GSprocket

No grenades arrays, but they tend to use a roof mounted mortar.

The not damaged track, protected hull side is an extremely common result of flanking fires, resulting from very oblique impact of a very thin surface of less than the resulting LOS thickness in depth. I have *no* real issue with the protection of the hull per-se, but it should be an either/or rather than a possibility of not damaging the track, and not reaching the hull with high penetration large weapons. Even happens with T55 being hit by M829A3 or DM53 in this area in a centre of mass, clean flanking hit. The hit vector is stopped in the track, doesn't reach the hull. Tank continues moving. In a 'hard target' firing range of 35 assorted T55/BMP/BTR80 I usually get 2-3 of these.

The M1A1 case looks to be a non penetrating hit along the width of the track. While this might save the hull (very borderline maybe), it should only do so on the sacrifice of the track component. It isn't likely that it would remain attached/functional after stopping a 120mm class AP or HEAT round. (On the other hand, a penetration 'thin ways' should only result in a small hole and a mostly functional track in some cases... Same applies to using the engine/gearbox in an armour array - if it 'saves' the vehicle, it would usually by necessity do so by being heavily damaged in the process.

TAM VC - player occupied vehicle cycles gun elevation and fires very infrequently. AI wingmen are faster firing than the AI/Player vehicle, which can take several minutes to fire at a plainly visible target from a stationary position. Going to/from map view can 'fix' this behaviour once it starts. May not be only limited to this vehicle, but rather a feedback between AI gunner and framerate (alternating minimums 14/27 and maximum 29/32 with an average ~28) 105mm OFUM PH 105 is listed as HE-T / HE still, though has penetration values consistent with the other WP rounds that it's designation suggests. I think this may already have been flagged in the past.

Is the missile velocity correct? They soft launch at around 200m/s then boost to 800m/s (more than 2x that of TOW/HOT). A max range of 1500m seems consistent with the unboosted velocity.

The main issue I have with the Shot Kal is the absence of illumination on the reticle, so it becomes literally 'blind' shooting in twilight or night whenever pointing into a darker region. I can just sense the target form against the skyline but cannot see the graticle to point the weapon at all... For short range engagements coax followed by a main gun round works, but it isn't suitable for longer ranges, and tends to send APDS a bit high. (It is also wasteful of coax ammunition, which is a fairly small box of ready ammunition compared to later vehicles, and the ready supply of ammunition is also small for the main gun, when the possibility of a miss and re-engagement is allowed for). Certainly makes the Golan night engagement (with modification to replace T72 with T55 and M1A1 with Shot Kal, and setting low visibility day to clear visibility night a different experience, and one which is very easy to get wrong....) 4.0 Fixes the road levelling through the village and is a huge improvement in appearance and usability.

Not at the hardware end, but with software. There will be certain parts of code which are slower than they need to be *and* hold up other tasks. Maybe they are fast enough, but run more often than is strictly needed. If you improve the speed of the fastest bits by a lot, very little happens, but if the bottlenecks can be eased then overall performance can increase noticeably.

When the webshop has live staff in around 3 hours

I'm getting a "not valid bencoding" error when trying to use the torrent link.

Aren't fires a large part of modern fighting though. They don't have to be over open sights to be fighting. Also I'm fairly certain that engineer, command, and some logistics vehicles fall under the AFV remit.... and armoured SP artillery would definitely count.

Ok. So Red legs don't fight. Interesting.

No love for AMOS?

Mil contracts are not an excuse, they are a reason. They are the reason that eSim can provide SB Pro PE and continue developing it. They are the reason that development windows for Pro PE are limited and slippage by a few weeks can cause months of postponement for a release. They are the reason *for* much of the content that is available for the 'game' version. How likely do you think the breadth and depth of simulated vehicles we have would be with the revenue from the consumer stream?

How the hell would that work. We have a maintained product - one that is periodically upgraded and expanded in useful ways... but where the needs of the business make this a schedule subject to adjustment to suit higher priority than leisure contracts. We play with this stuff because it is fun, but militaries use the classroom version for real training which can save lives.... and a ton of money. I do want to know whether to expect an upgraded 'soon' or in 18 months - so some announcement of planning and how it fits around eSim's other contracts (in general terms) is necessary IMO. Beyond that I am completely flexible about the precise timings that fall out of the development and contractual frameworks. We end up with a well considered and reliable product, which is a lot more usable than many games are, with a minor responsibility to deal with these realities as reasonable adults.

When was there ever a promise made? Nils has always said (from the beginning of this announcement schedule) that they were aiming for July, but if they missed it would have to postpone to December/January. Later a small extension to the release window was announced and they are still working to release *now* before returning to their contracted projects. To me this is the opposite of broken promises, but rather a developer treating his customers like grown ups. Letting them know what is happening and why what everyone wants (a trouble free and complete 4.0 with terrain res updates in July) may not be deliverable. I feel informed, can make educated guesses about whether a July release is likely (not any more at least), and I'm surprised, pleasantly, that the summer release looks to still be possible (and indeed likely) despite non-trivial issues and being in August. Then again I've seen software development from the other side, so especially since for me this is a pure luxury item/leisure I can take a pragmatic view and wait as long as it takes.

A broken update isn't the worst case. You can always roll back and continue using an earlier version. The sky isn't falling, it was just an acorn.

Uh? RHA BNH 240 armour is converted to a RHA BNH 270 equivalent. (As are HHS/multilayer arrays etc)

3 sources with common data are not proof of accuracy, only that they may have taken the data from a common source (which could easily be an estimate given in one of the three, reused in the other 2). In any case, as noted earlier the US penetration data from the M392E1 testing were from BNH 240/241 plate with a modest face hardening. The targets they were intended to be used against were Soviet tanks with BNH 270-280 cast and rolled armour, which is closer to what SB uses for the internal calculations of armour and penetration equivalencies.

Also much of the test data that is available is from fairly soft BNH 240 or so. This is softer than most Soviet cast armour (but similar to US cast or rolled), and substantially softer than HHS used some cases. With a 270 BNH I'd expect performances "around" the quoted SB values even if the 240 level is as suggested. A number isn't meaningful without a context.

M392 was significantly inferior to L36, because it was made exactly to the specifications from the UK. The specifications were however incorrect/incomplete/misleading, with resulting poor consistency of the M392 rounds, and they were revised for the M392A1 at which point the L36/M392A1 were equivalent.

That was for a nominal 1.5g projectile. This final type was given on a later slide as 1.24g, so ~412 fragments for the same total fragment mass, but the actual design may differ from this.

Where do you get smoking alcohol from?

It really isn't even at WWI standards. There were plans, tactics and coordination attempted if not always accomplished in that war.

SB Pro is not a toy. Got it.

His two machines gave results that fall into the region with minimum FPS at 24-30fps. This would be too poor for counterstrike or battlefield twitch fests. In the context of SB Pro, this is actually usable, thus "not too bad". This is what I personally took from his posts. YMMV. When I had a ti420 frame rates were around that level, or a bit below and were quite acceptable. With a GTX970 they are quite a bit higher, but the overall behaviour is not enormously different.