Jump to content

Maj.Hans

Members
  • Posts

    1,567
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Maj.Hans

  1. 1 minute ago, Ssnake said:

    Nope.

    Oof.  I need that done, BAD, even if it only comes in the form of an AI controlled unit with permanently mounted launcher.  My 1A3s are getting...Ehmm...."Clubbed like baby seals"...In scenarios where they once did not get clubbed...

  2. 1 minute ago, Ssnake said:

    Which is simply a screw threading to connect one with the other.

    Right, that's what I thought they were...

    I think we will have to wait for him to respond.  Maybe he meant some other feature that I am not aware of.

    Hey, did you guys bolt Milan launchers on my Marders yet?  lol
     

  3. On 6/20/2021 at 10:49 PM, iamfritz said:

    This was what inspired German/US weapon designers to put small rings around the new 120mm DU round, which upon penetration of the enemy's armor, would break off the dart, super-heated and pinging around inside the tank setting anything and everything on fire.

     

     

    I was always under the impression that those had more to do with transferring the thrust from the sabot to the dart, rather than post-penetration damage?

  4. I will +1 the mini-map thing, the M163 VADS, and the playable helicopters EVEN IF they are "playable" only in a simplified sense.  Perhaps it would be best to simulate the gunner's seat/sight/optics and allow control over flight in the same way it currently is through the external view.

     

    After all, I think the main think we are interested in is the interaction between the tanks and the choppers, not having a chopper sim inside of ProPE.

     

    Lemme add something to the list:

     

    The current implementation of the AVEPS vehicle protection system is freaking outstanding.  But let me ask, can we get some more variants of this implemented based on simply modifying what conditions will trigger the current AVEPS system we already have?

     

    For example:
    AVEPS No KE: Not providing protection against any kind of APFSDS rounds.
    AVEPS Low V: Only providing protection against slower moving objects like missiles and RPGs.

    AVEPS 60 LV: Only providing protection against missiles over the frontal 60 degree arc of the turret.

     

    AVEPS 60 LV slapped on something like a T-55 or T-62 could easily be used as a substitute for tanks fited with the old Soviet "Drozd" APS system.

    AVEPS No KE could be used for simulating light ERA on tanks that don't currently have ERA.  Slap that thing on an M60A3 TTS, disable the thermal sights, and call it an M60A3 RISE Passive.  It could also be used for simulating APS systems that don't handle KE rounds, Trophy for example.

  5. 1 hour ago, TankHunter said:

    I suspect it will be easier to get blood from a stone.

    I agree.

     

    And for this reason I suggest that the SB Pro team, should they decide to MAKE any playable Merkava, simply take a best guess at it and/or copy an existing fire control system from an existing tank.  Save your time for things that can be accurately modeled.  I would be perfectly happy having something with the speed, armor, and firepower of the Merkava Mk.2 even if it had the fire control system of the M60A3 or the M1A1.

  6. Requests for a few more keys/options we can program in the sim:

    1. A key to allow me to move into the gunner seat and tell the AI TC to shut up forever and let me shoot.  For those days when the AI gunner is having troubles...

     

    2. An option within multiplayer games to allow the huaman gunner to take control over the AI driver.  Useful for when the human TC has a leadership role and wants to get into the map and allow the human gunner to take over.  I rarely play multiplayer but this would be very useful to me.  Should be set my the human TC from the drop down menu.

     

    3. An option to allow human TCs to issue a "Fire and adjust" order, or a "fire" order, from the map screen.  Same reason as above.

  7. On 6/15/2021 at 5:23 PM, Ssnake said:

    That the loader's MG mount is compatible with the TC's hatch ring is undisputed. But moving it to the TC's hatch makes it then the TC's MG. As long as it is the loader's MG the TC can't operate it.

    Not sure how widespread the practice to put the MG on the Leopard commander's hatch was, outside of Greece. For Germany at least it runs completely against the doctrine of relieving the commander from all weapons handling so he can concentrate on the task of supreme importance, commandeering.

     

    I admit that most of the time, on vehicles with a TC MG, I usually treat it as a weapon of suppression or desperation rather than my primary job.  I would like to have the option for the Leopards, as when I play with a human gunner who can be told to "fire and adjust" I like to take the opportunity to put some hot lead down range now and then.

     

    I'd also like to be able to tell the AI gunner to "fire and adjust" while firing the TC's MG on the vehicles we have.

  8. 3 hours ago, Ssnake said:

    I understand your point and I'm somewhat sympathetic to your reasons. But we have to draw the line somewhere...

     

    Maybe one day we allow a "kitbash mode" where you could pick components from different tanks and create a custom contraption that you would then send into battle in your scenarios.

     

    I mean, right there seems like a good spot to draw the line if you ask me.  I don't really feel the need to create completely new vehicles, especially when we have other options already that help us do some of that.  For example, the new add-on AVEPS system has been great for this.  I understand that at some point the Soviets started fitting the T-72B with Kontakt-5 ERA.  We don't have a T-72 with Kontakt 5 on it in the game.  But I can take the T-72B1 m.1985 and slap the AVEPS system on it and say "Squint harder!".  Actually works quite well.  I would still love to see more modern playable OPFOR tanks, but in the meantime the existing playable vehicles fitted with modern APFSDS and the Aveps system work quite well IMHO.

     

    Another example: we already have the Leopard AS1 in game as a playable vehicle.

    We already KNOW that it gets used as an Ersatz Leopard 1A3/1A4.

    eSim has gone so far as to provide it WITH Ersatz Leopard 1A3/1A4 skins by default.

     

    I happen to enjoy some of these cold war scenarios.  So, rather than asking you guys for a whole freaking new Leopard 1A3/1A4, what I would like to see is the PZB200 night sight system modeled in some way on this tank.  I don't even care if it isn't implemented 100% accurately, I just want to be able to push the "+" key and get some night vision in the gunner's sights, just like we already have on the Warrior IFV.  That could be done through the "Optional Weapon" dialog so that users who don't want fictional night vision on the AS1 simply don't receive it in their scenarios unless they put it on.

     

    As another example, alternatively, maybe we could get some kind of option to select a vehicle with thermal optics, and degrade them down into the NVG views?  Nothing about the fire control system needs to change, just that when the player looks into the thermal views they should see the regular "NVG" style night vision, and the AI should behave accordingly.

     

    If you do that, I can take the existing Leopard 1A5DK or 1A5GE, degrade the thermal sights, and say "Squint harder, that's a Leo 1A3A1, and that's a Leo 1A2A1!". 
     

    I can go over to the M60A3 TTS, do the same thing, and tell players "Squint harder, those are USMC M60A1 RISE Passive tanks."
     

    The existing Leo2A4 and Marder1A3 could be turned into initial production Leo2A0 and Marder 1A0 that didn't have thermals, etc.

     

    That's the kind of stuff I would like to see.  We already talk about how to model vehicles that we don't have by using the damage components option to create something similar, and I am PERFECTLY FINE with this, I just wish we had more flexibility in a similar way.

  9. On 4/22/2021 at 2:44 AM, Ssnake said:

    Sorry, but there simply are different guns out there of same caliber that offer different limits on chamber pressure. This is the case for pretty much all the major tank cannons - not just 105mm, but also 120, 125.

    A gun rated for higher pressures hand handle lower performing rounds, but its not interchangeable in the other direction. In the case of APFSDS, the latest Russian ones exceed the maximum tolerable length in earlier Soviet autoloader models, should we ignore that now, too?

     

    Heck, why even stop there? The argument "Suppose there was a Technical with a 120mm tank gun, ..." could justify abandoning any connection between vehicle model and ammunition that it can fire. We have to draw the line somewhere.

     

    TBH I think you're looking at this from a totally different perspective than I am.

     

    For example, I would like to see the 105mm ammo choices added to the T-62.

    Not because the T-62's gun is compatible with that ammo.

    Because the Israeli Tiran 5 is a T-62 re-armed with the NATO 105mm gun.  And since I don't have the Tiran 5 available in the scenario editor, putting in a T-62 with an Israeli skin and NATO ammo is the next best thing.

     

    Same thing goes for vehicles like the Centauro, M60A3, M1 and M1IP.

    We don't have the Striker MGS modeled yet.  But a Centauro loaded up with and firing modern 105mm ammo is good enough for me to say "squint harder" and make a mission.

     

    We don't have the South Korean K1A1 or K1A2 tanks.  But an M1IP with the right paint scheme slapped on is "close enough".  And an M1IP with some nice modern sabot ammo and the new APS system slapped on, together with some nice paint, is "close enough".

     

    IIRC, there are currently special characters used in the ammo selection to indicate top attack munitions and tandem warhead weapons, isn't that right?  Maybe we could have other ones added to indicate ammo that doesn't actually normally belong to that vehicle.  I will also point out that the AMX-13/75 which we already have can somehow magically squeeze 90mm ammo into it's 75mm gun.....Perhaps because....Squint harder...?

  10. On 3/30/2021 at 5:48 PM, Ssnake said:

    I'd need to look it up to be sure, but I think the ammo in the Centauro is not certified for older L7 105mm guns as it uses a higher chamber pressure. That, or something else, but there's definitely a reason why its ammo wasn't made available for other 105mm systems. Whenever possible, my goal is to make the widest range of options available to mission designers.

     

    Dare I say it but might we get the full range of 105 ammo available for all of the vehicles fitted with it?  Might help when we're having to use a player tank to substitute for another, etc.

  11. On 1/11/2021 at 7:43 AM, Apocalypse 31 said:

    Wish

    Optics Zoom OUT button for M1A2

     

    It has one in real life on the gunners station and commanders station

     

    It's really annoying having to zoom in 4 times to cycle the zoom one level backwards. 

     

    This, plus mappable buttons for the different CITV modes.  I find it super annoying to have to use the mouse to switch them around.

     

    On 1/14/2021 at 6:32 AM, Ssnake said:

    ...the ability of the AI to waste ammunition on the move with unstabilized heavy MGs?

     

    I don't know that I really want the AI to be doing it unless specifically told to do it, but I do wish that when I jump into the MG mounts on certain vehicles, like the .50 caliber HMG on the Abrams and M60A3, etc, that I could tell my driver to keep on driving, and my gunner to keep on scanning and/or to continue to "Fire and Adjust".

  12. 15 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

    image.thumb.png.6be500a27ad8c01e33357f341d8faf0f.png

     

    Functional interiors - example photo - giving waypoints via the BMS in the M1A2 instead of having to jump to the F5 screen.

     

    The developers always talk about how long, and how much effort that modelling the interiors take -

     

    I think its pointless if they're not functional. I spend 0 time looking at interiors and 100% of my time split between sights and outside of the hatch.

     

    I think vehicles like the CR2 are fine- I was also a huge fan of games like Armored Fist and M1 Tank Platoon - their approach to use an actual 2d photo of an interior but with added functionality. Low effort, high reward versus high effort and low reward for super-modeled interiors. 

    +1, and in the case of the M1A2 specifically, a way to assign buttons for the different CITV modes.  Unless I'm mistaken currently you can only change CITV mode from the interior, but I would like hoy keys for that.

     

    18 hours ago, Ssnake said:

    Okay: In hindisight, it was also a questionable decision. So we'll have to figure out new ways to counter the drone threat. Even if we had kept the Gepards, it probably would have required a relatively costly modernization effort, and we would probably still require additional defense layers since the drone threat is highly diverse, ranging from DJI Mavic style multicopters to Global Hawk jets cruising well above airliner travel altitudes in the upper stratosphere.

     

    The personnel cost you can kinda reduce...  If I'm not mistaken, the USAF actually uses the national guard to keep lots of specialized skills around.  The idea being something like if you let them have lots of time off and stay in one place, you can keep people with special skills in the Air Force, focused on maintaining those skills, pay them less money, worry less about training other missions, etc.  And I guess that explains how we wound up with ANG units flying F-4G Wild Weasels, RF-4C recon aircraft, and so on.  They fly less so it costs less on equipment too.

    Why not do the same thing with your ADA instead of tossing it all?  You can throw a tarp over hundreds of the suckers and park them in a box, and let your best crews keep a dozen or two running, maintained, updated, upgraded, keep them trained, and have them keep updating the training docs and manuals.  If you ever actually NEED some Gepards, you'll have what you need to start training the crews and bringing the reserves online.

  13. 10 hours ago, Grenny said:

    In germany, most.

    But we sold quiete a few to Romania and Brazil...so they could make use of that 😉

    If only they had been smart enough to throw a tarp over them and park them in a warehouse...

     

    I can understand making a massive cut to the total number of units in operation if you think they just aren't as useful, but if you remove 80% of them from service why not keep them around as a source of spare parts?  You can keep cannibalizing them, or using them as replacements, until you get the new system up and running.

    Also I bet those things would be quite effective against insurgents...

  14. On 11/19/2020 at 9:03 AM, JLS02 said:

    A pilot able Apache Long Bow Attack Helicopter with associated armaments

    Even if the simulation/control/level of detail is not up to the standard of an actual helicopter sim.  I understand that this is a Tank/PC/Truck sim and want it to stay that way, but given that helicopters are potentially quite deadly when used properly and also kinda derp-tarded when the AI is in control it would be nice to be able to get into the gunner's seat and continue to use the current level os WASDQZ control we have over the flight.

     

     

  15. 4 hours ago, 12Alfa said:

    Yes one could fire below the casings...except in the rare times , those casing held a projectile now moving at a rather high speed towards you. In this case, it's most likely your last view :)

     

    Unless it's a Soviet era all steel crap rod that'll just go *Bonk!* and fly off into the day somewhere lol

  16. On 7/18/2020 at 2:11 PM, DanTDBV said:

    The question is what kind of documentation would be needed for the additions to the external model and the crew views of a no interior crewable version?

    I have access to this fully operational Centurion MK5 2DK

     

    Picture is a framegrab from a video I shot at Åben Hede last year.

     

    Happy Simming

    I have said this before, but I'll say it one more time...

     

    In the case of vehicles like this where it is no longer on the front lines, I would be perfectly happy to have the eSim team make something as accurate as can be done, with corners cut for time and money sake, and tell us 'Hey look, we're in this to make money, and this thing doesn't make money, so we cobbled this together, go have fun and don't complain or we'll gag you.'.

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...