Kev2go
-
Posts
351 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Downloads
Articles
Everything posted by Kev2go
-
would also be nice to just see the existing crewable T62 get a full interior.
-
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 -
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
if these developers did more modern era vehicles than i would expect the same, or at least partially working features in the tank interior, the interior adds to the immersion, and thats a deal breaker to me. Its enough to turn me off from not playing certain tanks in SB.
-
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
-
if other games have these benchmarks then yes thats something to consider.
-
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.
-
even Red orchestra, a Infantry centric game had tank interior for thier tanks Il2 Sturmoviks ground forces branch also modelled tank interiors
-
looks interesting. ID hope the devs consider doing 3d tank interiors with visible AI crew. Even Arma 3 added that ( albeit via DLC) for the immersiveness
-
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.
-
We cant say for sure till the dust settles. But i can say for sure I think it validates that 360 degree APS suites need to be made standard fleet wide if going into conflict zones where agtms are present especially top down attack like javelins. But I think this is why the Americans for example has been buying Israeli trophy suites for the M1 series. Russians had been developed Arena APS but its questionable how many have actually been applied to their tank fleet ( if any at all). I acknowledge there wont be opportunity for a proper combat analysis until the dust settles, but i think its fair to say they haven't properly applied lessons learned from Chechen wars and the 2008 Georgian war, and overall one of the reasons western militaries are highly regarded, United States in particular is because of how much more $$$ and time they can invest in training on a yearly basis and because logistics is of greater importance than tactics or individual soldier competency
-
t-55 USMC cutbacks ( bye bye to all tank battalions)
Kev2go replied to Kev2go's topic in Ground Zero
Yes their M1A1 have become comparable to M1A2 SEP v2 in hard stats, but M1A1 FEp still behind to the M1A2 SEP v2 when it comes to the digital interfacing, and integrated battlefield management system. M1A2 V3 ( or M1A2C) however certainly is another modernization in electronics and yet another step up in protection to both SEP v2 or USMC M1A1's FEP model, as that has next generation armor configuration and a longer turret for extra layers. Anyways seems like a wasted investment ( even if was a more budgetary modernization as opposed a proper equivalent to M1A2 SEP standards of conversion) now that their tanks are gonna be scrapped. i mean what else can they really do? Long term storage? US can't export them because they never thus far been willing to sell domestic M1's with 3rd gen DU but only with a downgraded export armor package -
yea its a shame they still can't have the budget maintain those 3 tank battalions. That was not a large sum to begin with , but just enough to give the corps greater flexibility and their own independent Main battle tank support. The marines had tankers since pacific theater of ww2.
-
heh if only i didn't already own ( nearly) everything.
-
t-55 USMC cutbacks ( bye bye to all tank battalions)
Kev2go replied to Kev2go's topic in Ground Zero
This is not a military fault but an issue of foreign policy of not having US addressed Chinese "expansionism". ( Or depending on what perspective you look at more like creating a buffer zone within the grasp of their backyard rather than encroaching on US territory, but of course i digress) Those changes should not involve neglecting and entirely scrapping other units. The USMC should not be forced to sacrifice parts of their left arm to be able to use their right arm. Again the real counter simply to be addressed with strategic positioning and adjusting tactics when nessary and enforcing foreign policy with military if deemed necessary. as you said building airstrips and artificial islands is a compensation for lacking naval carrier group projection capability levels of the USN. -
t-55 USMC cutbacks ( bye bye to all tank battalions)
Kev2go replied to Kev2go's topic in Ground Zero
I know they aren't just that. No one said anything about tanks being a necessity in that 1 specific scenario. Do we not recall that USA as a superpower maintains global interests? The world doesn't end with the pacific ocean even if they were to draw down in the middle east by leaving Afghanistan and Iraq to their devices entirely. Neither does Chinese domain end on small subset of islands or a few airstrips in the pacific ocean CHina itself is one big landmass., and its foolish to think that when warfare switches to any landmass larger than those described that armored and artillery units wont find relevance, or forget about about any potential flash point in another region of the world not related to China. its better to have something and not use it, rather than not having something and need it. having deterrents or in this case certain equipment for self independent branch flexibility still matters. -
t-55 USMC cutbacks ( bye bye to all tank battalions)
Kev2go replied to Kev2go's topic in Ground Zero
exactly. this. thinking only about China the only nation that any conflict could break out with is asinine. IF anything a conventional war would be a more opportune time to have better use for main battle tanks rather than GWOT which had marines "nation building" or performing "counter insurgency". really this just put the marines in a situation where they will basically at the mercy of asking the US army to detach some armor and artillery that would otherwise be used for army operations supporting another branch's mission, if a situation ever arisen that they badly need it, however given their expeditionary nature that wont always be possible. here are some more assumptions to consider then: And what happens once these small islands are secure? The marines capacity to wage warfare and conduct amphibious spearheads into a larger landmass is now degraded. Tanks have more use in conventional warfare. It would have made more sense for the USMC to scrap their tanks when they were doing low intensity asymmetric warfare against an insurgency or" nation building" in the sandbox. Now those are missions where main battle tanks have limited use. Or what happens if no direct confrontation in the pacific breaks out? What if other conflicts arise? The marines need to be flexible as a global expeditionary force. The Pacific isnt the only region in the world that could necessitate combat deployment of USMC assets. Every politician ever in history has always tried to defended cuts ( or im sorry "restructuring") with "leaner is better". What really going on here is the anything going to the usmc is a cut from the navies budget that would otherwise go to Navy things. The department of the navy would rather " them than us". i guess. The marines have always been in the short end of the stick when it has come to funding to their sister branches, so i guess this treatment is nothing new. In actuality They could still keep their current size, and simply utilize their assets depending on the situation. Its would be better to have support assets like tanks and additional artillery and not need it, than to be in a situation and be with out it. ( although this line of thinking can be applied to anything really). This is still short sighted, as even if your only thinking of China , their domain doesn't end with some minuscule islands in the pacific, but of course budget cuts had to be made in the wrong places. At the end of the day any war with any adversary that can retaliate with a sizable nuclear arsenal is probably not going to be a feasible option. Mutually assured destruction still applies. Most conflicts will continue to be either proxy wars or low intensity conflicts. ( not saying that large conventional forces aren't a necessary deterrent) -
Pretty recent official announcement from this month. MOS 1812 ( tank crewman) is now a dying breed. It will no longer be a thing as part of cutbacks and general restructuring. The current marine commandant has made the decision to remove all 3 tank ( M1A1) battalions by 2030. The marines will be without any MBT, leaving them only with light armor ( the likes of the LAV25 and AAV's) Which is shocking as marines had maintained dedicated tank units for many decades since at least ww2, from the pacific campaign. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/03/23/marines-shut-down-all-tank-units-cut-infantry-battalions-major-overhaul.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeNzt-7ZmT8 Among other will be removal of law enforcement battalions, a small reduction in infantry units, and also some small reduction to some aviation units. but also a drastic reduction in artillery battalions ( from 21 to 5). IF you want to trim the "fat" so to speak, really hurting the ground forces with scrapping so high degree of important support assets like Armor or Arty is not the way to go. Unless the USMC brass is trying to copy the UK's Royal Marine commandos ( which they aren't) this new approach is seemingly very short sighted and a poor decision.
-
an M1A2 SEP variant mounted with Crows
-
Simulations are also kinda of my thing. I wont complain if complexity persists or increases, because thats what simulations are about. Funny there was once this same discussion and realization among many in the DCS flight sim community with regards to the bolded bit. How many people say they have truly mastered operating all the combat aircraft. ( and jet figters can be argued to be more complex than tanks as particularly in single seat aircraft, the pilot is the sole operator. There is no 3 or 4 man crew), when to day in DCS there are dozens? I myself am only truly mastered in the F/A18 Hornet, and " intermediate level " for most of the others ( owning nearly all modules. In order to retain that "mastery" of a given vehicle, you need to practice, to be fluid in operation. as that is the only jet That being said having already "learn't" many aircraft. when stepping into a new one its always easier to learn, as opposed to the very first time you ever did it. As others have pointed out learning and even mastering an armored vehicle is not the hardest part of the sim, its when you are in single play and have to micromanage AI, hopping in between various tanks and various crew position in a large scenario with the appropriate tactics. that ends up making you feel overwhelmed. Relative to Flight simulation i only worry about having to fly my own aircraft, and not hopping between different aircraft cockpits to change the outcome of an air campaign.
