-11 Kurganets-25 IFV and Kurganets BTR B-10 Kurganets-25 APC in 2015 Moscow victory day parade paint scheme. Turret file included shared in common with Armata based vehicles.
  7. Version 1.0.0


    Moscow 2015 V Day parade scheme for the Bumerang BMP K-17 IFV. Turret file included, which is a shared common file with Armata based vehicles.
  8. Version 1.0.0


    Moscow V-Day 2015 parade paint scheme for the T-14 Armata tank and T-15 Armata IFV- includes turret file.
  9. Version 1.0.0


    Moscow Victory Day parade 2015 paint scheme for the 2S35 Koalitsyia-SV SPG.
  10. Version 1.0.0


    Moscow Victory Day parade 2015 paint scheme for the Typhoon MRAP.
  11. i think there is a lot of variation in graphics quality based on end user created object libraries. in some videos the towns look not so good, including the textures, in others they look a lot better- not quite as good they the videos of i've seen of grand theft auto V, which was released years ago, but still close enough, and for an engine as scalable as it is from the ground to the vacuum of space, and simulate almost any kind of terrain locale, i'm impressed with it. i don't think it procedurally generates some kinds of details that steel beasts might be able to plant in the map editor like smaller flowers, although i could be mistaken
  12. the buildings in the below video ought to look familiar, they are in steel beasts. at the bottom are screenshots with timestamps where they appear
  13. in this particular case my curiosity wants to get to the bottom of it, all there is to it. i will go to bat for any developer who takes the risks and puts a sincere effort into it, my spidey sense is pinging though. since all of this initially pointed to a competitor more similar to arma3 than steel beasts or dcs or il2, say, but then seems to be schizophrenic with different time periods, I am curious by anyone who doesn't seem to see why all of this looks too good to be true. then you add wild bill stealey into it, who also looks a bit odd, and perhaps a couple of others, then the behavior looks odd, that too makes me curious what could be motivating so much effort to spend time convincing people that microprose is back but in such a way that immediately looks opaque and obscure
  14. why do you keep posting these here and without any sort of your own commentary? you seem uninterested in steel beasts altogether, you joined this site recently and all your posts on the site are in this thread promoting outside material. is that correct? it is rather incoherent at any rate. ww2 aircraft interiors, yet microprose's website says that micropose is in the business of "modernized combat simulation" with a picture of an australian abrams tank on the website. ww2 aircraft, modern infantry, tanks, helicopters- there seems to be no focus. you can get jazzed because of screenshots without any context though, sure.
  15. well the concept art thing doesn't move me- it gives me the impression that someone is spending more time on packaging than on the actual game; seriously, you would rather see screenshots and a digest of features rather than more art. we get it, we've seen the art, now get to the point of what this is about. as far as i know the titan vanguard engine that the screenshots are based on is a game engine theoretically available to the public- you have to petition the company which designed it for a free consumer version of it. let us assume that is what this is all based on the titan vanguard game engine. in itself that doesn't mean there are high fidelity models available that come with it, things like the avionics and heads up displays and sensors of modern war machines don't come with the engine, those things would likely to be supplied by the end user with perhaps more refined physics, which i surmise because i have watched videos of the engine in action- strykers climbing very steep, nearly vertical rocky slopes, and tanks bouncing and floating in air and turning unrealistically, my sense is that the engine itself is a basis to create games with, but would still require the necessary tools and libraries by end users or otherwise a simulation will look quite amateurish once you get past the graphics and see how actors in the engine have funky behaviors (on a positive note, the shadows the engine is capable of rendering look good- rendering shadows off in the distance cast by buildings by large cities and trees is well done). but- if microsprose is essentially a one man show at this point, it would seem to be rather difficult that a comprehensive simulation is coming together in that way, given what we know that modern computer games are resource intensive and not easy to make, months if not years are required for high quality titles with large development teams from the major developers- not anyone could just program a game from scratch, especially one which claims to compete in the simulation market- there seems to be no game testers at least as far as anyone knows, no public announcements for jobs at microprose- artists, programmers, QA managers, software engineers, play testers, none of that, unless it was all put together in complete secrecy, which seems illogical if unnecessary to do that. maybe there is an announcement, and maybe that's what the announcement will be- an open call for people to join microprose to develop a game. on the other hand if there was suddenly an announcement of a new game in the works, theoretically the game could look good but play like crap because the actual gameplay itself is of low quality or the simulation elements are low fidelity, and so on. it takes a lot more work than just showing off a good looking game engine (however, some of the in game elements i've seen in promotional videos like civilian cars and buildings are of nowhere near the same graphics quality of the terrain) to create the rest of the world of how the actors are supposed to behave in the world
  16. i converted a map i created prior to 4.1 release, which had lots of buildings; the natural terrain converted over fine, but most of the building types did not; a handful of building types still appeared here and there, but my towns and installations have mostly vanished and there are vacant lots where they used to be. it looks like the road networks, power lines, and walls are mostly intact, most of the buildings and other objects like the iso containers are missing. i may try and reconstruct some of the map, but i wanted to check first if this is unexpected and not supposed to happen or likely that it comes with the territory that maps may not entirely convert over with the new system. to add: this map was created within the last few months with version 4.xx, it is not a matter with the buildings becoming obsolete and no longer used as some were going way back to ver. 2.xx, the buildings are still in use, the program doesn't recall them
  17. well I daresay your expectations, that is, what you are expecting players to do and how they should behave are "too high", yes, unrealistic. this is not only natural given the difference between you and the public but unavoidable. you are expert in the subject matter. most of the public is not. naturally you will observe the public doing things contrary to instinct. it may be frustrating to you, but as long,as you sell to the public, it ain't going away. an ex t-72 crew member may think that the fact that I never turn off delta d is against procedure. in this particular case i will argue the procedure is nearly irrelevant, given the short engagement distances t-72 should fight in or get killed anyway, I would rather eyeball distances and get the first shot off (which are usually accurate anyway with sabot in the breech anyway, delta d on or off), than mess with one extra input that might let an opponent get the first shot off: turning off delta d, which sounds in principle like a necessary procedure in practice never really solved any problems since leaving it in never was the cause of any disruptions. in your case though I repeat, herding cats is what you can expect if you want the general public to behave like in training, or in field manuals or in regulations that they were never exposed to, i'm sorry...
  18. i would not interpret public videos of players not using dynamic lead or laser range finders or first and last return as meaning much- you will probably always see the use and abuse of the program even if the system were even more automated than those things already are; that is just the way it will be, much in the same way bad information is asserted on the internet; when it comes to the public it is futile to try and quality control everyone, wasted effort. rather, I take the question of what is too complex to generally fit in the bucket of too many hot keys, keystrokes and behavior options to the point that I simply ignore them and the experience is none the worse even if they seem like a good idea. even in steel beasts version one I am fairly certain there were key combinations I never used or never bothered to commit to rote, and by now i am sure a few more have been added. if anyone has ever played panzer elite, that is a good example of overly squirrely user interface, at least the default key assignment at any rate. there are sume functions I've never used, for example, i never used the option to turn off delta d while using the t-72 range finding equipment, I never found that sort of control and precision necessary, but I don't see the point in removing it either, it doesn't interfere with anything even if not used, and other users might appreciate it. generally though I think I reached the limits of how many key assignments I reliably and comfortably use, notwithstanding the inclusion of new vehicles or vehicles I haven't bothered to learn yet
  19. fun toy- there is a second mount for a weapon on the passenger side. i couldn't figure out how to attach a weapon there, can it be done or is it just for show-
  20. of course it shouldn't do that, but i have seen it do this. it should be the same installation for you as it is for me, but i have seen what monkie describes
  21. it seems be an issue with some individual files and not others- for instance i noticed that the program appears to ignore the mods folder for all the new russian prototype vehicles, but mods i created for iraq and syria still work from the previous version (perhaps nations with camo variations from multiple time periods have this problem, i.e. us 1970s/1980s/1990s/2000 break the connection with the mod folder somehow)
  • Create New...