Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Jartsev

  1. 20 hours ago, rump said:



    I can't figure out how to raise the BAA on the Fennek. Shift+Q does not raise it completely.


    Yes, Shift+Q and Shift+Z only erect and stow BAA respectively. To fully extend or lower mast you need to use Alt+Q and Al+Z(and to manipulate mast it is easier to use  clickable buttons on SBP, BTW)



    Also noticed that it doesn't always raise (completly) the BAA by itself when on a waypoint with tactics.


    Bug or am I doing something wrong?



    1) AI crew  would never erect, elevate, lower or stow BAA on its own if  there is a human user in F8 view; this is an intent

    2) AI crew, if  human user is not present,  would always erect BAA from stowed position on routes with Scout tactics, if route speed setting is 'Slow' or 6-20kph

    3) From memory,  on battle positions, if  human user is not present,  AI crew may take in to account terrain profile in order to maintain hull-down, and this may affect how much mast is extended


  2. This is not a bug, but also not a feature either... Keys from "1" to "0" are hardcoded for manually typing-in range value, even if this particular function may be not necessary available on certain vehicles or individual crew positions,  plus, with  'Shift' key as  modifier same keys are serving to toggle triggers on and off. If you are assigning something else to those keys,  conflict occurs; this would happen with any vehicle in game.

    So if idea was to replicate controls setup from some tank MMO game,  then this is not quite possible... If goal was different, then please try to use numpad kets, as @Lumituisku suggested. Also it would be good idea to check Steel Beasts Keyboard Chart, which may be found in C:\Program Files\eSim Games\SB Pro PE\docs\PDF for print folder.

  3. And one more thing- artwork for T-90SA in game is probably  almost a decade old(it was introduced to SB Pro PE in v3.0); this applies to both external  and armor models, and because of age armor model may be less detailed and not able to support some newer features. Other than that, performance of armor model is consistent with older version of Steel Beasts- for example 4.0.

  4. 2 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

    As stated, I've taken a huge hit in FPS with this last patch. Was running perfectly with GFX maxed last patch. Now hardly able to maintain 60fps even on low settings.


    Win 10

    I7 3.5ghz

    GeForce 1070 (Latest drivers)

    16gb RAM


    Ok... And do you run SB in full screen or windowed mode? What are resolution settings?

  5. 1) This legacy map is included in to Legacy Maps Installer. But please not, that those maps  require  conversion to 4.1/4.2 standard; for conversion details  please check this  thread: 

    2) There is a new "Kouvostoliitto Finland 50x50km"  map depicting  same area available. It is installed  by SB Pro PE Maps Installer, which installs other 4.1/4.2 "canned" maps... May be it is worth to try it, but  since height map has a substantially greater resolution, some  things in your scenarios may stop working as intended, so some caution is needed(at least after replacing the map do not save modified scenarios under same name).



    If you are still using SB Pro PE version 3.0, then maps from "Legacy Maps Installer" may probably not work for you, since all they were saved in 4.0 last time



  6. 3 minutes ago, munckmb said:

    Let me clarify. I used an mbt with mine plow to breach a path trough the minefield. Only then I send in a Boxer / ENG in with breach route and it marked the lane. If I send in a Piranha / ENG in with breach route, it does not mark the lane.

    Wow, this a whole new twist in the story, and it doesn't sound good. Thank you  for heads-up, will investigate.

  7. Well, it wasn't our intent  to let dozer-equipped vehicles to mark cleared path(since, technically, those markings are for  lanes through minefields, and there are no such lanes created by dozing atm), but  probably we need to revisit the subject, weight-out possible options and, possibly, make some refinements. You  know, there are some  pros and cons, plus it is possible now to mark breach site by manually placed panels.

  8. Sorry, but those AARs do not show any bugs. 

    1) Note that all KE or HEAT impacts inflicted certain damage(AAR does not show detailed list of damage and some 'Light damage' entries could be actually not so light).

    2) Note that most vehicles impacted by KE or HEAT died after receiving 2 or 3 shots

    3) Engine on path of threat munition may greatly reduce damage received(by the price of mobility kill)

    4) Add-on armor(which is  essentially bulging plates/chobham) in case of Warrior  reduces damage inflicted by HEAT(especially if projectile has very moderate rated RHA penetration of 380mm- like very average  RPG). And then there is a limitation- we are not simulating  degradation of add-on armor performance after multiple hits. So in other words pumping  one BK-5 after another in to add-on armor in front of the driver is a kind of waste of ammo and time

    5) Use of 100mm HE is case of wrong selection of ammo for engagement, plus there are certain general terminal effects modelling limitations(for example effects  of shock loads on armor plates and weld lines are not accounted)

  9. Hitting a target doesn't necessary mean automatic instant catastrophic kill, especially  in case of IFVs and APCs,  which usually  have much less vulnerable ammo inside, and are quite survivable in general- it is like a shooting BBs in to empty cans, if your ammo selection for engagement is wrong. But if you were able to hit a target, but didn't killed it, does not mean that target is intact- very likely, some systems got damaged,  crew and carried troops suffered some losses,  fuel is leaking etc. So if target is not yet dead doesn't imply that it is still able to fight back or move under own power(and if is still able, then probably with degraded performance).

  10. 39 minutes ago, MO MO said:

    The goal of BMP is Pandur 6X6,And the distance is within range

    Unfortunately, very likely it is not quite within range. Per your your scenario, BMP-2 has it is default  AP ammo selection, e.g. 3UBR6, which has 1200 meters max. effective range. Any light armored target outside of that limit will be engaged  using missiles.

  11. 22 minutes ago, MO MO said:

    It's not a test. I'm just looking at the cartridge case


    AI will only blindly load anti tank missiles

    In the BMP image, the distance is within the range of the main gun, but AI will only load anti tank missiles in place

    When the target is APC, shouldn't the main gun be used after launching the missile?

    Selection of weapon and ammunition by AI depends of several factors like range, expected  thickness of target's  armor etc. If AI decides, that target is a bit  too tough for automatic cannon, it would obviously fire an ATGM as a first selection.

  12. 43 minutes ago, Brakefan said:

    Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but I would like to see the ability to divide/attach units during the planning phase.

    I see that allowing troops to mount/dismount made it in to V4.250 ( thanks guys).

    Would it be possible to have the Attach/Divide option as well?


    Ability to  divide and and attach units in planning phase is  needed and desirable feature, but, unfortunately, not so easy to implement. At some point, hopefully, we would resolve this problem, but  it is not possible to promise, if this is going to happen soon.

  13. 1) Please upload map package for scenario

    2) Who was hosting, and who was  owner of the Leo?

    3) Without  ability to check what is going on in scenario, I suspect that you were facing not a bug, but a new feature, if your vehicle was  positioned on reverse slope; in 4.2 vehicles, which have independent GPS LOS stabilization got  realistic  head mirror travel range in EL. This means,  that you can depress or elevate LOS of your primary sight  a way beyond of main gun travel limits; since in this case  gun is outside of coincidence window,  you would not be able to fire it.

  14. 11 minutes ago, Kingtiger said:

    For some reason the VAMTAC recce version is not playable, but the remaining VAMTAC versions are. but in controls the recce version has an own filter with commands?
    Is it by mistake or is it just not ready yet?

    This is not a mistake,  this vehicle does not have crewable positions in Personal Edition.

  15. Looks like  you opened  scenario, which was last time saved in 4.0 or 4.1; in this case ammunition quantity defined in scenario file may override unit's defaults.  That's  not quite Ok, thanks for heads up!

  • Create New...