Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Maj.Hans

  1. Turret cam! Yhea! Get some!
  2. All very good ideas. I just figured that hearing the rounds hit would provoke more of a reaction when we're trying to train new players. I know when I'm in a scenario and I hear that, it usually means it's time to pop smoke, slam the hatch, and reverse!
  3. I think it's a limitation of the simulation that the sound of the cases can't be switched off. I'm sure at some point, were you in a real Leopard 1, you might turn to the loader and tell him to toss them overboard, or grab them and toss them out the hatch yourself, if they were getting to be too much of a problem.
  4. I managed to talk one of my friends into at least trying SB for a little bit to see if he liked it at all. Before I started him playing, I tried to set up a few sort of easy scenarios to let him learn the ropes while getting an idea of what the game is like. So I made a scenario with a few T-55s guarding a town, set them to impotent, and talked him through all the buttons while he shot them up. Something that I noticed though was that even when the tanks set to impotent scored direct hits, quite literally nothing happened. In fact the shells seemed to just disappear upon impact. I'm pretty sure he was too busy figuring out all the fire control stuff, but it was pretty obvious to me. What I'd like to know is if we could get another version of the "Impotent" option added so that when an enemy vehicle scores a hit, the player still hears the the "Crash!" when the sabot or missile hits him? The way it is right now I feel like if enemy units are set to impotent to reduce the difficulty in a scenario, they don't give the new player any feedback to let them know that they're too exposed.
  5. It doesn't look like theres any pages currently linking to it, so thats probably why. *Searches for an "Add Page" button* Just as soon as I figure that out...I'll add a page... Found it! That oughta work for now.
  6. No need to go on a quest or anything! This is sort of one of those "If you happen to know right now off the top of your head, please tell me, if you don't, then thanks for your time" type things. I just find it interesting to read stuff like this: http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html And wish we had something like that that covered the rounds from all of the nationalities. (You can probably forget about the stats table though, I'm sure the velocity and penetration numbers in SB are plenty close enough already)
  7. Theres lots of info out there on the net, but I was hoping you could just tell us what you know about the rounds, as I'm sure you've done the research already. The lack of info seems to be mostly with more obscure rounds. Like the "M735/M" that I mentioned as an example. I'm familiar with the vanilla M735, and the M735A1, but I've never heard of an M735/M and the designation system seems kinda weird to me too.
  8. While an excellent document, it seems to be the same one shipped with SB Gold, and covers only 125mm and 120mm NATO. I'd like to see a similar document, but also with some little history about the rounds, at least what we think/know.
  9. As I'm sure many of you already know, it's relatively easy to find information about the vehicles themselves. It's even relatively easy to find information about the guns, and the modern ammunition in service like the M829 series of ammunition. However, sometimes the earlier cold war era stuff can be kinda elusive. For example, with 105mm ammunition, there's an "M735/M" listed along with the other sabot rounds. I'm familiar with the M735 and the M735A1, but I have no idea what the significance of the "/M" is. Similarly, the Centauro and some of the other vehicles with 105s have an "ME-456A1" HEAT round listed, and if you punch that into google, the only reference you find is in the SB wiki. I seem to recall that SB Gold shipped with a document that explained the history of the Russian tank ammunition, what the different models were, and when it would be appropriate to select particular models for certain scenarios. I'd love to see a similar write up for all the new stuff we've got. Even if some of the ammo is actually just a licensed produced copy or something, it would be helpful to know that "X is the American copy of the British Y" for example. Then again, maybe I'm weird because I love all this kind of trivia.
  10. It's the production dates that have me confused... From the Wiki: DM13 - 1979 - 410mm DM13A1 - 1983 - 420mm DM23 - 1983 - 500mm I'm NOT saying that I question the relatively poor performance of DM13. What I am saying is that I question why DM13A1 was ever created, particularly in 1983, when DM23 came out the very same year, looks nearly identical when cut away, but has much better performance. Basically: Why bother with the 13A1 at all? It's stranger to me than the Russian practice of developing a new type of ammunition every two or three years during the 70s and 80s.
  11. After reading the Kotsch website, I have to say I really don't understand how/why DM13A1 was produced when it's hardly better than DM13, and the DM23 looks like it's only a minor change from DM13 yet with much better penetration?
  12. I was just pouring over my 1/72 scale model collection the other day... Came across a Leopard 1A4 that I'd built with the big square box IR system and without the outback bustle rack, and I think it looks so much better that way! Would love to have a normal Leopard 1A4 to play with, along with a Western IR system that doesn't suck like the T-72's hehe, instead of just a repainted Leopard AS1.....If possible.
  13. It's probably a combination of RAID-10, a large bank of solid state drives, tape reels, and backups on DVDs... All stored within an old Leopard 1A5 that they originally bought to use as a model to help them cast a 3D turret, but have started using as a heavily armed data vault instead...
  14. Maj.Hans

    Centauro bug

    And if you run the main gun out of ammo you can't use the coax until you get a round into the gun. It stays in the reload position. Unless I'm missing something.
  15. See that is EXACTLY what I don't want to hear. "Congrats, we traded in our massive killing machines that have huge main guns, lethal auto-cannons, and lots of other stuff that kills people, for trucks with lots of wheels."
  16. Yhea thats really the key. Threat level. IMHO the Stryker is the better vehicle to go up against an enemy armed with pickups, MGs, RPGs, and IEDs. It moves better along roads when it has to convoy with cargo trucks, tank trucks, HMMWVs, etc, and it still has off-road capability when it needs it. The thing is that I don't think it's a good replacement for a heavier, tracked APC for use in higher intensity conflicts, and my concern is that we're going to try to use it as a replacement for whatever reason.
  17. Yhea...To be honest the other reason is that it reminds me too much of a BTR-80. And every time I see a BTR-80 in either version of Steel Beasts it's either already dead and everybody in it is already dead, or I'm the first guy to spot it which is why it isn't dead yet and I'll kill it and everybody in it as soon as I feel like like being bothered with smashing it up... Every time I look at one of those things.... Thats what I think of.
  18. Hey I guess it all depends on how you look at it, but I can see your point of view. From my point of view, I sort of "hit the ground running" with Pro PE. Once I got over the sticker shock and dealing with the dongle, I felt right at home laying waste to hordes of Russian T-tanks and 8 wheel death traps. To me it's essentially SB Gold with awesome graphics and more stuff. In fact so far the only things that have really made me stumble are the problems I noted elsewhere with manual fire control modes and the Leopard 2 peri, but maybe you could help me with those when you've got a little time? :razz: But yes, I can certainly see how others might actually get turned off by playing SB Gold, and I've had more than a few people look at the graphics and say that they had no interest whatsoever based solely on the graphics engine..........But for what its worth they're all COD kiddies who wouldn't be able to get their head around the concept of anything more complex than WASD, spacebar, and left-click.
  19. Honestly, I think it would be enough for them to release it free. There may not be any need for them to modify it to work under Windows 7. I haven't really kept pace with it, but there's some software out there called a "Virtual PC" or "Virtual Machine". Basically, you can use a software program to simulate a second PC running an OS that SB Gold is compatible with, such as Windows 98, as long as your existing computer can handle the demands of it's normal operating system and the virtual PC. Then again, the eSim crew could always release the source code for SB Gold and let somebody else worry about updating it to run on Windows 7...Hell I'd be more than happy to just play around with the old one for giggles. Edit: To expound on what I mean by the resource restrictions, if your PC has 4gb of RAM and a 2gb quad core, your VM will have to simulate a PC with less than 4gb of RAM and a processor less powerful than a 2gb quad core. You have to allow for the needs of the normal OS and background programs, plus the VM software and the virtual PC itself. However, if your goal is to simulate a 20 year old PC that would have had 512mb of RAM and something like a 1.2gb processor running Windows 98 so you can play SB Gold...No problem!
  20. Honestly, it was playing the original that convinced me to buy Pro PE. The two week demo is great and all, but I spent years playing SB Gold, had plenty of time to learn all about how modern tanks work, and knew from playing that that it was something I'd come back to over and over again. If you're a completely new player, the two week demo might not be enough to even learn how to work the sim, let alone decide if it's something that would get lots of use or if it's something like the new FPS games that are good for about one play through.
  21. I like it, but I'd rather see us purchase these as new vehicles rather than scrap parts of our M2 inventory. Speaking as a guy who gets all of his armor experience through PC simulators, I don't see the M2/M3 or M113 as being suitable replacements for each other, as is. Maybe I'm wrong, but to me it seems like they're just too different. I imagine the M2 probably doesn't fit in well in the current conflict because it's meant to smash up an enemy army fielding their own IFVs and APCs... I actually like the idea of using the M2 as a base for an M113 replacement, but rather than converting existing M2s I think I'd build them from scratch. Replacing the big turret with an M2HB and giving the troops some top hatches to fight from a mounted position basically turns it into an M113 on steroids. If they manage to save some weight, maybe they can fit some ERA to it a little heavier than the M2/M3 kit to give it some more protection. Going one step further with that, I wonder if the M2s and M3s in inventory now could be modified with the externalized fuel tanks and have some hatches put in to allow the infantry to unbutton and fight from the vehicle, CV90 style, instead of being stuck heads-down as passengers? As for the Stryker, well, I understand that most of the units that have them were formerly regular foot-mobile infantry units, and a lightly armored eight wheel truck is a significant upgrade from a 2.5 or 5 ton truck and a pair of boots. Having said that, I'm worried about the potential vulnerability of the tires. Had I been the guy choosing what equipment we procured, I'd have probably bought M113s instead of the Stryker, and be campaigning right now to start replacing broken, worn out, or destroyed M113s with the new BAE M2
  22. I'd love to finally have a playable Marder! After all, the Grennies need something to carry them around! Dran! Drauf! Druber!
  23. Really though, theres ways around this, and still some other problems... I could activate the peri-to-gun observation mode, wait a few seconds, and then override. Or, I could enter gun-to-peri override mode and then immediately enter KW mode, causing the Peri to align to the gun and giving me control of the gun... Even assuming that the Leopard 2A4 was coded like this for a reason, what prevents me from entering the peri-to-gun override while in the GPSE, or from canceling the current override mode while looking through the GPSE or sitting in the turret? Sometimes I want to use the thermals to lay the gunner on target, but it's a pain in the but to need to go back to the peri to cancel...
  24. How about: 1. A key to tell the loader to close his hatch and leave it that way till I tell him it's OK to unbutton. Maybe use the Alt+B key combo used to open/close the infantry hatches on APCs for this? 2. I noticed the Abrams has some interior panels dealing with chemical agent detection systems. How about a special penalty zone to simulate chemical agents? Reduce the mobility, spotting ability, and accuracy of infantry, and force vehicles to button up if possible. And once more... Some way to indicate to my gunner and driver if I want them to stop everything while I'm engaging with the TC's weapons system, or if I want the driver to keep driving and the gunner to keep engaging. I don't ALWAYS want them to completely cease activities!
  25. I noticed something a little while back, and just tested it again just now. Basically, in the sim, the manual override is effected by the Main Gun / Coax selector switch just as the normal trigger is. If you flip the selector switch over to coax and pull the normal trigger, you get full auto MG fire. If you press the manual fire control key, you get a single shot from the coax. From what I understand, the real Abrams tank has two separate manual overrides. The first is the 'master blaster', the big red handle that fires the main gun, and the second is on the Coax itself and fires the coax normally when pressed. I think a similar bug effects other tanks, like the Leopard AS1, the manual fire button only produces single shots, and as the normal trigger is disconnected you can't fire the Coax that way either. I guess the solution is either to add a separate manual fire key for the coax so that one key will always fire the main gun and the other always fire the coax, regardless of where the normal FCS selector switch is; or to edit the "manual fire" key so that it can work correctly for both guns? I know that certain other tanks might require a two man crew in the turret to fire the Coax in manual mode. For example I guess the T-72 gunner has to yell over to the TC to get him to pull the trigger, etc. Edit To Add: Just remembered something else, but I'll tack it on here. In the Leopard 2A4, it's possible to use the TC's Peri commands ONLY when looking through the periscope. You have to enter the scope view itself in order to lock the scope to the gunner's line of sight, to activate the override, to enter KW mode, or to cancel any mode. So if you enter override or KW mode and then go to the GPSE view to use the thermals to get the gunner on target, you need to go back to the scope to cancel the override and tell the gunner to fire... It seems like the overrides should be accessible from either the GPSE or Peri view, and you should be able to cancel from any view as long as you're in the turret where you can reach the cancel button?
  • Create New...