DrDevice

The MP community for SB is small, but consistent. The public Team Speak server hosted here is a primary location for public game play. Though with the smaller overall community, you can't always simply show up and find a game. There is a worldwide fan base, but not a ton of us out here. There are also several semi-private groups that are based around a locality/country that don't necessarily pop up on the public server. Virtual units and other "core groups" can make sure you have scheduled MP time, if that suits you. SB, in general, is also not a "sit down and play MP for 30 minutes" type experience. It takes some time to a) set up the players, b) get the game started, then c) plan and execute the game. That said, it's a ton of fun when it goes well, and one of the most engaging MP experiences I've ever had. (Been playing since 2003.) In short: it's not really "popular," but has very high rewards if you invest the time to learn and play.

Yes. This is in version 2.640. I thought I read something about the time correction it in the release notes, too. But I experienced it falling on me, then went and tested it yesterday with the above results.

When a unit is calling for support, and begins the call as an "Adjust" mission, the TOT is roughly 2:50. If the user then shifts that same mission to a Fire for Effect call, the TOT becomes just over 30 seconds. If the user simply calls for an FFE mission, the TOT is about the same as the initial Adjust fire mission. Is this an intentional implementation? It seems to short circuit the need for Priority TRPs.

Actaully, if done right, this is WAY more than eye candy. Weather can play a major part in tactical operations, hence if/when they are implemented, it would be great to have more than just visual effects.

Oh, that wasn't a criticism. That was a "hey...we already have a reasonable approximation, so, bravo for us." Like I said...I only recalled with some degree of "did I dream that?" I spent some hours updating my spreadsheet for vehicles, so I truly do appreciate the scale of the motor pool! The whole reason I did so was to keep track of things like amphib capbility, crewable units, etc. It's no mere "remember X" task...there are a BUNCH.

Which is kind of the consensus of the thread, it seems. The question isn't "Has the market for high-fidelity sims like SB ProPE grown?" I think a better question is "Has eSim come close to maximizing their market share of the people that will engage with this type of sim?" It's niche, and that's cool. The barriers to entry are several-fold, I'd agree. The question remains as to how many potential clients may have been turned away, and by what cause? (price, specs, hardware/licensing, etc.) I'm sure the team is handling that too. All of that curiosity is mostly out of my passion for the sim, and wanting to see eSim be successful enough to keep expanding. It certainly seems they are on the right path, if not at the growth rate that some of us dream about so that we can get our personal favorite features.

Wasn't it mentioned that the T-80U that is modeled didn't have TIS anyway, so the feature was removed in 2.640? Or am I just fabricating that?

Rumor has it there's a new roadwheel sim coming out in the near future. You should get on the beta team.

Yup. That's going to end poorly for the missile team!

Continued great work, Toyguy! It's an inspiration to get FRAPS and experiment. Thanks for the hard work.

So your argument is "I don't like those vehicles, so build these tanks I like instead?" That's a pretty sad apples to oranges comparison. "Weak" is a VERY relative term. Compared to their contemporaries, they are on par. "Outdated" is just as bad of a counter argument, considering the age of some of the systems just added with the last release. Age of equipment has nothing to do with their value in the game. For the sake of multiplayer fun and balance, a crewable Soviet-era IFV would be higher on my priority list than yet another high-tech western design. Even the T-80 isn't in the same class as the M1A2 or Leo2A6, so why not ask for a T-90 or a Chinese Type 98/99? Those would be more on par with an OPFOR-class modern system. I LOVE the M1A2, but I would find much more utility and game opportunity from a crewable BMP. (No matter how low tech and troublesome they seem to be.)

The moderator in me weeps at how far off track this thread has become. If you want to argue Leopard armor....please, start a thread. If you want to discuss the implementation of the T-72M1, then this thread is the place for you. There is a big 'ol case of this:

You cannot "unspawn" a unit, AFAIK. You can destroy it, then set "remove when killed" though.

The key takeaway here is that if you are under Engage orders, in the gunner seat, and you are planning on using a TOW, you should override the driver with the "stop" key, to prevent mis-communication on when the launcher is up or down. Don't let the CC driver screw up the sequence by backing up.

Not to derail too far, but what's hard to understand about that? I've never (outside SB) seen the platoon designations expressed as "1/1/A". It's always been 1-1/A or 11/A. Easy logic of [Vehicle Number]-[Platoon]/[Company] or [Vehicle][Platoon]/[Company]. Easier than agreeing on date format, IMO.

Understand on the "how not to damage the launcher." The OP just pointed out that when in a BP, and given "engage" orders, the driver will naturally seek to go turret-down on reload, which seems to be the issue. i.e. the condition is not that the human is ordering a move, it's that the BP behavior for the driver seems to be causing the conflict.

I think the key issue is that it was the CC driver that caused the move. That's the disturbing part. If a player controls the driving, and breaks the launcher because he forgot: lesson learned. But if I'm in the gunner's seat and the mook at the helm moves when he's not supposed to...that's bad.

Hold the space bar in the map screen. Cursor changes to a hand and you can use mouse gestures to move the map.

I think Grenny is just talking about releasing the game file on 14Dec2011.

I'm pretty sure that anyone who receives the update before you will spend their time playing the update...not making videos to satiate your impatience.

Since the Eagle has them in the release notes...I think this would be a likely addition.

I'd add to that the option for a Mk19 armed version. Light scout group combined with the dismount option. An M240 version would make "rear area" HMMWVs possible, too. Self protection, but not really an APC threat.

Tell that to my optics when the damn CC infantry constantly shoot them out... :diable:

From what I've read, 3-tank platoons do not self-overwatch as 4-tank platoons do. They are a solo maneuver element, and instead are overwatched by their other platoons in the company. It's one of the primary differences/arguments in the 3 vs 4 organization, actually. Arguments in favor of 4-tank platoons mention this ability to self-overwatch and leader development of that type of movement. 3-tank variants would seem to concentrate that maneuver skill set at the company command level, where the CO moves his platoons in concert.

Insert obligatory misspelling humor here, Grenny.