Jump to content

Maj.Hans

Members
  • Content Count

    1,430
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Maj.Hans

  1. 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.
  2. 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?
  3. 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...
  4. 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!
  5. 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?
  6. 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.
  7. "Inertial Compensation" - Got it done in 20 lol
  8. OK that's good to know. I assume that in the case of the T-72 there is still going to be a chance to KaBoom! the turret if you strike the Autoloader?
  9. Just curious here but how often is the T-14 being rendered "Combat Useless" by taking hits to the turret that cause no obvious external signs of blazing flaming death, yet still stop the vehicle from firing it's main gun? Perhaps in the future the AI is going to have to learn to deal with the T-14 by concluding "I've nailed it solidly in the turret three times and it is not engaging me...Next target!" ?
  10. In regards to the M829A4... I am perfectly fine with the eSim Games introducing it as a preliminary model. It should be clearly noted in the release notes that it is such. Maybe it would be nice to have. I do mostly us SB for 80's-90's cold war scenarios however, so...Meh...I think right now I'd rather have Milan mounted on Marders, even if it comes as a totally separate vehicle. ETA: The Armata is a totally new vehicle. I haven't even played around with it yet and don't plan to bother until next patch or so lol. Give them time to iron it all out before we get angry huh?
  11. I think his question was about how small the terrain "tile" itself could be? IE: Could it be used to make a small enough area slippery to represent the appropriate effect? ETA: Actually, how small of an area you can control might be totally irrelevant? Maybe it would be best to surround the whole area with very slippery terrain, thus making the road the only way through and ensuring that players cannot simply drive along next to the road, at least not without penalty.
  12. Maj.Hans

    BURBS Spotted

    I imagine they would be "sealed" at least until the panels blew off. In context, "sealed" might merely mean that they are not left open to the atmosphere inside the tank as with the Leopard 2 racks.
  13. Maj.Hans

    BURBS Spotted

    Sealed compartments in the hull? With blow off panels or without blow off panels?
  14. I did lots of digging into this a while back, and for some reason, I think that I decided they would be randomly distributed among the M113s in my cold war scenarios. I thought I had found something written at some point about a quantity of gun shield kits having been made and placed into storage to be sent to Europe in the event that war broke out. My assumption was that not enough would make it, and they would be rapidly snatched up at any opportunity. So I didn't fit any to the foreign M113s, about 50% of the US ones get the shield, and just a few get the full setup in my scenarios.
  15. I kinda think this is one of those things that would be "nice to have", but I wonder how much work needs to go into implementing it? Not only is it the new code to the damage model, but now if you want to make this useful, you've got to implement new reloading code... M1 and IPM1 need to be able to load from the hull stowage, and into the 3 round "rapid rack" near the gun. I suppose with four rounds 'on tap' you could keep fighting. But for the M1A1/A2 and Leopard 2 now you need to simulate loading the gun one round at a time from the hull, or lap loading now, or leaving ammo stacked up around the turret basket, which means more damage model changes... There's other things I'd probably rather have instead.
  16. Pretty much this. I think that, at this point, the SB team has decided that it isn't worth modeling the separate storage. They might be right. Off the top of my head, the only tanks with blow out panels for some or all of their ammo are the Leopard 2 and the M1 Abrams series. The way it is now, it's possible to take a hit that blows the panels off, which makes all main gun ammo disappear. In the real world it is possible that a Leopard 2 or an M1 that took a hit to the turret ammo (or, in the case of the M1, a hit to the hull storage) only could continue to fight, but I can't imagine that it would be very effective. In a 105mm armed Abrams you would be reduced to one round in the gun, and three rounds in the "rapid rack" near the gun if it were in usable condition, plus the remainder of whatever storage compartment hadn't been blown up, so it's maybe possible that an M1/IPM1 could keep fighting by topping off the rapid rack from the hull. In the 120mm armed Abrams, a hull ammo loss might not mean much if the tank was otherwise OK. But a turret ammo storage loss means you're either going to reload one round at a time, very very slowly, from the hull ammo storage into the gun, OR you're going to scatter ammo around the turret, and still wind up with only 7 rounds at most. For the Leopard 2 it doesn't really matter where you put the hull ammo storage, but I can't imagine that it's safe to load from the hull ammo storage while the tank or turret is in motion. All things considered it would be nice to model that level of detail, but do we really need it?
  17. It's been a while since I dealt with a bridge... Try using a route that takes them across in "column" formation, under "assault" or "march" orders, "close" spacing, with path-finding set to follow roads. Make the route long enough on the far side, so that the unit can cross before "unfolding" into another formation. Admittedly this part is poorly handled IIRC. Slow movement across a bridge is probably intentional. Armored fighting vehicles and bridges have a history of not getting along very well. The driver would be very careful while crossing.
  18. I did not say that. I did not say that either.
  19. Your explanation of the legal aspect is spot on and beyond reproach. We disagree on the moral aspects, however, it appears that productive discussion won't be had.
  20. 🙄 Of course it's yours and of course you can. Nobody wants eSim to lose out on any of the future profit there is to be made from selling copies of Steel Beasts Gold. At this point, however, it's almost abandonware. 5-10 years down the road, having the whole package, source code included, would make it an interesting look back at PC sim history.
  21. I'm pretty sure that can be disabled in the scenario editor already, and im sure SSnake is going to point that out. But since many scenario files are PW protected perhaps it would be good to have a server side option to disable it as well.
  22. Such as having Milan launchers fitted to the Marders? Early Leopard 1's and M60s with early passive-IR night sights? Unless it does I'm not interested.
  23. Just like Steel Beasts! Except...You know...Worse in every way it could be worse.
  24. Possibly related to this bug?
×
×
  • Create New...