Splash

Bouncing roadwheels.

Now that would be a feature, to get individual markings from for instance the callsign template..

+1

That's a feature I've fully suspected was on the way since the groundwork was laid with the introduction of decals several versions back.

It's something that's been implemented in games at least as far back as the original IL-2.

Happy 'murica day!

T'was this day in 1776, we British handed you the keys to your own government.

You've done good so far.

(With ups and downs as with any government.)

:biggrin:

(We just get a pithy St. Georges Day, not even a bank holiday )

'Twas on this day we reached for the keys. Took you a few years to relinquish them. :biggrin:

The sentiment is appreciated nevertheless. Thank you.

:thelmuts:

They also appear to be walking. Indication of added speeds of movement?

So, we're getting hover tanks?

:debile2:

Well, maybe Ssnake or Volcano will clarify, but I interpreted Volcano's answer when I raised this concern in the "Consolation prize No. 2" thread to be that user-made missions will not be broken.

VOLCANO: We went through great lengths to make sure old scenarios are not broken. Basically, when you load an old scenario in the new version it will add the appropriate troop orders to make them behave the same as the old scenario intended. So for the most part, old scenarios *should* perform the same way. (emphasis mine)

This was in reference to the 'mount/dismount if' behavior at waypoints. Ssnake answered a similar question (which I can't find now) in a similar way. Neither answer limited the 'fix' to missions shipped with the sim ... but maybe I misunderstood. If I did, I return to my prediction of much wailing and gnashing of teeth from those with beloved downloaded scenarios and/or much work invested in scenarios of their own.

That's a good workaround on the leoturrettop. The artist's photoshop skillz are superior to mine. I tried that but wasn't happy with the result. Is that your work?

And I had forgotten about the hatches being borrowed from the 2A5.

I'm looking forward to seeing what the update brings.

I feel your pain. Since 2.64, most of my tank time has been in the Leopard 1A5.

The main file you're interested in is leoturrettop. Unfortunately, the sim gives you only one version -- the woodland Danish camo -- which defaults across all themes. (The TC view also relies on the pre-2.6 file for the tank deck; it needs to be changed, too. I won't even bother trying to explain it.)

Making a desert one to match the Leo's sand-yellow desert scheme would seem a simple matter if one had the template. Unfortunately Deja's site is gone, and I don't think there was a 2.6x turrettop template there, anyway. I made a 3-color camo one for myself to go with dpabrams' Bundeswehr skin, but it was a real pain in the arse without a template.

Long story short, just suck it up and do without at this point, since major 3.0 changes are set to make current skins obsolete in a couple of months, anyway.

That's great news! Thanks.

That's a very good looking urban skyline, Stevo. Which map?

Al needs to be immortalized in the form of an easter egg. Like, "Al was here" graffiti on a building or perhaps something more sublime that no one notices even if they look at it everyday (like how I hid my name on this forum).

There's already a monument to him available to mission (map?) builders. One to Nils, too. Skins are in the textures folder.

A consequence of all this is that infantry will now rarely dismount automatically anymore (basically only if the vehicle is being immobilized).

I think everyone should take special note of the "consequence." While additional control is welcome, if I understand correctly that troops will no longer automatically dismount at a BP, we must be prepared for the fact that all existing scenerios that rely on that behavior will be broken. Just sayin.

LNoT shouldn't even be a factor.

Seriously, the only fair way is to release it when it's ready. That has always been eSim's way, and it's a good way.

Those who are participating in LNoT are not compelled to install 3.x until they have given 2.654 its "sendoff." Plan the event with the current version, and execute it with same.

Why should we who cannot take part be compelled to wait longer?

I don't intend to make this a MP v. Single Player thing, but it seems pretty simple to me.

Route Tactics

Engage

PCs will dismount infantry if the route is set to slow speed, and the infantry will then move forward of and along with the PCs on the route.

This works exactly as advertised when AI controls a platoon. Is there a way to get it to work when I'm in command of the platoon? I know I need to order them to dismount myself when in command, but even at slow speed on the route I can't get them to move out forward of the vehicles.

Glad to hear it. Welcome to the forums.

Open your mission in the Mission Editor.

Enter the 3-D world (F1 or right-click/view)

Press Alt-S to bring up a file dialog of the available sky textures. (There's a good selection available, but as the Captain says, you can mod/add as you like.)

Pick a file and Open. You'll see immediate results.

When you settle on one, hit F5 or escape and save the mission.

Done.

Time of day can have some bearing on the effect. You can change that (assuming it's not relevant to a pre-made mission) in the Options drop-down menu of the map screen. (You can also change the sky texture there, as well.)

Mouse emulation worked at one point, but it seems to have been broken with the latest version. Even then, it wasn't really a workable option. Nothing like true support.

The closer you zoom in, the more likely you'll get a new waypoint rather than a connection to an existing one. So zooming out a bit is better if you want to snap to an existing waypoint.

Initially it seemed counterintuitive to me. But I've gotten used to it and rarely have it happen now.

Some further discussion here, although the last two pages shift to a different question: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=16078

Sounds like that could be simulated very well, then. PTT mimicks the springloaded switch. A separate (or shifted) button might mimick pushing it the other way for in-vehicle coms.

But I do concede it could easily get overcomplicated, especially with multiple teamspeak channels to manage, each requiring its own hotkey I gather. I bet with some thought and enough functions on the hotas one could make it work.

I suspect you'd need to be very careful as to which commands you mapped to which words.

If you mapped "fire" to "fire" then discussions about occupying a "support by fire position" or "Are you able to fire on X?" might generate a bunch of undue ammunition expenditure.

The answer to this is using PTT and NOT using the same key for Teamspeak and voice commands. Each app "hears" only that which is spoken while its dedicated key is depressed.

Good point. I used to use Game Commander long ago in offline flight sims. Online, the potential for confliction with TS is obvious. Or does anyone know a way round it? Just curious - I have all 'command keystrokes' mapped to button on my joystick so don't need it.

Wouldn't it be the same as a real track commander keeping crew and platoon coms separate? How does that work, anyway?

But no doubt it would take some practice to master, especially in the heat of engagement. I only play offline, but it works great for me in that role. I've played SB almost from the beginning that way, so I'm comfortable with it. Keys that are typically verbal actions/orders are Shoot-sent (Gunner tank! Fire fire say-bow, driver backup); button-pushing stuff is on the HOTAS (polarity/mag changes, popping smoke, ammo selection from the gunner's seat). There is some overlap so it's not perfect. It's a wip.

I use a similar program called Shoot, and it works quite well with SBProPE. I read somewhere of someone getting Windows 7's voice recognition to work, too. In all three cases it's just a matter of sending keystrokes by speaking into a mic rather than physically pressing the keys. SB doesn't block that in any way.

I don't know how DCS utilizes voice activation, but I suspect it's the same way -- translating sounds into keypresses. In that case, if it works for DCS I don't understand why it wouldn't work for SB.

I'm assuming the OP has rechecked his profile mapping. When he says (for example) "Echelon right" does VAC send a "\"? etc. etc. etc. My best guess is that there is a keymapping conflict somewhere -- potentially involving the mic 'send' key or something similar.

I take it this procedure hasn't changed? If one wants to utilize a different infantry skin other than the defaults, we still do as Kingtiger has stated...correct?

Correct.

Copy the one from the sim's Woodland/Red folder.

You need to raise the launcher. It starts in the stowed position on the range.

The toggle switch is right below the sight eyepiece. (or shift-q).

.... The reason why its 100% casualty rate is due to using HME (Home Made Explosives). HME is very unstable and alot of the times you hear the Insurgents that kill themselves trying to transport the HME. Yes, they use a ton of it to destroy the vehicle. Another reason that you see a catastrophic death for MRAP is the use of EFP (explosive formed projectiles) going through the bottom of the vehicle will kill the entire crew.

While I don't believe everthing I read on the interWebs, I doubt that every story of MRAP-borne troops' survival of IED attacks is a fabrication. It was my understanding that the vehicles were developed and deployed specifically to counter the weaponry to which you refer.

Nevertheless, whether there would be survivors in the a vehicle (that includes the term "Mine Resistant" in its name) in the event of a detonation beneath the vehicle is irrelevant. In the simulation, an explosion less than 100 meters away eliminates 100 percent of the infantry squad in a Cougar 100 percent of the time. The vehicle is disabled to varying degrees depending on the distance. The vehicle's crew survives in all cases unless unbuttoned. (If the same infantry squad approaches the IED on foot -- in the simulation -- I've found the majority of them often survive at that distance.)

The real irony is that if you set off an IED directly beneath a stationary MRAP, the vehicle in SB will take NO damage and the entire squad will survive. Go figure.

ESim says this is all a quirk of the simplified treatment of IEDs, and the implication is that we might be able to purchase an upgrade in the future where the effects of such weapons are more realistic. In the meantime, the MRAP, as far as I can tell, is the only vehicle in SB that is nearly useless in its intended role, essentially eye candy.

Ok.

Part of my puzzlement was in the ability of vehicle crew to survive an IED blast, but not the "cargo." (Crew are IED casualties only when unbuttoned in my testing.) So I had assumed a similar treatment for troops in the vehicle.

Thanks.