Jump to content

Maj.Hans

Members
  • Content Count

    1,438
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Maj.Hans

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. How about taking the existing playable T-72B1V, slapping the T-80U armor model and external 3D onto it, and adding the option to toggle the current daysight views for the TC and gunner into a modern IR sight view? You don't even need to change the way the fire control system works, that upgrade alone will make it far more deadly as a player vehicle. Slap a title on it like "OPFOR-MBT" and be done.
  2. Me too. Also MILAN on M113G, and if possible, Dragon on M113A
  3. I can't say that I ever met him other than on the forums, but I'm sorry to hear, and it won't be the same without him... My condolences to his family.
  4. I must admit I'm surprised by that! I always thought the two EFPs were used to either find or make a gap in the top ERA and that there was a chance it might not be effective, but I didn't know that ERA wasn't effective against them. Does this include Kontakt-5 and other such "heavy ERA", or just the light weight stuff?
  5. Same for the M113G with Milan launcher mounted. And, furthermore, the same goes for the US Army M113 with Dragon mounted.
  6. I wish for content where Milan was only a vehicle component...How about that? I understand that it could/can/is be dismounted from and mounted to the vehicle, perhaps even during the time-frame of a typical scenario. Right now the choice is made for the user: they are "Locked In" to having the launcher go with the troops. I am wishing for the alternative option to have them be "Locked In" to having the launcher stay with the vehicle. Nothing more.
  7. I would be QUITE happy if we were given the choice in the scenario builder to pick between "Marder 1A3" and "Marder 1A3 Milan" and it was simply thrown in as a separate vehicle. It would be NICE to be able to mount and dismount the Milan but more often than not I find myself wishing it was mounted, or cursing up and down that my infantry have, once again, set my launcher up inside a shrubbery.
  8. Could it perhaps be altered so that when a user clicks the "Exit" button on the map screen, after returning to the eye-perspective view, he will then stand up and pan/tilt to wherever he was looking outside the hatch automatically? Personally I happen to think that Ssnake is correct and that, particularly in combat, if I couldn't have my head up looking for things that were about to kill me, be it a sniper, artillery, an enemy tank, or a big branch coming my way, I would much rather be down inside the turret where at least I have some armor to protect me. However, I would argue that the act of ducking down into the turret to glance at a map board and then popping back up to look in a certain direction might be easier in real life than in a game, almost automatic if you will.
  9. I think I remember, at one point, stumbling across a sound clip to tell the gunner to shoot at a "Chopper", as well as possibly a completely unused texture for a cargo truck or something. But I guess you guys didn't waste much time then! Kinda surprising since it seems like there are so many other games out there from both then and now, packed full of cut content, scraps and tidbits of unfinished features, etc.
  10. Interesting. Were there perhaps any aborted attempts to make other vehicles playable? Like a playable T-72, or perhaps vehicles or features that simply didn't make it into the final product?
  11. I went through it with a few people who had 'been there done that' some time back... The story as I got it was if you're taking ammo from hull stowage, if you're messing with the coax, if the stab has gone haywire, if the driver needed medical attention, etc, then the loader could and would hit the emergency stabilizer kill switch. It was not normal practice to use the stabilizer cut out when firing and loading on the move from the turret racks, however, as the vehicle speed increased the stabilizer system rapidly lost effectiveness. Basically "Slow" speed would be the M60A3's maximum effective fire on the move speed, at least with the main gun. At higher speeds the crew might very well try to engage on the move, but they'd either have to do a "firing slowdown" or something, or just blast away and pray for a hit...
  12. It certainly was one hell of an actual SIMULATOR in an era when the only competition was borderline "arcade". Neat to see this stuff released. Makes me wonder, @Ssnake, was there any other "cut content" or perhaps unreleased expansions or add-ons to the original SB? I always wonder about this kinda stuff. I remember back in the early 90's, Falcon 3.0 was out, along with it's add-ons Hornet and MiG-29, and for a while games were showing up with adverts for the A-10 add-on they were working on...Which, mysteriously, never did show up!
  13. Is that their normal practice to not load the round fully until just before firing, or is that something they're doing since they're firing under range conditions?
  14. Perhaps that's what was "In a book" or the manuals, however, according to actual M60A3 crewmen I spoke to, it's absolutely not how it was done in practice nor in training. The stab kill switches were used only during start up in case the turret went crazy. IIRC in a prior thread eSim was supposed to have changed the M60A3 to NOT deactivate the stab when moving at slow speed or slower but it never really worked that way, at least not reliably so for me.
  15. "Inertial Compensation" - Got it done in 20 lol
×
×
  • Create New...