Jump to content

ChrisWerb

Members
  • Content Count

    730
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ChrisWerb

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 07/06/1965

Personal Information

  • Location
    Orkney, Scotland, UK.
  • Interests
    Military, aviation, history, scuba, kayaking.
  • Occupation
    Web designer.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Time to fess up! How many of you boot up Mission Editor and just take one of the hyperrealistic vehicles on a spin around the gorgeous maps? I never tire of this and particularly love watching the realistic suspension movement over the improved "bumpy" terrain and the clouds of dust vehicles throw up out on the savannah. I love to set up improvised firing ranges watch tanks shoot and the dust they throw up too - a lot of time, energy and love went into making that experience so visually and audibly realistic. I get that "new car feeling" everytime I see the start menu appear on my screen. No other sim or game has ever made me feel this way.
  2. I really enjoy the snarkiness, toxic masculinity and Type A behaviour that prevail here because I don't get them in my highly feminised and PC working environments. I love the humour too PS: If, as I suspect, the Australian taxpayer footed the bill for SMArt to be added to SB, then many thanks to gibsonm and the ADF presence here for the upgrade!
  3. I really love everything you've added (late edit: the top attack 155mm projectile was top of my wish list!) ! Can I just ask if the "target fixation" bug has been fixed for the Spike series missiles and whether you have had the time to randomise the points of impact of the image seeking ATGWs a bit so that Spike doesn't almost always fail to kill the T-14 and the Javelin almost always kills it? My testing (lots of it) found that Spike always hit from the same vertical angle whereas Javelin always hit the same physical point on the enemy vehicle regardless of the azimuth from which it was launched.A bit of randomisation would go a long way. Even if you could just fix "target fixation" that would be terrific.
  4. Sorry Breakthrough. When I first read your post, it didn't have the bold bits in it and it just said "generate" which I took to mean called for. I didn't realise you meant generate organically. Again, looking back at your edited post, I see you had the same result I had and your explanation is extremely logical. Thank you!
  5. Thank you, TSe419E, that is exactly what I wanted. 👍
  6. Hi. It may be that the SB search fu is weak in me today, but I have just spent half an hour looking and doing searches for the template that shows you the orientation of artillery impact areas for a given numerical entry when calling for a fire mission. That took the form of a template and was very useful to someone with a failing memory like mine. Could someone please point me in the right direction. Thanks in advance!
  7. I would guess the KE effect of a 40x kg carrier shell with a forged steel body and an Mv of >600 m/sec, would be significant on a vehicle like a YPR-765 at distances less than 1000 metres. In the scenario, the effects were what I would expect from one projectile's worth of grenades and its timing coincided with the muzzle flash from the vehicle shooting, so I really don't think it was a fire mission called in from off map artillery. Thinking on, I only gave the Blue side off map arty, so that surely excludes the possibility altogether.
  8. Hi. I just did a mini test scenario where I used YPR765s as substitute Spz. 63/73 and attacked a battery of Soviet 2S3. The 2S3s shot back with DPICM in direct fire mode. I had never considered that possibility. Is direct fire with DPICM something that artillery units train to do (including in the past in the case of ban treaty signatories)? I imagine it would be quite devastating in the right circumstances, but never heard of it mentioned anywhere as a capability.
  9. That worked really well. Thank you Ssnake.
  10. Hi I just tried to improvise a Swiss Centibunker using layers of sand filled ISO freight containers with a Sh'ot in an emplacement between them. The idea was to have a company of T72s with an Engage order coming up a valley and enfilade them. The problem was, as soon as they got sight of the freight containers they stopped and shot their ammunition off into the freight containers. I could use map editor to create some intervening terrain, but it would be good if they simply could not see through the containers. The Cent could see through them too, but did not attempt to engage through them. It would also be great to be able to sink freight containers into the ground to ensure level stacking on uneven terrain and to create fortifications with a "parapet" you can shoot over. Regards Chris
  11. Restoration video. What a labour of love this must have been!
  12. I posted this video on the Swiss Cold War Defence FB group that I started (more members always welcome!) and it got a post from someone at the Swiss Army Armour Museum stating that not only does the electro mechanical Pz 68 simulator still exist, but it has just been restored and anyone can make an appointment to go and see it. I emailed Nils, but he mumbled something unrepeatable about Facebook, so I'm posting it here instead Restoratiion video follows in first response.
  13. Some settings I'd like to see. For all infantry "Use AT weapons in antipersonnel role" Y/N, default N For snipers "Engage only High Value Targets" Y/N, default N
  14. I REALLY need to get back to Copenhagen. They seem like my kind of people!
  15. It's about hiding the complexity from the end user.
×
×
  • Create New...