Jump to content

Maj.Hans

Members
  • Content Count

    1,533
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Maj.Hans

  1. Any chance we might get an M1A1/HC to bridge the gap between the new A2 we're getting and the existing A1/HA? I understand that the /HC is slightly different in electronics from the /HA, but the primary difference is that it has the 2nd generation DU armor.
  2. You're kidding, right? I mean, yes I have 1Gb of video ram, but the card itself is just a cheap little GT610... ETA: For the record, I am perfectly happy with the current level of graphical goodness. I'm more excited by the additional vehicles in 3.0 than anything else...
  3. The way I see it, I've already sunk enough cash into Pro PE (IIRC I paid $100 for the dongle and license, then another $30 or so for a second license) that it doesn't make sense to NOT buy 3.0 just because I'm worried about hardware. Besides, this PC is brand new, and I knew when I bought it that I was buying a PC that was short on RAM and video card because I spent all my cash on the processor. I was planning on upgrading RAM and video card as soon as I had the cash for it anyway. Hopefully they will find some other ways to make it more compatible for older hardware. For instance, they might offer an option to revert to the older less intensive 3D models if they are available, etc.
  4. Okay...I have to admit that I'm a little concerned about my ability to run 3.0, now that I've stuck my head over in the performance threads. But just a little bit. Currently I've got an AMD FX-8120 (3.1Ghz, 8 cores), 4gb of system RAM, and an NVIDIA GT610 with 1gb of video RAM. It's a brand new system, my old one sort of gave up the ghost. I was on a limited budget, so I bought the biggest processor I could afford and planned up upgrading RAM and video card if needed later. Unfortunately I'm still on 32bit XP Pro (It's the most modern copy of Windows I own) so the OS doesn't know how to use more than 4gb of RAM, and I'm limited to using versions of DirectX that duplicate my video card RAM into system RAM, so my 1gb video card actually leaves me with only 3gb of RAM free for other stuff, if I understand correctly. It runs the current version without any problems, but I haven't tried 'huge tracts of map', nor incredibly complex scenarios yet. If I need to do it to run 3.0, I can always go out buy a 64bit operating system, throw in some more RAM, and get a better video card. For comparison sake, my previous system was a 3.0Ghz Pentium 4 (yes that's a single core) with 3gb of RAM and an HD5450 video card with either 512mb or 1gb of video RAM. I bought the 512mb model when I bought my upgrades, but I think they actually sent me a 1GB model. That also ran the current version well, but I did make absolutely sure to eliminate all unnecessary background processes, get my drive defragged, turn down all graphics settings to minimum, and avoid huge maps and scenarios. I could still do pretty big scenarios, but I sometimes noticed slowdowns, particularly when using the low magnification in the TIS and overlooking lots of stuff. I had some problems in the mission editor and map editor as well - very large maps just wouldn't load.
  5. Ssnake covered most of the points, but there were also performance issues as well. For example, a standard AP round (Quite often actually an APCBC - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APCBC but that's a different story) would have better performance than an APCR round at medium and long ranges. You can think of an APCR round as being a sort of 'non discarding sabot'. A small core of tungsten is surrounded by a lightweight adapter to make it fit the barrel. This gets you lots of muzzle velocity, but also lots of drag. So APCR rounds are very expensive, very effective at short ranges, but less effective than normal AP rounds beyond just a few hundred meters. So you carry only a few APCR rounds, and use them only in situations where you absolutely need to use them to penetrate your target. HEAT shells back then would have been far more primitive than a modern one, and sometimes had issues with oblique impacts. I understand that they had the advantage of being able to punch a hole in a given thickness of armor at any range, if you could score a hit, but low muzzle velocity and problems with poor accuracy make them best suited to use in guns that simply couldn't fire an effective AP round (like the 75mm L/24) or as a replacement for a portion of an HE ammo load as they can be used as an HE round, though are less effective in this role. For some reason, I think the concept of using HEAT rounds against light armor like APCs and IFVs is a relatively modern one related to Sabots being less effective against light armor than older AP rounds.
  6. I thought the M1A2 had 42 rounds total, due to some changes in the bustle rack storage? :wink: I guess I always figured that rounds like MPAT or an HE-Frag would be carried in a manner similar to the APERs and HESH rounds you mention. Then again, like I brought up before there may be situations where you don't expect to encounter much if any armor, like a modern Iraq or Afghanistan situation, where you might want to carry a variety of explosive rounds for use in different places. In any case, this really isn't a big issue for me anyway, just something I thought would be nice. I'd rather have more T-Tanks to shoot at like T-72s with reactive armor and a T-64 or something.
  7. It was my understanding that during and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the standard M1 weapons load included both MPAT and HEAT rounds. I can only guess that they retained the HEAT rounds for use as a substitute HE round? At the very least, it might be nice to be able to mix M908 'Obstacle Reduction' rounds in with other types, in the event that SB were ever to go as far as simulating their use against concrete fortifications like the Norks have. Then again, this may just be from me playing far too many WW2 tank sims where having a whole bunch of different rounds to choose from isn't at all unusual. For example, a mixed load of AP, APCR, HE, HEAT, and Smoke wouldn't have been terribly unusual. ETA: Not that this is going to stop me from buying 3.0. I'm pretty much in it for the Leopard1A5 and M1IP. Cast all the turrets, and rack all the bustles!
  8. On a related note, will the ammunition choices in the mission editor be set up a bit more freely to allow us to simulate a wider variety of ammo loads? Right now it isn't possible to do a mixture of HEAT rounds and MPAT, for example.
  9. Well, since I only have two licenses on my CM stick, I suppose I could always just purchase another secondary, if the fee for adding another new one were reasonable, should I ever need it.
  10. Currently I own a dongle with a 2.6 primary license, and an additional 2.6 secondary license. I'm sold on buying 3.0, but as I have two licenses I'd like to know if the upgrade charge covers all licenses on the dongle, or one at a time? Secondly, does a license only cover one specific version at a time, or does it cover prior versions as well? IE: If I upgrade my license to 3.0, could I still play a version 2.6 game or am I now limited to only 3.0?
  11. Maj.Hans

    Leopard

    Hehe, I like it, I like it a lot...But I think you could try one thing to make it even better...
  12. For what it's worth, I'm running Pro PE on a system with a 3Ghz Pentium 4 (Feel free to donate me one that's less "ancient", Ssnake ;-) ), 3 gigs worth of old DDR2 RAM, and a Radeon HD5450 video card with 512mb of video RAM. IIRC, the Core i3 is a dual core processor, while my P4 is single core. So you've got significantly more processor power than I do. I'm not familiar with the HD 4330, however please note that just because 5450 is a bigger number it does not mean that my video card is better. My old video card wouldn't run Pro PE at all. If I recall correctly, the 5450 I bought was the second or third cheapest card for sale at the time, and more than met the minimum amount of video ram listed in the requirements despite being a budget card. If you've got enough video ram you should probably be OK. Performance wise, my system (and remember, your processor is significantly faster!) runs Pro PE just fine with the detail sliders at their default settings. On maps with lots of terrain objects (particularly buildings, it seems) I do get some slowdowns when using the thermals on low zoom and looking at lots of objects. This isn't a problem because flipping to high-zoom or to day-sights to engage causes the FPS to come right back up to normal immediately. I think you'll be able to run Pro PE without any hiccups at all.
  13. And sadly, I agree. I'd be perfectly happy to have one, preferably a Mk.2 or Mk.3 as they could be used in more scenarios than the Mk.4, but I'm sure with the lack of information about armor and fire control systems, we'll never get one.
  14. If we're looking into adding Israeli tanks...
  15. I think I built that exact same model kit. 1/72 scale Revell Germany And yes, a Leopard 1A5 would be nice. But fist an M1IP and M1A1/HC Abrams!
  16. Okay, NOW I see! It never occurred to me to press the down-arrow (Peri to gun) key in the 2A5/2E/122 as the Peri is automatically locked to the gun by entering KW mode in the Leopard 2A4 that I'm so used to. In fact, in the 2A4 pressing the down arrow key after going into KW mode cancels KW and puts the system into "Peri to Gun" mode. So I just need to remember that the 2A5/2E/122 Peri requires the extra step for KW mode.
  17. Hum, I would be all on board with that. Do you know how hard it is to find 1/72 scale model kits of Russian vehicles to be 'blown up' by my collection of 1/72 scale Abrams and Leopards?
  18. OK, more detailed... I tried this with the 2A5, the 2E, and the 122. From the TC's position, I get into the Peri optical view, and search for targets. For some reason I find the peri IR view to be disorienting at times, so I usually stick to the optical view. I find a target, and press the up arrow hotkey to enter gun to peri override (KH?) mode. The turret traverses over to point at what I am looking at. If I decide that I want to engage the target myself, I don't seem to be able to lase from KH mode, so I press the * hotkey to enter KW mode. I now have full control of the turret, and the ability to lase, however the turret now moves independently of the Peri view. If I elevate or traverse the gun, the peri optical view does not move with the turret. I don't know if this is correct, it seems odd to me given that in the Leopard2A4 if you press the KW mode button, the peri view continues to move with the turret until you cancel the override...Incidentally, with the 2A4, I'd really appreciate being able to cancel the override when I'm in the GPSE view instead of having to go back to peri view... Just as a quick demonstration, here's a screenshot from a Leopard2E after I've entered KW mode. My stick inputs move the turret and gun, but the Peri continues to stay pointing at the target.
  19. Interesting. It looks like for the T-64/80 style tanks reloading from the racks is actually slightly faster, but it's pretty close for the T-72. Another question for you, I was browsing tank stuff on the web the other night, and someone made the claim that while the T-64 and T-80 can load their missiles via the autoloader, the stub bases for the missiles still need to be manually loaded? That sounds incorrect to me?
  20. I was playing around with the 2A5, when I noticed that if you use the normal day periscope to locate a target, enter Gun-to-peri mode to bring the gun on target, and then enter KW mode to engage the target on your own, the peri essentially goes back to search mode and you must use the TIM panel to engage. Is this correct? It doesn't make sense to me, but I can certainly see how somebody else could see this as making perfect sense.
  21. Thats the way I'm seeing it. Plus you could run into issues with fleet standardization, or with your return on investment. If you start now, either the tanks that get overhauled to 2012 spec get another overhaul in three years to the 2015 specifications, or when 2015 rolls around you wind up with a bunch of tanks that are three years old so you wind up overhauling fewer tanks to the 2015 specs because you've already got a bunch that are only three years old so why not just mix them all together?...Yhea.... Random question...I wonder if they held on to any 105mm gunned Abrams tanks?
  22. If it's not faster to simply reach over and throw a new projectile and charge into the gun, why is that? Is it faster just to turn the cranks than to get the straps/clips/buckles un done on the stored rounds?
  23. So, I guess this question is for anybody here familiar with the T-72 and it's details. As we all know, the T-72 stores it's ammunition quite literally everywhere. I know that the autoloader is quite reliable, but naturally it can still break, malfunction, or suffer damage. I know that when the loader is damaged, the TC has to use a bunch of hand cranks to manually operate it, and this results in a rate of fire of something like one round per minute. But again, the crew is surrounded by the ammunition...So is it possible for them to simply grab the reload rounds and start manually loading the gun?
  24. I would cover them up, but thats because I'm PARANOID about the idea of weaponry getting the tiniest speck of dirt or rust on it. But honestly it makes sense to me not to refurbish tanks that we don't need, particularly now. Why not hold off for three years on refurbishing them to todays standards and instead refurbish them to tomorrows standards later on? Edit: Naturally if congress wants to spend money thats NOT part of the military budget to rebuild them...Fine by me, we've got lots of other programs like our various free handout programs that could be cut instead.
×
×
  • Create New...