12Alfa
-
Posts
4,295 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Forums
Events
Downloads
Articles
Posts posted by 12Alfa
-
-
9 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said:
That's because artillery isn't specifically designed to destroy things - especially not tanks. It's designed effect is to suppress, disrupt, or delay.
ICM and other warheads that are used specifically to destroy things are usually used in rare circumstances or when the target is a single objective of high value.
Artillery is best used in a combined arms role - suppressing a target while infantry, tanks, or aviation close with and destroy with direct fires.
Here is a link that makes this post seem some what...umm "misleading" some would say...:)
0 -
Also ammo is important, make sure you using the same, or close in the timeline for the ammo. Using a AFV with 1970's against 2000's enemy's ammo is no fun.
0 -
4 hours ago, mpow66m said:
Demo is still availiable?
Yes, (on various DL sites) however there will be a DirectX issue if operating latest DirectX versions. I tried, and it works on my 2nd PC using Win XP and that version of DX.
We have come a long way from that early SB.:)
1 -
1 hour ago, Captain_Colossus said:
the heat blur was on my wishlist waiting for version sb pro pe 2.0 to roll out ever since i first saw anyeffect like that in the precursor to DCS, which used to be called lock on, if i'm not mistaken. the cooked vehicle textures are also one of my oldest requests since 2.0. including the infantry trenches and added recoil effects, many of my oldest wish list items are effectively settled.
however, in the hype videos, we see what look like concrete fortifications (another of my older checkboxes). i cannot find this in the mission or map editor as an obstacle or structure. are these included in the personal edition or a military customer option only?
Custom maps object, DK (rubber tracks) can elaborate on this, or not......JK'ing DK
0 -
We shall look into this , candidate for the patch.
Thx
0 -
-
-
2 hours ago, Rad said:
And here are the footage of the destruction of the Antonovsky railway bridge in the Kherson region.
The Armed Forces of Ukraine worked well. The bridge was seriously damaged.BTR Tank burnt, how ever "Z" paint survived, LOL
0 -
7 hours ago, Gibsonm said:
Perhaps target every IOS container scattered across the map?
If known in scn, yes, added to trg list (high)......just to be sure ...(nuke from orbit theory).....:)
0 -
It is possible to take one of many signs, and place a fig (whatever) target picture on it, and place back into the sim library
It's a work around for those people who want this feature, with little effort.:)
0 -
On 7/9/2022 at 8:13 PM, mpow66m said:
The Canadian military is set to greatly relax their dress code rules, allowing soldiers to sport tattoos on their faces as well as grow their hair to any length they wish and dye it any colour they wish.
Meanwhile, back in a parallel universe...
1 -
-
-
8 hours ago, Kingtiger said:
Okay so the most exciting part is the Kitolov-2 PGM, but when googling I see its a laser-guided munition, does that mean we will get laserpointers to the FO teams as well?
It is good that russian forces gets precision ammunition as well now after we got BONUS/SMART rounds.
LGM's for everyone,
There is little chatter pertaining to LGM's here. Might be a entertaining topic. Lots of current vids of them being used.
No idea on what ESim has in mind ( laserpointers ), busy as usual I would think, my guess , and only a guess as I have no knowledge, "when they get time"
But ya, a whole new arty level
0 -
-
Most would see it as a preview of upcoming AFV's, then others may see.................................context from Pt-1
Well I won't comment on critical thinking skills,
0 -
3 hours ago, Grenny said:
Hmmm , maybe 12ALFA's video was a bit misleading...
No, while some AFV's in SB have all features as in real ones, some do not.......but we have all seen the capabilities grow. So who knows what features will be added in time.
I think ESim have a proven record of adding capabilities, if not when a AFV is included, at a later date. IE: MG sights
Note that other Arty sys in SB could have fired LGM if implemented, however it would require a unit with Laser designator's, maybe in the future we will see this feature. Most arty have in RL have LGMs shells, this nothin new.
0 -
Context is everything......:)
Disclaimer: The version in 4.3 does not have Laser guided rounds.
3 -
3 hours ago, Mirzayev said:
Hasn't this been in game since 4.250?
.....Standby for Pt-2 please.......................
0 -
-
-
8 hours ago, Captain_Colossus said:
in my view a game means that there are opposing interests or adverse factors to a goal - in doesn't have to be fun nor intended to be just as a simulator does not have to be fun, nor intended to be (office politics or election politics can be a kind of 'game;' the 'word association game' thread in the ground zero forum isn't really a game in the strict sense, there is no way to win or lose, but i understand why it is a 'game' in the context of being lighthearted fun).
in game theory there are scenarios which can be run to test for particular outcomes- in a sense they might be a simulator of some kind, but as games they are not fun, nor intended to be fun, but they may be interesting because they have wider applications and insights into the way human systems might operate and we might learn something from it, i.e., running variations of the prisoner's dilemma to gauge when short term strategies are an advantage or where they begin to break down and long term strategies begin to develop.
a simulator may or may not be a game: you could simulate most or all of the functions of an armored fighting vehicle, but there are no targets nor opponents which shoot back. not really a game until you add those elements or perhaps a timer to negotiate obstacles or hit targets for score. there has to be some kind of opponent or adverse condition to be a 'game'- again you might add those elements, but it still may not be fun.
there are simulators which have no human players, and they are more or less 'automatic,' because of what they do, although parameters can be tweaked by human operators and re-run. scientists may use a simulator to run tests of molecular behavior going far beyond anything most people have interest in or the education and knowledge to comprehend. nothing fun about it, but it has interest for those kinds of people.
you could design a simulator meant to be a game, and meant to be fun, but your concept may be lousy to begin with or fails in execution- i.e., maybe a paint the fence simulator. has enough elements to be a game ( maybe wind and sun drying 'opponents', bugs that land on the wet paint, or time constraints). sounds dumb on the face of it, but they add some 'gamey' elements to it or add some kind of addictive play mechanic to it, which may be a hit with a casual audience.
the distinction between simulator and game are sometimes interchangeable, sometimes not, i think in general most people know what you are talking about when in the context of the conversation to use either one interchangeably on this board and or boards devoted to those other pieces of software, and of course you get the occasional dispute.
my take is that steel beasts and DCS are both simulators and games. it doesn't bother me if you use them interchangeably. i think what tends to happen is when someone either comes trolling or makes some objection such as, "why doesn't steel beasts do x, war thunder has feature x,"then it might happen someone will say, "well, steel beasts is a simulator, war thunder is a game, therefore, steel beasts doesn't do x because it is 'gamey' " and so on. then it might become a battle of parsing their terms and where you tend to see that.
I concur.
There is a place in simulation where both the operator, and the human taking place in military training that falls into a narrow lane.
I have stated that the US army's gunnery simulator, we use the German type for our Leopards, there are others. Strictly gunnery with not much else, no multi-units, other humans other than those involved in gunnery procedures training.
To me, and others who have trained on such systems, there is no dough this is not a GAME.
https://www.dvidshub.net/image/3888659/2-69-ar-advanced-gunnery-training-simulator
This type of exposure to simulations has formed my view point, that being said..............
I can see how the definitions blend into each other though
0 -
5 hours ago, Mirzayev said:
Sounds like y'all use less simulation software than the US Army. There are plenty of simulated exercises focused on more than testing if units follow their SOPs.
Correct. I used less simulation software than the US Army. Posted only my MOS as to stay on subject (mech warfare).
0 -
Disagree:
Simulation software is used to determine the output of a specific instance.
Not in my experience, they have been used to train troops on sop's (standard Operating Procedures). The confirmation on the unit under going training. IE: does this unit carryout their stated SOP or is more trg required. This can be used in a small unit, or large scale SOP's to a given tasks to preform. I have never seen any simulation software used to determine anything other than the units adhering to their SOPs, as stated in their orders.
As a operator in such training my task was to read both the units SOPs, and then their orders, then in the AAR state where they deviated, and where improvements would be required. Unit leaders would then review their performance pertaining to their understanding of both , then make the necessary adjustments.
SB and DCS as "simulators". They are games
Most people in and out of the military see a games VS sims as point , badges, rank or earned status type of software.
There , as you know none of this in Sb, only here in the forum.
And yes they are boring, sleeping on the floor in the SIMNET is not all that fun, however most tasks within the army are also, IE "hurry up and wait" or as my friends in the 10th Mountain say "the suck" The UCOF is a better example of a simulator in my view.
Your country may use them differently than others, some may comment on their use of such software.
so we get a overview, and not a small sampling of views.
And I will continue to refer to SB as a Sim. Free speech and all..:)
1
AI avoiding artillery
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by 12Alfa
If you can guarantee a target will be within an HE beaten zone at the time of impact, a probability of effect can be calculated and expected up to and including destruction
Most, if not all Mech armies have SOP's to ensure they move after first impact, thus making HE beating zones ineffective to alert mobile units, and given the weight to HP (speed) now to move quickly out of said beating zone.
In my time (centurion was a rank), during training, and qualifications we had personnel who would throw devices simulating a arty strike, and the unit had a time assigned to leave the area, this was in the 30 sec (cold start, crews mounted) for the standard, along with dispersion within the unit, it was not 50m at any time while in ops in open terrain. If running, less than 10 sec, as we are aware of the threat, and trained to carry out our Arty strike SOP.
Arty (non LDM) is best employed in MHO on trenches, inf in open, and on foot where escaping the zone cannot be done quickly. We are seeing this being played out in eastern EU.
As for SB, well, reducing the strike to 50x50m will increase ones chance for destruction on a non-mobile target.