Jump to content

Captain_Colossus

Members
  • Content Count

    1,818
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Captain_Colossus

  1. flying insects and flying birds randomly dispersed about - volume set in the theme editor bird flocks set as units which can be scripted to scatter when disturbed or specified conditions in the mission editor effects of wind and moving vehicles on flora, trees, bushes, grasses swaying aside or flattened
  2. request a distance script in the mission editor eg., this unit surrenders if this unit can see at least x enemy forces within 50 meters (100 meters, 500 meters, etc) currently there is no practical way to script a unit to behave in this way based on what it sees or doesn't see within a certain distance, only if it can see opponents or friendly units anywhere or in a specified zone- so it's difficult to script a certain behavior based on finer scales rather than broad regions
  3. yes. crews teleport to each other's positions instantly, which means that vehicles can recover quickly from serious hits and continue to fight. this would mean a tank like a t-55 has an advantage over a t-72 by virtue of having more crew members which can instantly move to the gunner's pos to resume fighting- the effect is as if the gunner wasn't knocked out at all
  4. the t-62 is generally better than the t-55, the problem is notwithstanding the t-55 ammunition improvements by the time the t-62 was delivered, the differences are small for the additional cost per unit, the t-62 has a slight increase in armor protection (however you will also find that later t-62 115 ammunition is superior to early 125 mm ammunition, so a t-62 could hit harder than a t-72 depending on ammo type ). on the other hand, when i've used the sho't kal tank, i've always found the t-62 to be a tougher opponent than the t-55 by a noticeable margin. the personal case in this one scenario i was talking about was a statistical freak. more often than not the t-55 tanks blow up sooner than the t-62s, this was truly one of the worst instances of bad luck i've ever had.
  5. i take it now you're going to follow me around the forum and act like a 12 year old. that's your thing, that's what you want to do. reset assured i don't make up stories. i didn't always save an AAR on the chance i was thinking about grenny in order to prove to him one of my play sessions was bad luck. really think how absurd that would be.
  6. attached is the .dds file with alpha layer. if you use a different program than GIMP, the alpha information may or may not export- i have attached a screenshot in any case so you can see what it would look like challenger2desertized_edited.dds
  7. you wouldn't believe it anyway- remember those links i showed you? it's not my mission in life to waste time making up stuff like that.
  8. random, but sensibly random. if for example shooting tank in the track had the same random chance of a catastrophic detonation as hitting the ammo magazine, then you would sense there is something off. the other night i was testing a scenario of a company sized engagement of t-62s vs t-55s, and it was as if i was caught in the twilight zone. it was as if i ended up by random chance in some strange part of the universe which shouldn't exist. i am not exaggerating when i say it was just one of those things were it was so absurd that i almost could sense how it was going to turn out. one by one my t-62s were getting picked off and destroyed by single hits from the t-55's, on the other hand, nothing could kill the t-55s. repeated and multiple hits from all aspects, multiple hits on the sides of vehicles, we did not destroy a single t-55, literally all i heard was: "target. re-engage. target. re-engage. target re-engage." at the same time: "we've lost a tank. we've lost another tank..." the AAR confirmed that virtually all of my T-62s were being killed from single hits and not a single t-55 was killed no matter where hit. in some cases the t-55s were damaged, but the coop de gracey just wasn't coming up. i finally got down to my last t-62, i managed to turn the flank on a t-55 at about 500 meters, lined up a shot right into the side, "target. re-engage." then i just knew how it was going to turn out: i was going to get off one more shot, but i would be deprived the satisfaction of at least one kill before the scenario ended. and that's what happened. after reloading, i put another round into the side of the t-55. target. re-engage. then the t-55 picked up my location, turned to face me head on. i saw the gun turn towards me, and i could sense after all the injustice of not being able to kill a single t-55 it was going to rub my face in it and kill me with a single shot. that's exactly what happened, i would have bet on it and i would have won. that was like one of those days at the craps table or something- you're not going to win. i remember other times where i need to call a coin and after flipping ten times it always went against. me. you'll get 'absurd' runs like that from time to time...
  9. sure. i can do that around 0500 zulu, unless someone else gets to it first
  10. it is the opposite of color information- you are making the texture transparent. i use the freeware paint program GIMP to do it- simply a matter of opening the file, applying the eraser tool at 100 percent strength to the parts to make them transparent.
  11. another thing is the insensitivity or over sensitivity when placing and orienting the direction of objects- often the system won't detect the user is trying to grab one type of object placed next to another- e.g., if a wall is placed closed to building, the map editor seems to give priority to the building to grab rather than the wall to select and change shape, manipulate, re-arrange and so forth. on the other hand, when doing something like manipulating a wall- say moving it a few meters, sometimes the system 'reads' a different intent into and will collapse or expand or spin the wall or do something other than what the user is attempting- a lot of time can be spent when trying to refine the placement shape or movement of objects because the user is fighting the interface, or at least that is what i've experienced. the map editor generally is still similar to the steel beasts ver. 1.xx era when there were only two building types, two or three tree types, a bush, one road, one water and a handful of terrain tile types. map creation was relatively fast at the time for that reason- it is because some many more objects have been added to the editor where the possible options to create much more detailed maps has exceeded the tool. i agree that this is an area that could use a more sophisticated approach to facilitate the user's intentions for the main reason that one of the biggest points about steel beasts is its open sandbox style of scenario and map generation at its core. i don't know if this means some of more powerful CAD like creation tools, but this area if improved would be a great boon for the consumer market (i have no idea what the mil customers are up to and what their priorities are though)
  12. there is something odd- or off. you know this without someone telling you that
  13. you certainly do ignore links i've been posting, which aren't my wild speculations, these are data points which can be crossed references i suppose that is the real reason you're out- you can't refute them. i'd rather you stay, but it's up to you
  14. well do you raise a point, and i agree that social media has been exacerbating things. but it can studied for certain cues and trends (which is afterall why facebook collects analytics for marketing purposes and so on) but because social media contributes and compounds problems doesn't mean it's not happening.
  15. not a speculation, so i thought i would presume you knew this, apparently 1) you either don't know this (ignorance can be excused) 2) or you do and for some reason you are doubling down on the 'lie' that overwhelmingly more men than women are victims in workplace accidents (which is not excusable if you do it deliberately- and it doesn't stop there- more men are victims of violent crime, more men die by suicide, more men are homeless, and so on and so forth). so it's not a speculation- you can look this up yourself, it's rather easy https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/how-come-nobody-talks-about-the-gender-workplace-death-gap/ are you going to deny it? if you don't like the source or consider it biased, there are plenty others confirming the same thing
  16. grenny i show you an article refuting the gender bias in STEM, that women willfully don't go into it. their gender does behave in specific ways and it's not this narrative that it's only because they are being oppressed. you're doing that thing that most guys are doing these days, it's not unusual. in my experience, this is very common. it's the 'im with her', for the same reason i've met more males who would likely pull over to help a stranded female than a stranded male motorist. men display a preference for women rather than men of their own gender. again i refer you to the articles i've explained previously. men simply do not like other men and women do not like men all that much each other, unless it's the top percenters like in the pareto distribution this is how the modern gender dynamic works in general: the game is rigged. you have been likely raised, and it's not unusual at all, to basically have a feminine primary mindset. anything counter to that is utterly alien. the game is this: the females have always been the lagging indicator. men have always throughout history been the more industrious the more inventive, the more whatever- the females less so. generally the females got the benefit of the males who went out hunting, building, and so on and so forth. in modern times, this has changed, which initself not a problem except for the way the men are unwittingly duped themselves into playing the female game, which is this- very similar to when you were kids and teachers and parents or whatever told you to give girls a head start or let them win or give them a chance to win and handicap yourselves. i went through it, i know a lot of guys who did, but this isn't stopping. in the name of 'equality' which is anything but about equality, it's more of a rigged game where even if the females are to participate in society with the so called gender barriers removed, it's still never enough and the game is rigged so that females 'win' - and you see the pareto principle exploading, as men have made themselves obsolete except for the very cream of the crop
  17. question, grenny: i'm sure i don't need to post statistics for you to agree that across the board: that given the overwhelming majority of workplace accidents and deaths are overwhelmingly men (not even including combat casualties- in other words, the average civilian casualty), do you think that it if it were turned around, and it was happening to women on a much larger scale, and men much less, there would be different response, and there would be immediate reaction to save women from this obvious sexist imbalance?
  18. yes, if they wanted a protected space. that would be equality, right? if you asking this question sarcastically or rhetorically, it seems to show you don't believe in equality for men, confirming that men tend to not have an own gender bias the way women do. They should have a try at it, sure. Any idea how many women fight to get a job cleaning sewers in the name of equality? What about other 'undesirable male occupations you virtually never see women in- and you know what i'm taking about. and i'm not talking about immigrated women from abroad to clean hotel bathrooms or pick fruit and vegetables. the funny thing is this- in sweden, probably the country most likely to be egalitarian, you're not seeing women actually pursue STEM careers in huge amounts. not because they are being prevented, it's because they simply don't want to; in western cultures, the more gender equality, the less women are participating in STEM: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/
  19. outliers are precisely that- there is a tendency however where people do this thing, they commit to this mistake: i say that rich people don't live in the ghetto. the reply is this: well i know of such and such whozat who is rich and lives in the ghetto. what they are doing is taking the outlier and negating all the rest of the data. in other words, the rare exception to the rule disproves the entire rule, therefore nothing can be said at all. so if we presume a reasonable 85 percent of all rich people don't live in the ghetto and 15 percent of rich people live in the ghetto (and i could be making a rather generous concession here to my opponents), it always happens- someone and comes along and says all the data that says that rich people don't live in the ghetto except for a few make the remark you cannot generalize. of course you can generalize, the world works on generalizations. in general, it is the dutch who have the tallest population, that is an accepted generalization. it's not really disputed because it's not controversial. but it is a generalization. a few years ago an interesting thing happened: a dating site called okcupid released analytics to the public, interesting what its data points were revealing. it showed that females really didn't believe in equality in terms of which gender should ask which gender out- even females who self identified as feminists reverted to the traditional arrangement that men should make the approach. equality indeed. in fact this tends to correlate with what most men experience from women generally- even women who believe in equality, only do so when it is to their advantage, but revert to 'traditional' gender discrimination when it doesn't. i.e., men should be the ones to pay for dates, take the risks of rejection and so on. this is very similar to how women don't tend to fight for equality in low status jobs, only for executive positions. in other words you will still see the majority of males working on offshore oil rigs, mining or other dangerous work, while women complain of the wage gap when it concerns higher paid or higher status positions. then it gets even more interesting: then okcupid compiled data on message and reply rate, and other ratings, because they tracked that stuff, fairly predictably men tended to rate women according to a curve, most women occupied the middle, and then there were the outliers on either extreme. women did not view men the same way. rather, women's preference rather strikingly followed the pareto principle, that is, the 80/20 rule. meaning most women regarding most men as unnattractive, save for very few. you have to understand this would even indicate that even unattractive women still regarded most men as rather unfit. this site compiled all the data into easy to understand graphs. but as you can see the sexes clearly view each other differently according to their most basic relationship to one another- attracting and mating. assuming okcupid's data is correct, men and women do not view each other the same. men tend to view women in a more favorable light. and this squares with the other articles i posted above: https://blogs.sas.com/content/sastraining/2014/10/16/how-do-men-rate-women-on-dating-websites-part-2/#prettyPhoto
  20. i've laid out a general roadmap. so you know where i come from. no confusion. i';ve provided links to articles as i said i would. ask a question, then i'll ask a question. go- ask me a question.
  21. i want men to see the following video this shows the essential difference i think most men are conditioned to operate and think about women: women are mothers, teachers, disney princesses, or essentially like one of the guys, except cuter and more benign. they are incapable of pulling a man's chain with a straight face, correct? if anything, men are the most caught off guard when it does happen, because men do not default to any sort of vetting of women. just the same way women always maintain some suspicion over men they don't know, it's not normal for most men to do the same thing to the same degree. this happless guy here is clearly projecting his own traits on to the woman. just like him, she means what she says and says what she means. because women are the same as men. no woman thinks differently. i'll tell you men now, female brains are often times more suited for reading subtle behavior cues in men rather than the other way around. men tend to see what's right in front of them- attractive, young, pretty, reminds them of mom or a sister or harmless. women, on the other hand, being a different gender, don't view men in the same light. the female perspective of men is different, as it always has been. men, conditioned to be nice and around women and to think of them as the same sort of player running a straight game often times project their own psychology onto females.
  22. didn't work huh? well there must be something wrong with your data, because females are no different than males. i would think most of us in our formative years went through that period where girls were yucky and had cooties, they had no use, couldn't throw a ball as good or whatever. must have all been an illusion. well what happens is over time as your hormones kick in, you start viewing them differently, those romantic and protective feelings kick in and you begin to see this situation in a different light. on top of that society manipulates you into going too far with the idea that they are motivated and behave the same way as you do. without even looking at nick moran's video, i am going to predict you won't see any apparent female viewers making comments and getting interested in the subject matter. what you will see however are men making comments about the woman. this dynamic is rather in plain sight, but some guys have blinders on. or it's like that movie they live where they can't see the reptilian aliens that exist under the facade i am exiting this thread and i opened a new topic:
  23. related to the video thread, grenny and whoever else would like to participate: am i sexist? yes. i am a man. the irony is that the females are also sexist, and they know they are- it's generally the males you will find who have these egalitarian notions, often programmed into them by modern society to believe that way. men tend to be by nature much more direct, they mean what they say and say what they mean, and for that reason they tend to project onto women the same sorts of traits and characteristics, as if they were men. women generally are not egalitarian, and they never were- the reason is deep in their biological programming they couldn't afford to not be sexist. as the selectors (the barriers to reproduction), females throughout history had to be careful as to which males may have impregnated them, or what males they shacked up with because those are very risky choices for a female to make- the riskiest imaginable. imagine for thousands and thousands of years in primitive societies, a weak man was dangerous to a woman. that means a weak man could not potentially provide for and take care of women against threats (other men, animals, hunger, the elements, and so on). men on the other hand did not face the threat of physically dangerous or weak women who couldn't provide for them, because women weren't as dangerous to men as men were to women in the same sense. the women were a different kind of liability (men needed to share resources with women, protect women when they were pregnant, because there is no more helpless state than the state of pregnancy, raise offspring- in a slowly maturing species such as ours, significant energy and resources must be invested in offspring to be given a chance) imagine these were the general conditions for at least 100- 200 thousand years of human development (the rough time frame scientists agree on for modern hominids). this is how our mental firmware evolved. men evolved as the hunters and providers, women, back in the cave or back in the settlement, evolved under different selection pressures. men had to have each other's backs during the hunt, trust one another to form alliances against other hostile tribes, and so on. again, women's concerns primarily was whether their men were weak, could not provide, could not protect, and whether their children would make it. therefore, male and female bodies, including their brains evolved differently. hence, when you look at men's bodies, they look much more suited for labor, battle, and work. women's bodies when looked at are best suited for bearing children- wide hips allowed for easy birthing, certain physical appendages for nursing, and so on. of course, you'll always get someone who comes along and says, "but i know a 7 ft. tall woman who plays basketball in the WNBA," or they give outliers such as the odd female scientist. so for every female marie curie, there is this tendency to use that as a complete counterweight to the hundreds or thousands of male scientists, as if the two as genders were contributing the same amount in the particular field. never fails. the irony is this- in western society, as females have gained more and more social parity, they have begun to actually surpass men, particularly their enrollment in post secondary education, or graduate study while men are falling behind. overwhelmingly, even as women outnumber men in higher education, few women still go into STEM fields- it was predicted that as barriers were lifted, it would be the opposite- more women would be going into STEM related fields. in the west, this is not happening, where this is actually happening is in more conservative countries in the middle east, where women are going into more STEM related fields- the likely answer it to break free of severe social restrictions placed on them in those societies, but in western cultures where females don't have such restrictions, they actually are avoiding STEM and you're not seeing this happen- because the females don't need to out of necessity. so what happened? in first world post industrial societies, where conditions that used to finish people off fairly early have been increasingly mitigated, you're seeing unintended consequences of it- mainly a pronounced gender war coming on. why would this happen? because the conditions that women used to require men for or they wouldn't survive has been taken care of a lot more by society. in other words, women don't need to find husbands to survive, they don't need a man's surplus resources, because they can get those things themselves through the state, or easy office jobs take care of the rent. and with modern medicine and food production, the basic problems are taken care of. quite frankly there is a surplus of average men who no more supply the women with resources than what the women can supply themselves. so evolution is naturally taking care of it- over the last century, society has been undergoing a female supremacy movement which is rather in plain sight. the female brain circuitry is still fundamentally the same as it always was over the eons- find men of means and resources, however, the last few centuries of modern civilization have changed the conditions, but the behavior is still the same. in other words, it was always in females to vet males for weakness and vulnerability (rather than as egalitarian entities), that is still there- basic survival and female instincts essentially are unchanged as they were in prehistoric times, however the conditions of society have changed, one where there is a perceived surplus of men, where the balance of power between the genders has shifted over to the females. the females still generally behave like females as they always have, that is, acquire resources and means from men. you don't see a very high number of female entrepreneurs starting their own companies just the same way they never were the ones to build early settlements or hunt game for food. they were doing their gender roles, which were different- cooking and raising children and so forth. sexist? you bet. but it is what it is, because the genders are in fact different. it's only in modern times where we started this nonsense that they are the same, when you even know intuitively that they are different, but nevertheless you operate on a this manufactured conceit that they are the same. here is the thing, it was likely a survival tactic of women to operate and maneuver together within social hierarchies which placed a premium on female rather than male survival if you had to pick one or the other (a single man is much more disposable, and not as great a loss as a single woman, who can reproduce- so the loss of a woman is a greater liability) ; individually a woman was rather weak, collectively they are much stronger to bargain their power, and men, largely i think ignorant as to this gender dynamic going on, have been over time steadily bargaining their power away increasingly away to women. again, women are sexist, but they are the ones to convince you that they aren't and only men are. but their behavior shows otherwise https://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2004/041213.Goodwin.gender.html https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274 there are more articles out there if you aren't convinced, but i don't really think you even need to do a whole lot of research to see what is in plain sight. women tend to show a much more automatic and innate preference for women than they do men. and they do this openly. it is the men you will find who tend to do this thing: "you women are right. women can kick men's asses and then some. only sexist jerks think that the genders are different. not me" - basically men, as i stated earlier, try to solve the problem of reproduction by joining the women's team as a strategy to win approval from them and order to get in with their good graces. and we know why that is. men tend to see men as competitors as access to female approval, ultimately to pass on their own genes and eliminate their competitors. men's brains associated with tool use activated when attracted to women (solving the 'problem' of reproduction) https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2009/02/bikinis-women-men-objects-science/ again, there are plenty more articles where that came from, but you understand why it happens when you understand the fundamental differences between the sexes, how each gender perceives the other, as well as the mating opportunities for both. ultimately, when men are playing the game by women's rules, by believing women and men to be essentially the same, even when brain scans show them to be different, men are attempting to solve the problem of reproduction by 'joining the women's team,' so to speak, in order to get access to their approval. women on the other hand do not perceive men in the same way. they see men as success symbols primarily, and they see the as instruments to get something out of (money, attention, career opportunity, strong genetic donor) so whether you know it or not, by doing that virtue signal thing we do as men, i..e., accept women as the same or better than us (how many men do you hear refer to their wives as their better half), the men are basically subconsciously or as a programmed response attempting to play the mating game by a female primary order, that is, by the female's rules. you don't see women describe themselves in relation to men the same way, for reasons i've explained above- automatic female ingroup preference. only men tend to exhibit this trait. if both men and women are saying that women are as industrious and productive as men, then that is a flattering image of women, it is a rigged game at that. in this game, increasingly men are deliberately handicapping themselves and yielding to women, and the women are taking advantage of it- why wouldn't they? if you as a woman are given advantages because of an automatic preference for women even against the facts, why would you not take it?
  24. i've made my point clear. when someone asks where are the girls they aren't meeting (because of similar interests in tanks)? i'm saying that you will likely never find that, because females aren't the same and don't have the same interests. the irony is this- you knew this already growing up as a young lad. remember when you were young, you knew with your pals that the girls were different- and it showed, it was right in plain sight. they had different interests. they weren't playing in the dirt with army men and tanks and whatnot, they were doing their own thing. over time, a gradual programming starts to set in. one that convinces you that they are the same as you, if not better. as your own adult mind develops, this has far reaching implications. take your own case, which is not unusual, because it's happening everywhere (multiply grenny millions and millions of times for every other western citizen raised in a similar way, and you get society as you do now on a large scale). clearly i've made this plain, and the reason i bring this up is to disabuse men of this programming- IF they want to see it. i have found, strangely that many don't. they really hold onto their illusions and use every manner of conceit to justify this absurd notion. pm, please
×
×
  • Create New...