Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Personal Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

5,219 profile views

Kev2go's Achievements


Apprentice (3/14)

  • Dedicated
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges



  1. would also be nice to just see the existing crewable T62 get a full interior.
  2. Maybe it could be a false perception since CITV display appears smaller ( doesn't take up entire monitor like when looking thru gunners sight), but to me even in x13 the CITV resolution still appears better then the GPS
  3. I haven't played SB in a while. The last version i had was 4.2. Now after 4.3 i notice The M1 series have seemingly improved thermal image resolution, that looks more comparable to the M1A2 SEP ( not withstanding difference of magnification like x10 vs 13, or the extra x25 and x50 zoom) in the gunners primary sight. I thought the M1A1 was supposed to have gen 1 thermals? and have greater inferiority to the M1A2's thermals? Furthermore I certainly recall and was expecting the consistency between M1A2 Gunner and CITV thermals to be of the same quality as it used to be? Its only in the M1A2 Commander CITV where the thermals appear superior to the resolution of the gunners primary sight? Here are some comparison M1A1 Gunners sight M1A2 SEP gunner x13 M1A2 SEP gunner x25 M1A2 SEP Gunner x50 M1A2 SEP CITV X13 M1A2 SEP CITV x25 M1A2 CITV x50 So to sum up for some reason the Commander CITV resolution looks superior to the gunner Sight when they are supposed to be of the same generation?, Wheras the Gunners sight in the M1A2 looks inferior in resolution and doesnt look much better if at all to the M1A1;'s gunner sight notwithstanding differences which may be attributed to different magnification and zoom levels. Prior to 4.3 the imaging resolution was consistent between M1A2 Gunner and commanders viewers, and a very notable improvement over gen 1 m1A1 thermals. have the M1A1's thermals been improved?
  4. T72B3 Mod 2016. - relikt sideskirts + better mobility with higher HP engine. assuming nothing internally has changed from the T72B3 mod 2012, i would think doing that as a followup wouldn't be too big of a hassle, or at least in the realm of possibility?
  5. will version steel beasts 5 have some quality of life improvements? DCS for example recently got multithreading support out. ( other features planned like DLSS and vulkan API) It runs much better now because as it implies now you can take advantage of computational tasks being spread over multiple cores and threads versus 1 core having to pull all the heavy weight and bottlenecking other hardware like the GPU. I saw my performance jump from like 55-65ish frames to 120 frames in some modules.
  6. kinda late to the party as i had taken a very loooooong break from SB, but whoa first thing i noticed was a crewableT72B3 got added with an earlier version of 4.3.
  7. I did a system overhaul of my prior build. Replaced Mobo and CPU, and GPU and added a new NVMe SSD. I currently use a Core i7 CPU 12700k ( replaced i7 8700k) a RTX 3080 12gb. ( replaced gtx 1080 8gb) 64gb ddr4 ram 3600mhz ( upgrade from ddr4 32gb 2600mhz) Samsung 970 1TB SSD, Samsung 860 1TB, Samsung 860 SSD, and 1 WD 1 TB HDD. Windows 10 64 bit OS. Primary monitor is a 27inch 1440p monitor with 144hz refresh rate
  8. Kev2go


    That does not appear to be a independent commanders TIS. But rather a display showing what the Gunner is seeing through his sight, kind of how M1A1 has gunners sight extension ( minus maybe being able to take control does T72b3 Commader take over controls?) . Commander can see what the gunner is doing but does not have its own independent TIS in the form of a CITV to search for targets whilst gunner is engaging his own targets. meaning T72B3 does not have hunter killer capability, which i was reffering to in a earlier post. there was a T72B3M demonstrator that had that capability, but im not sure if it was officially adopted and if it was, how many numbers.
  9. i guess it depends what you want. because what you describe doing is more akin to playing a battlefield commander at which point may as well be playing wargame or something. But what do i know I just play DCS for aviation experience, like probably 99% of the userbase. ( If anything the most asked for thing in development is the Dynamic Campaign like you had in falcon BMS) Not really following GHPC, but then again it is something of a indie game, a passion project, so i suppose it may as well be indefinite development
  10. True the only main weakness of Steel Beasts are its visuals (and maybe a more complex armor and ammo simulation, like you see in GHPC, which is taking some ideas in that regard from WT would be a nice to have) even with the 4.0 overhauls. IT still looks very dated. Steel beasts probably would need from the ground up new engine to really be able to take advantage of the latest hardware and have visuals to match it. DCS is not really a comparable to the likes of Steel Beasts or GHPC. as its not a combined arms or ground warfare sim, even with the combined arms module. I would argue its terrain fidelity is too low for my taste for ground forces gameplay, with the exception of the of the more recent maps Like Syria. Although fixed wing jet pilots dont care that much the rotorheads appreciate the extra fidelity in these newer maps.
  11. Kev2go


    Only the soft packs on the sides are latest relikt, otherwise what you see on the front Hull and Turret is still Kontact 5.Relikt has a distinct look ( see T80BVM or T90M). Without ERA the main armor as you know is going to be same protection as T72B mod 85 or 89. Also how many T72's ( or tank series any in Russian tank fleet) have independent CITV for commander? How many have battlefield management system? I Think only T90M and T14 Armata. have those.
  • Create New...