Jump to content

Maj.Hans

Members
  • Content Count

    1,533
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Maj.Hans

  1. that would be plenty fine by me too. In the case of the M1A2, such a view is almost essential due to the instrumentation and other panels.
  2. Look about the views... A third person "observer" or "external cam" view is fine by me. What I want from a vehicle in general is: 1. Gunner's gun-sight views, accurately modeled as much as possible. 2. Gunner's front vision port, if applicable. This may be as simple as a 2D image with a representation of a vision port like the Unity Sight was in the original Steel Beasts. 3. Commander's unbuttoned view. 4. Commander's buttoned-up view. This may be as simple as the array of vision blocks as presented to us by the original Steel Beasts, and by ProPE when crewing certain vehicles without a 3D interior. 5. If the commander had access to other devices such as magnified periscopes etc, it would be good to have this as well. Nice To Have: 6. "Overhead Cover" positions, if applicable. Flashy, and cool, but I could care less: 7. Fully modeled 3D interiors.
  3. No...Not even this can be that horrible... I have a copy of Steel Armor somewhere. I'm pretty sure that I installed it, got into the menu system, tried to start a campaign, crashed, restarted, started a campaign, got frustrated by the "move your units" thing, crashed again, and then uninstalled without ever actually getting into the gameplay part of the game.
  4. Oh man...This is gonna be good. LOL this is not gonna be good. I'm out. It's massive multiplayer too isn't it? And 3rd person external view only???? barf
  5. Or... If he's not accidentally pressing ALT+TAB to turn them on, and hasn't accidentally mapped it to another key stroke...Could he be having a graphics issue that renders those as too opaque? Maybe I remember wrong but I swear he asked about this before and similar suggestions were made.
  6. Again, ironically, my use for them is early AR-15s lol. The early mag wells sometimes ran a bit on the tight side.
  7. That's interesting, but I know for sure that the place I used to get them from did *NOT* have an ITAR restriction statement for the EMag lol. And ironically despite being designed for "foreign" guns, my only real use for them has been US made stuff with tight magazine wells, and conversion into HK33 mags.
  8. ITAR can make a soup spoon illegal. Its probably done it before. I've heard of it preventing the US from importing US made firearms that were previously given out as military aid. WW2 era stuff. I think it also prevented the export of some WW1 era British made Enfield rifles back to the UK or possibly to Australia from a seller in the US. At that point they were 100+ year old bolt actions more useful as a wall decoration than weapon of war... I appreciate what it was intended to prevent, however it has gotten out of control at this point and possibly filled with too many loopholes to be actually effective. It blocks access to completely inane items, and at the same time, a company that wants to export weapons parts can do what MagPul did with the STANAG 30 round 556 magazines... The P-Mag and E-Mag are functionally identical, but one is blocked for export and the other not because of some cosmetic changes? Going back to the controllers, what's the cost like for just a gunner control handle? I have some very good joysticks that work just fine for a TC controller, but they're kinda...well...Super Lame for gunnery, especially moving targets. In not necessarily stuck on the idea of a direct copy of the real deal, I just want something with batter control over the inputs.
  9. The part about the BESA coaxial kinda surprised me! I had assumed they moved on to a more modern MG by then. Weren't the BESAs always in 7.92x57mm Mauser? Seems kinda odd to find it in front line use post ww2, but I guess the UK already had the ammo plants set up to make it and the guns to shoot it?
  10. I guess I should have expected that some beaurocratic law would prevent video game controllers from being sold without jumping through hoops. After all, ITAR says that these 30 round rifle magazines cannot be exported! Except for the one on the right. They took the gripping ridges off so now its okay to export globally. So if your second license allows you to export to any end user in those countries, do you sell to anyone who wants and can afford one?
  11. I realize they're based in the UK, but even there I can't imagine that video game controllers would be a secret classified item?
  12. AFVsim still refuses to sell to non-governmental entities right? I'm interested...
  13. If you're not going to have to re-write the engine to accommodate it....Then...Yes...But if it would stop you from working on other features like vehicles, its not that important.
  14. I wanted to ask if it would be possible to get some functionality added to assist the AI with managing ammo selection? I don't know if they current engine would even support this so I don't want to throw it on the wish list. Specifically, I just thought a few things might be nice to have added during scenario design, but like I said I don't know if the sim can handle it? First, the ability to select or randomize main gun loading at scenario start. For example to order that 50% of AI units will load up with Battle-carry HEAT instead of Sabot in their guns at scenario start. Second, the ability to order tanks capable of switching ammo types after loading to NOT leave certain specialty rounds in the gun, or certain rounds under certain conditions. So that, for example, Leopard 2's or Abrams tanks that loaded M830A1 MPAT, DM13 PELE, or Cannister can be told "It's not cool to drive around with that loaded, if you aren't firing it, reload with Sabot", or even if they have HEAT loaded but are about to move into thick woods, to unload it and go back to Sabot.
  15. +1 for this. I will say that I could probably live with the vehicle schemes, but I think it would be great if we could use the "Set Look of Infantry" tool to set the infantry to look like other countries' troops.
  16. Thanks! I couldn't find this either even through I knew it had been made and I SWEAR I had it in the past! I'll be throwing these in and running the scenario with proper skins later tonight
  17. Maj.Hans

    Wargames

    I tried "War Thunder". I got bored after about 4 hours of beating up on gamers. Apparently parking your Panzer in a nice battle position and picking off the enemy is called "camping" and is a reason for people to insult you.
  18. Interesting. I'll have to try them out to see if there's any noticeable difference other than the tracers. I think perhaps the current simulation of the frag patterns is a little bit lackluster. Currently it seems that troops in terrain have to be pretty much directly hit by the rounds to have any effect. I understand and agree that 20mm just can't have much of a "bang" to it, but I wonder if the real thing is a bit more peppy.
  19. I just did a sort of double take in the mission editor, since the Marder seems to have a wide array of new 20mm HE ammo choices. However, it seems like they're essentially identical at this point. Are there any performance differences in game at this point? I noticed that the usual DM81/DM101 that we've always had basically needs a direct hit to kill troops, so I wonder do the others have different fragmentation patterns?
  20. Given the current limitations of the ProPE team, I will state yet again that I would be perfectly happy to have a second Marder 1A3 added to the game featuring a permanently mounted MILAN launcher, even as an AI Only vehicle, as a place-holder pending the introduction of an eventual fully functional model...
  21. When in the Unity Sight view in the TC's position on the Marder 1A3 it is possible to press the override button and move the turret using the mouse. However, joystick inputs seem to be ignored.
  22. I've noticed the Centauro has a 105mm ME-456A1 HEAT round with 600mm of penetration, stated to be a US round, and the Leopard1A5-DK has a Dutch "HEAT-T" listed with similar figures. Any chance we can get these added to the other 105mm platforms? I think the performance seems perhaps slightly optimistic for 105mm, however it would be nice to have a modern compliment to DM63/M900 for use with the M1IP/M60A3/Leopard1A5GE/etc in more modern scenarios.
  23. +1 even if the new AT3's have to use incorrect SACLOS guidance due to the current limitations of ProPE. Do something else to them to simulate MCLOS guidance but remember that these will be mostly used in old scenarios anyway where modern military users likely have little interest. While I'm wishing for things the devs will never have time to do, how about the Striker MGS, or possibly the RadKampfWagen 90? lol
  24. Does this mean we'll soon have Leopard 2's with MPAT and M1A1/HA with DM11? If so that would be a welcome addition. I understand the USMC either bought or looked at buying DM11.
  25. Since my tax dollars paid to buy them, paid to maintain them, and now they want to use my tax dollars to pay to destroy them, I think the least they could do is drop one or two of them off in my front yard. In all seriousness though, I would think that perhaps it might be best to downsize the tank force and use the ones that were cut as spares. Maybe it's time for some ERA add-ons to get the armor up to a more modern M1A2C level.
×
×
  • Create New...