Jump to content

Captain_Colossus

Members
  • Posts

    2,104
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Captain_Colossus

  1. odd proportions in that photo. that russian looks the size of a garden gnome
  2. from what i see in regiments and many other similar RTS games is there is a lot of resources put into the graphics so they look great up close from ground level- the problem is that RTS games are not playable at that scale. this is why you mostly see gameplay videos scaled out to a larger map view where the 3D models are represented as 2-D icons and the fighting happens at a distance; i think it is just a fact of reality that human being cannot coordinate that many units zoomed in up close to admire the graphics while actually playing the game. the graphics are an improvement over the first type of RTS games such as dune and command and conquer represented- but the gameplay is still going to be much the same and detailed views at the ground level of the units fighting and interacting with the environment simply doesn't allow the player to play the game at the same time, the irony is the graphics have improved, but it's not practical to admire them if you actually desire to play the game. the first combat mission's we go turn based system at least allowed the player up close views because the results of the way they system resolved combat could be replayed like a movie- which was inherent to the gameplay that turns were cut into time slices rather than a game engine continuously running
  3. on the money. ka-ching.🤑 insofar as the AI path-finding and map creation tools are concerned, in a sense those sorts of challenges will improvise creative solutions, which in themselves may show in surprisingly beneficial results - much in the same way 1970s film technology forced george lucas to improvise star wars props, costumes and this sort of thing- and it worked, the practical effects in my view were actually superior than the perfect, sterile computer animations and costumes of the later films
  4. i've seen it happen in soviet bloc equipment where the TC may ride up out of the hatch for the entire duration of the scenario, assuming the vehicle doesn't come under fire or approach a tree canopy, forcing the TC back down; i think this tends to occur when the vehicle is not under direct player control and the TC has finished engaging with the heavy machine gun, and for some reason doesn't enter into reload cycle- thereby riding out of the hatch, and in this state the vehicle can be moved around as much as you like and he stays up
  5. i tried to PM Sean, but it is the same issue, the message never is sent. this message is from my phone, I tried switching browsers and turning off Kaspersky, which have no effect.
  6. interesting to return to this topic - has the t-72 worn off on players or is it a fan favorite; i see in the shared videos at least the T-72 appears quite often although i still play with it, ironically i prefer the primitive t-62/t-55 my favorite modern tank is the M1A1 heavy armor, outside of that, i spend most time in vehicles which have a lower chance of survival and where hitting targets comes with more drama of misses and near hits- centurion, M11A1 family, HMMWV, the BTR-50, BTR-60/70, BMP-2, T-62/T-65 and the recoilless 'jeep' technical. jonesing for a PT-76 and M47/48 as well...
  7. well it happens most time i attempt to post anything. for example, right now i have attempted to respond in another thread, but my message seems to be frozen in a permanent waiting state and never actually arrives. in his particular case i had to refresh my browser and wrangle with it a bit to get it to post
  8. i do not know if it is related to changes in the forum software, but i usually cannot start topics, post screenshots, embed videos in threads, and it is rather difficult to respond in existing threads; usually i get an unknown error code when i attempt to do anything of this sort after a long delay of submitting a forum message
  9. for some reason i cannot upload screen shots or files with my account, nor is starting new topics or even responding in existing threads guaranteed, in most cases there is a time out error when i try ( unknown error code 200). however this issue is easily reproduced in a mission. the decals for the 2S9 self propelled gun are displayed as cold spots or black rectangles in the thermal channel, which seem to correspond to the decal locations
  10. "The Lost Strait" 2018 Iranian film https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iO7QnovVq0
  11. i have seen this delayed death happen repeatedly, but i cannot predict when it happens or demonstrate it. my guess is that infantry heavy scenarios seem more likely to demonstrate what is going on - either the large presence of infantry is the trigger, or there is something going on where the chances of it occurring are increased because there are large numbers of infantry; in either case, it seems impossible for a user to predict and simply create a test scenario to demonstrate it or else one of your programmers may need to actually stumble onto it. however, i just downloaded several user submitted scenarios in order to rule out what might be going on, and it seems more likely to occur with one of apocalypse 31's afghanistan missions due to the large enemy infantry groups. out of six times running this scenario, i observed the effect twice while killing enemy infantry teams north of the airfield; with high zoom piranha crows 50 cal. sights shooting them, there is no mistaking when it happens
  12. on the other hand, the russians often exaggerate their own capabilities, or they may hype some otherwise insignificant event. they have been playing this game of spooking the west into committing resources into programs to counter whatever it is they are doing for decades, while in reality what they have is questionable. if some new era were suddenly unlocked, why would it be starting in russia (which is why i am skeptical of the possibility that the ufo sightings may be the result of unheard of technology originating in russian or china, but not say the usa)? the russians are a strange case because this is nuclear power with fairly modern technological achievements, but not cutting edge; apparently there are large parts of the country that are barely above third world standards of living. the economy and GDP is still comparable with mexico or something like this. insofar as our lives being disrupted in general, i'm not sure if it will look like a last stand versus the machines scenario; this isn't to say that we won't replace ourselves with machines (which after all we have been doing already for decades with computers and automation changing whole industries, replacing men's labor, and so on), but the way it happens doesn't necessarily have to be that kind of situation. much the same way the industrial revolution destroyed the cottage industry that it replaced, there was no massive war which decided it in that way (and when there was, it tended to be human civilizations wiping out others with technology, rather than man vs. autonomous machines), simply, people and industries became obsolete and were either replaced or died off without shots fired except in those cases where laid off workers went postal. the war against the machines isn't explicit forms of violence like that, it's already baked into the natural flow. in a similar way, look how man replicates reality over the eons and what was happening. from early humans drawing pictures on cave walls, then painting more lifelike images on canvas, them developing the technology to capture black and white images, then the black and white images became moving black and white images, then sound was added to the black and white images, then color was added, then 3-D effects were added although you had to wear special glasses to get the effect, then the moving images could be replicated at home in a small box, then the images would eventually become holograms, or virtual experiences on computers- so you if you follow this, it has been underway from the very beginning. 'replicating reality' was already implied in the whole thing ever since DNA was being replicated from the very beginning- it all evolved. it was already underway like this. when people proposed a philosophical question whether we were living in a simulation, you could argue it either way, and that you wouldn't know if it you were- it would be the default situation already, it would just be a matter of defining our terms. it doesn't necessarily have to be a simulation as in a computer game with some overseer manipulating the controls as we might draw analogy, but rather that life already inherently replicates itself and evolves naturally that way. people often talk about multiverses and infinitely many universes, say, there was another universe where 2+ 2 = 95. even if you found yourself in 'that' universe as opposed to 'this' universe', you would not perceive it that way. all universes you would find yourself in would still be perceived as 'this' universe as you are now; you do not say to yourself you are right now in 'that other strange universe' where 2 + 2 = 4, as far as you know, this is the 'correct' universe; there would be no reason to be believe that any possible universe you found yourself in would feel different, they would all feel as though you are in 'this' universe. in short, all universes are 'this' one. so if we were living in a simulation already, that is this, real situation.
  13. in the iran-iraq war, iranian m60s and chieftain tanks were lost to iraqi t-72 and t-62 tanks; the results should not be too surprising given that the t-72 was designed to fight contemporaries of the m60 generation, and assuming the 105 mm ammunition the iranians had were left over from mid 1970s stocks at best from the shah era, you even see the expected results if you match them up in steel beasts without depleted uranium APFSDS rounds given to the M60s. the m60s with older ammunition have difficulty against the t-72 at any range, and given that the iraqis are also presumed to use older ammunition from the 1960s, a fight may tend to be prolonged with the t-72 likely having a better chance to win with shot placement if it comes down to trading shots frontally. historically in the war there were other factors- particular local iraqi commanders could show some capability on the battlefield, while the iraqi military in general was hamstrung from the top down because it tended to operate directly from orders given by saddam hussein and its inflexible military culture, while on the other hand, after the purges during the islamic revolution, the iranians still did pick some innovative commanders, albeit ones which were politically reliable. the end result of all of this were two sides which were balanced out because their differences in weakness and strengths nullified either side's initiatives
  14. well, it may just be the ballistic computer, but in this bug, once that happens, they point their guns at the sky and they become nothing more than targets- they will not use the GAS until the damage is repaired. this is what it looks like - if there was a target 100 m direct front, they are going to shoot up at the sky, and they drive around the map with their guns pointed at the air
  15. tanks. it is a custom map in progress simulating the iran-iraq war. i have been experimenting with a relatively quick technique to create a iraqi persian gulf theme map with a mix of urbanized terrain while keeping frame rates reasonable
  16. 1. that isn't a solution. i want to damage the ballistic computer as a deliberate part of the scenario design - and besides, even if i didn't want to do that, suppose the ballistic computer were damaged in the scenario by taking a hit- then the behavior would appear. the whole point of this bug reporting is that the computer won't use the GAS sight once the ballistic computer is gone- the player can, as i said- the player can manually override the behavior from the gunner's position, but if the player is in the commander's position, or in the F8 observer position, or if it is any other m60 under the computer control, then you have a problem where they cannot fire at any target, they will drive around with their guns pointed at the sky. this is a bug. there is no mistake here. if you haven't seen what this doing give it a try to see what i mean- all the m60s will drive around the map with their guns pointing in the air shooting at the sky, the computer will not use the GAS to sight targets 2. that isn't the point that i am making- the point is to degrade the digital ballistic computer to both simulate more primitive equipment and equipment with poorer crews/maintenance schedules spare parts, etc, (these are supposed to be iranian m60a1s during the iran-iraq war, which didn't always fare so well and were known to get spanked by iraqi t-62s or t-72s
  17. to add: ammunition type seems unaffected, the screenshot shows the computer selecting HEP to fire at a bmp target, but the same behavior would occur if the computer selected APFSDS against a tank
  18. the m60 appears to have a bug if some combination of the ballistic computer and rangefinder are removed and tries to acquire targets- the gun will raise to full elevation and fire into the sky; if the damage is repaired and the m60 can acquire a target by means of a computer generated solution, then behavior will correct and return to normal, in other words, the crew cannot seem to manually estimate range and will default to shooting into the open sky; the m60 in this state will maneuver and follow orders with its gun raised to full elevation if the player does not manually intervene from the gunner's position, the computer cannot seem to lower the gun otherwise until the damage is repaired. context: i wanted to approximate an earlier m60A1 without ballistic computer, by some combination of damaging the GPS/LRF/ballistic computer, the behavior appears. i do not believe any other tank is affected.
  19. my own suggestion is to create the kinds of scenario you want to play, if you think it's upload worthy to withstand playtests from the public, go ahead and do it, but it is basically a brute fact that feedback is going to be spare. feedback of the kind that explain why there are bugs in the scenario- broken triggers, missing or errant behaviors and this sort of thing are the most important; the other kind that are generally philosophically at odds with the scope or the composition of the scenario, well, i rate that much lower. i personally am bored with the massive armor mashups in europe scenarios, even if someone set one up with the correct TOE, and behaves like a doctinally correct script, still might be the most boring scenario on earth for precisely that reason once you see it over and over. people's interests in a certain theatre or conflict may wane and come back again- my own interest changes back and forth between conventional, unconventional or modern or cold war era, you just will not appease everyone for kudos, i wouldn't necessarily try to do that anyway. do you want to do, and the audience which agrees with you will naturally find its way to what you are doing- just like steel beasts itself versus the world of tank audience or arma 3 or combat mission or what have you
  20. i am working on a custom map simulating a section of basra province during the iran-iraq war in 1982; i have planned four scenarios to go with it, 2 from each side, one of which includes the player using a single recoilless gun jeep coordinating with iranian infantry to reduce an enemy strongpoint; if the player's alter ego is destroyed in the game, the match ends immediately, the player will not have the currency to simply jump to the next unit; i hope this is an atypical scenario in terms of scope and type to be fresh, it was also an excuse to use this particular vehicle in a scenario because it is obviously bringing different skills and challenges than using armored fighting vehicles; finally, i like the idea of giving the sense that if the player's vehicle is killed, there is no jumping to the next unit, self preservation is just as much the mission as the explicit victory goals. the map however is going to take time to create, the main obstacle for easy scenario creation is the map design tools; it is possible to create detailed, interesting maps, but the creation process itself is cumbersome and time consuming
×
×
  • Create New...