Jump to content

Captain_Colossus

Members
  • Content Count

    1,973
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Captain_Colossus

  1. increase the visible distance even before it gets to maximum will do it
  2. when you go to the website they are soliciting ideas. this is what i was getting at earlier. i do not wish this on anyone or anything like that, but you get this sense of what is going on. and that is what it is
  3. i do not think it would be worth the erffort. the early playable leopard 1 tanks have dimensions closest to the smaller russian tanks, but not the armor model, nor the ammo options, which of course you cannot change. with a little imagination, the df-30/df-90 and centauro piranha based vehicles look similar to some chinese wheeled ifvs and mobile assault guns; the non heavy armor versions of the m1/m1a1 probably look closest and may arguably perform closest to a chinese type 96 with some cosmetic changes, i do not think however anyone will have the skill to mold a playable nato tank to look like a russian t-90 or armata tank by messing with alpha channels- it works better for minor changes, extremely difficult to make a box turret look pan shaped with reactive kontakt armor attachments, say
  4. Version 1.0.0

    19 downloads

    M60A3 desert skin for Egyptian forces (ver. 4.161). Includes optional stowage file, which renders the Egyptian flag on ID panels, although Steel Beasts will sometimes display the panels at 45 degree angles. Place all files in your Egyptian mod folders. Note: the program will render conspicuous large blank white ID panels which look a bit out of place if you elect not to use the included stowage file.
  5. Version 1.0.0

    14 downloads

    M60A3 desert skin for USMC forces (ver. 4.161). Includes optional stowage file, which renders USMC divisional standards on ID panels, although Steel Beasts will sometimes display the panels at 45 degree angles. Also includes blank decals file, which prevents the program from rendering early US Army markings on the ID panels. Place all files in your desired US mod folders. Note: the program will render conspicuous large blank white ID panels which look a bit out of place if you elect not to use the included stowage file.
  6. notwithstanding the effects on tanks, it's the impotence against soft targets that is rather noticeable. just a couple days before this thread popped, without any exaggeration i tested a scenario where several rounds of enemy tube artillery landed two or three meters within civilians standing intermingled with my technicals out in the open not behind armor- and no effects on any of them after several rounds landed within the mix.
  7. not that i know enough to dispute that, but the card is NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080Ti, 11 GB . other than the sky turning colors, the scenes do not appear to be having issues at all. the scenes are rendered without stuttering, they are fluid. furthermore i have also seen it with just a flat water and no ground clutter and detail settings to factor into it
  8. unknown mechanism, very intermittent- seemingly randomly the sky will change to a monochrome color, this seems to occur when in the TC view only, panning around will may force the color disappear and reappear (as you can see from the inside of the T-72 tank commander's hatch), but it is always temporary and likely does not show up again for the rest of the session
  9. i have steel beasts with several sound mods running in a new install of windows 10 - no issues like you describe. having said that from a user standpoint and not a software developer, there is nothing that Windows 10 offers that I would have upgraded for were it not preinstalled on my new system, it seems like change for the sake of change in order to sell a new product which is basically microsoft' s scheme to collect as much as data as possible on customers. the file structures and user interface isn't an improvement, other than occasionally activating cortana by mistake, which I have no interest in using, it's just different rather than better. then I can guess what the next iteration of windows will be a similar sort of thing- repackaging a product that was more or less perfect from a user interface standpoint when they rolled out windows xp. every version since then was just charging more money for a 'better' newer version
  10. the map already has grid squares overlaid on- across the entire map. again, this is only to make the grid squares functional. how someone would use it is up to them- if they want to use it in select areas, that's fine. like i said in the beginning, the point is to make it scalable and user defined however they wish- say a 10 x 10 grid, or 5 x 5, or perhaps 3 grids, 1 that is 10 x 10, 2 that are 5 x 5. in my example above, this is just showing what it might look like. it's not a prescription. in this example i am using a larger grid to help visualize the key areas in relation to areas that may not be as relevant, using a large grid does not mean that all grid squares need be functional and have some behavior assigned to it, but it allows me to see things in relation to one another. so again, the map already inherently has a grid overlaid across the whole thing, there is nothing unnatural about this.
  11. i don't mind if people want to discuss the merits of alternatives to what i'm proposing, as long as what i am suggesting doesn't presume to be thrown out in the debate. the whole point of my grid is to plan the computer opponent's moves, which doesn't have the benefit of company grade or field grade officers making decisions in real time against a human who does- to reasonably orient the computer's forces to the map, to predict and to react to conditions in the future, and to refine those behaviors. it's not in itself a doctrine or a template: it's simply to orient those routes and any planned movements and behaviors. it can facilitate a detailed plan with contingencies or behaviors whether they are in the field manual or not (for example, i want to simulate a guerrilla unit failing a morale check, panicking and retreating to different areas). in sum, the grid allows the mission designer an easier way to visualize future events and plot more complex behaviors rather than sit in place die or move forward on only one or two routes through a kill zone like zombies. in a way there already is the map grid, it's just that the scenario logic does not recognize the inherent map grid squares for purposes of defining functional areas, nor are the grid squares resizable.
  12. if i understand your question, it still retains the waypoints and routes as the inherent system. it doesn't change anything from what already exists- you can create an area now and plot movements to or from that area, all it does is permit more areas to be drawn at the same time and overlaid wherever you like
  13. i have been scripting behavior for computer opponents using a area grid system- a grid overlay is created out of several rectangular areas, and then computer behavior and movements are plotted based on conditions of each individual area. for example, a tank platoon in area 5 will embark to area 7 if an enemy tank unit is detected in area 23. in theory this creates a reasonable system which allows a computer opponent to react to conditions anywhere on the map. it can be a bit tedious to create these grids by hand though- if this makes sense or seems like a good idea, i request a feature that the program can automatically create grids without having to size and place every individual square by hand this way (eg., a user defines the size of the grid, say, 8 X 8 50 m squares, or 10 x 10 1km square grids, and so on, and then the program generates the grid).
  14. the iraqi artillery is much less likely to be on call, it is pre-registered to hit assumed routes against an attacker attempting to negotiate the typical defensive setup of a minefield then a sand berm, perhaps another minefield, then the static positions behind that- it worked reasonably well against iran, in 1991 what little was available was very in accurate and sparse
  15. if they are modelling individual submarines intercepting individual merchant ships as it effects the campaign economically, it runs into problems with time and scale, much like games of civilization did: the early turns in the ancient period made more sense as it took a long time to travel by land or by sea or conduct warfare because of ancient technology. the later turns made no sense: given modern automobiles and airplanes, it could still take several turns and therefore several years to move one unit to attack an enemy a few tiles away; this would mean a civilization that completely outclasses another in technology would still take decades to annihilate another civilization still in the iron age for example, a very quick and violent resolution happening all in one turn not giving an opponent a chance to even recover and counter is where the game tended to break down both by its turn based approach at the same time the scale of being somewhere between operations and grand strategy, and so on. if they merge operations level with individual boats attacking and all the individual harbors and ports and so on, it looks like it runs into a similar problem, the details are too fine at that scale, too much information to get lost into, i would easily lose track of how the campaign was going or what the disposition generally looked like with too many details
  16. Version 1.0.0

    13 downloads

    File for the BTR-82 APC in 2015 Moscow victory day parade paint scheme.
  17. the tabletop version in my opinion was always more fun to play
  18. looks quite boring like the other mechwarrior games- always magic radars or what you see here pointing out targets behind mountains or buildings, well there's no hiding, therefore there are no ambushes, there's essentially no tactics other than these machines walking up to one another at close range with weapons turned on and circling each other until one explodes. repeat over and over again. the weaponry seems less capable or less efficient than contemporary weapons on earth, they just beam one another and hold the fire button down. missiles raining all over targets with no effect, they keep walking around. the pace of gameplay is too slow as an arcade action shootem up, too generic for a 'sim'
  19. it also had a much smaller hard drive footprint and much simpler file structure, easier and faster installation and you could conceivably buy a boxed gold version off the shelf. I don't regard these as intentional features but the natural consequence of a more primitive state in the technological and commerce state of things back then: the same advantages could correspond to any computer game in the 90s and 80s. I would say however that for a time sb1 had shadows and better fire and explosions than the earlier states of sb 2. presently however that no longer is the case. i could understand it if esim closed out in 2003 and you never heard of sb pro, there might be more reasons to keep sb1 around. I don't see the point now though, waste of time even to try and get it to run on modern hardware unless for some reason buying sb pro and/or more current hardware aren't possible
  20. the one advantage i can see with steel beasts 1 is that it could conceivably run on old hardware like an old laptop i bought in 2008 (i can also run the earliest version of steel beasts 2 on it with details dialed down); i don't regard laptops as ideal for entertainment, which is why i haven't upgraded to a newer laptop as long as my old laptop is still running. this doesn't mean that steel beasts 1 in itself is better in some category, rather the opposite- because it is more primitive i can run it on more primitive hardware, for the same reason folks who claim they can't or won't get a credit card or can't afford to upgrade may resort to settling on steel beasts 1 rather than being enthusiastic about compromising. it is doubtful that people are going to show as much interest as they might think in obsolete software in 2019 and going forward when it was a bit niche in 2000 when the public version was available- besides, why go back to something which has less features, when even back then we were pining for more features. steel beasts was good at its time but as many of you might recall we were always pestering for this or that in every area you can imagine. now that you got that and arguably more, it is difficult to conceive how current users of 4.0XX are going to go backwards for any significant investment of time. difficult to go back to a sedan you once you upgraded to the porsche, but that is the illusion of nostalgia: you never felt nostalgic about a thing back then when you had it, it always occurs later when life moved on
×
×
  • Create New...