Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Captain_Colossus

  1. 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
  2. "The Lost Strait" 2018 Iranian film https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iO7QnovVq0
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. no idea what specifically you mean about 4chan and microsoft, but it does illustrate a point i make; i am not saying the existence of a neural network is proof of 'success' or proof of some technological singularity we are on the threshold of obtaining, nor is it the point where some kind of engineering perfection is achieved; far from it; there is a tendency to go the other direction and discount certain evidence because it's not 'perfect' nor even remotely so, therefore throw the whole idea out. that's not even what life is: we don't discount the existence of life because there is the existence of say defects in life, cancer, and so on- life implies cancer, life implies entropy and decay. those things don't disprove the existence of life, they imply its existence. the same cellular division and reproduction which supports and spreads life is the same process which causes cancer; the same processes which bring life into existence are the same forces which test organisms in their very survival; that people can turn a forum into a gutter of trash talking doesn't in itself disprove what i mean by neural networks, in my opinion for that very thing- certain elements of the culture, the network or the culture, do not want to get along with one another and present problems to sort out. and that is the whole red queen hypothesis in a nutshell- an evolutionary theory that problems are never solved. it is as if we are all on a treadmill which never stops, we never reach the finish line in a race, because it always remains out of reach- you solve one set of problems, it isn't long before more are in front of you and the finish line remains ever out of reach. this would explain why the species no longer lives in caves or trees, or the twelfth century or in the 1950s or when the first solid state devices were being introduced. it all keeps going because there always seems to be a new problem which gets in the way, which we perceive needs being fixed. despite our efforts the carrot remains out of reach, but in the process we evolve trying anyway. that machines are trained by humans is my very point- they are not altogether distinct from humans, they are an extension of them, much like the way a wave comes out of the sea, both distinct from, and yet part of the sea, man's technology is an expression of himself as you know. i don't predict the future, but in time the distinction may become more difficult to discern assuming the species continues to co-evolve with its own technology. this isn't to say of course we're at the stage of perfection nor not necessarily anywhere near that, rather it's a process that always is ongoing and which was already happening from beginning- the exchange of DNA into replication is at its core and exchange of information which goes into successive generations and which keeps going. what i am explaining is that organic machine and non-organic machine are becoming fused together, they already are. this doesn't mean that tomorrow the species will be human cyborgs, i cannot predict when somehow technology and humans merge to make the distinction impossible to discern, but i see evidence of it underway. just like powered flight didn't come already prepackaged but with trial and error but is advancing, there is of evidence now in the way programming is not as much as a separate career field like it once was; even young children are taught and exposed to some form of coding, which certainly was going on a lot less in my generation than what is becoming de riguer in post industrial societies; in other words, it's all evolving again, and there is no way that will not have an impact on where we are going
  14. well certainly it looks as though all organisms are contained in this neural network. the organism takes in information from its environment, at the same time, the environment takes information in from the individual organism; this is why the relationship between the individual and its environment is a transaction rather than mere interaction- there is an exchange of information going on all the time. a tall individual for example would not know that he is tall without some information from the environment to confirm this- for example, being in the presence of shorter people, who are confirmed to be short when in the presence of someone tall. if you apply this to everything that we might conceive, it is a connected system, we are each of us like an individual neuron in a larger brain, and so we evolve as information spreads, and you hear the word 'go viral' and this sort of thing. disruptive and innovative technologies that have developed rapidly over the last century has put us in a peculiar position of augmenting this neural network in ways that the species really had no precedent to adapt to so quickly- so things like the internet which connects everyone globally to this large system on such a scale that prior stages of humanity and animal evolution had never experienced before came with advantages, but there also came problems, which we are forced to work out on the fly without much history to go on as a guide
  15. we are trying to teach machines to think in a few years- which is evolved behavior in human beings over hundreds of thousands of years in the species (millions or billions of years of vertebrate animals) of trial and error culling out unsuccessful behaviors from successful behaviors- as you can imagine, this won't be done overnight. in fact i think to some degree in order to accomplish this, the organic machine, that is to say, human beings have to combine with machine (and in a sense that is what is happening just by virtue of teaching machine behavior) in order to bring machines even remotely into bounds of what we would consider thinking behaviors. at the same time i really do marvel at what is going on in over a few years, not so much the machines themselves, but how far man has come to invent and manipulate reality. for example, in the united states (and the rest of the world, but the united states is leading the technology), in the finance world, banks and financial institutions have an obligation to report suspicious activity to government agencies. larger institutions with millions of customers and which hundreds of millions of dollars worth of transactions are processed through their networks every day cannot possibly detect money laundering and other illegal forms of moving money just with human investigators, it would never get done. machine learning has largely stepped up here in this regard- able to spot certain patterns of behaviors which may indicate money laundering or illegal sales of contraband or terrorist financing, the machines themselves flag the behaviors based on every time a known behavior occurs, they learn that much more to their algorithms; it isn't of course perfect, but it doesn't need to be- every false flag is also a learning experience for the machines, and they get that much more accurate because of it; in fact we see it also unfolding in the world of actuarial science so much to the degree that is how the insurance industry runs a successful business model, actually predicting major life events based on the statistical measurement of all similar people in a similar set of circumstances (that is, the likelihood someone's life will play out in a rather predictable manner based on their geographical location, age, race, sex, education, socio-economic background, even the color of car they own). if someone buys insurance products such as annuities or life insurance, they are betting against the insurance company that they know more about what is going to happen to them than the insurance company does; but the insurance companies through their sophisticated machine learning has all the data. of course the industry can make a bad bet here and there there, and the models aren't perfect, but they are quite good over large scales to be quite profitable; the individual case may beat their predictions, but on the macroscopic level, you see something different happen because of the way they are able to predict large trends. now of course there is a difference with video games not being anywhere near something like that for various reasons, one of which is because the single video games doesn't have as much data to work with as a large scale industry such as finance or insurance, furthermore a single developer doesn't have the kinds of resources to devote to machine learning, and doesn't have the same access to feedback. however, i will say this- i'm a bit late to the game, but recently installed skyrim just a few days ago, and from my observations with some of the better community mods out there, it's rather outstanding how lifelike some of the behaviors of the actors in the game are, even about 20 hours into the game, i've not seen anything like it- and this game is from ten years ago or so
  16. hello- sorry for the problems. can you per chance post a screen shot of the error message? i have attached a few screen shots of the file path for the map files. the first screenshot shows the path of the map package from within the mission editor. the next three screenshots show this from the windows directory tree. because of steel beasts' file structure where the program files are spread out over multiple paths, it does get there in somewhat of a convoluted way compared to other programs. the first folder to start in the c:\programdata folder, and then from there, it looks like c:\ programdata \ esim games \ steel beasts \ maps \ packages \ iran-iraq war 1985 (this last folder "iran-iraq war 1985 containing the scenarip map files is placed manually in the packages folder, it doesn't install with steel beasts, of course)
  17. download to your computer or run in the background from youtube, a good video for background, distant war noise for your scenarios- runs a long time, offers a steady drone without distracting or cheesy effects; this one is in my view the best of the bunch i sampled . i originally downloaded and integrated directly into scenarios as a media event, but there is a feature of steel beasts which disrupts the sound file if certain things happen while the media file is playing, eg, if the scenario is paused and resumed, the sound effect sample is killed, also, if another media file is accessed by the scenario, it will kill the preceding one playing. at any rate, playing it in the background without integrating into the scenario works fine.
    boom. good one.
  18. Version 1.0.0


    A fictionalized, large armor battle set during the Iran-Iraq war consisting mainly of Iraqi T-62 vs. Iranian T-55 tanks, plus infantry and other support vehicles. The scenario may tend to play like a World War 2 battle without modern technology. Designed for a single player. The scenario will probably run very slow under 4.250. If you have not upgraded to 4.259, it is strongly recommended you do so before running the scenario. Note: I also recommend either playing the following YouTube video link running in the background, or downloading and playing locally during the course of the match. Adds force. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9x8JrkiwGs
  19. if you can afford to buy a new computer now (notwithstanding the merits of a notebook computer vs. a desktop ), i would recommend buy now. this may sound philosophical or whatever, but i say this because you can only do something now. even five years from now, it will still be now when you buy a new computer (or not). you will not perceive yourself as living in the future five years from now when you get there the same way you don't perceive yourself as living years in the future right now from 2016 asking this question. it is always now- you are either playing steel beasts now, or you are not, in both cases you are doing that or not doing that now. asking this sort of question is probably a symptom that you are leaning on the fence, but you would like confirmation from others, which is probably natural. but if you can afford it and you get good recommendations here or somewhere else, buy now, if you feel you need to upgrade in five years from now and you can afford to, do it then- otherwise you are rather always stuck in the same position of waiting for the future before you upgrade. for all you know some other life event may intervene between now and five years and you never get to play steel beasts again for some reason or maybe not as much as you'd like to. all of us have to do it- at some point you take the plunge and throw the money down. or course there is that nagging feeling somewhere that you should wait because hardware inevitably becomes obsolete and you want to stretch it out as long as you can, but there is no way to win that game because whatever you buy will become obsolete, no question about that. you don't have to be concerned with it because it is inevitable. so you may as well enjoy yourself now- in fact, you will find my advice is unnecessary and redundant, because you don't have a choice in the matter. whenever you do decide to buy a computer, when it happens, it will be happening now. muahahahaha
  20. to some extent i have created detection areas in the mission editor ( eg. open fire if units are located in the detection zone + random variable and/or if other friendly units also detect units in order to corroborate information) to adjust detection rates or effectiveness. for what it's worth from customer feedback here, maybe at some point you might include a global setting in the mission editor simply based on a defined likelihood that units are able to sort each other out from all other noise i.e., a penalty modifier which assigns a 30 percent chance of detection for one side or both.
  21. i am not sure of the core game, but they make great cinema
  • Create New...