Maj.Hans

I'd be up for it. However, in order to represent the complete array of vehicles, we would need something from the Syrian army... Just imagine if Pro PE had a WW2 version...

I mean adjustable deadzone for our controllers, not for the vehicles themselves, so that if we've got sticks that send inputs to the game when they should be centered, we can filter this out. It shouldn't conflict at all with the simulation of a large deadzone on the simulated hardware.

Have an option in the menu at that screen: File -> Save AAR ETA: And it's fine if the game defaults to asking unless you set it to do something else. But why not have one option so that you can set a default action to handle that so you can either set it to simply not save AARs unless you use the menu, or even set it so that it automatically saves every AAR without asking. Maybe you're a military customer and you want to make sure you can always go back and review the events. No. Not...This time... (Dun Dun Dun!)

Okay, I've got a big one here... Some way to adjust the dead zone on joystick controllers within Pro PE itself. My old stick was getting sort of twitchy on the X axis. I bought a new one. This one is better, but it's got a similar problem. So if it's possible to include some options within Pro PE so we can adjust controller sensitivity and dead-zone, that would be great. ETA: Also the following things: A way to make Lt.DeFault stop showing up after every time I delete him. I really want him to just go away to I don't have to select a profile every time. A way to turn off the "Save AAR?" dialog box after ending a scenario. I hardly ever want to save one so I'd rather have a menu option for it than a dialog box.

Yes, but this one is different. It's been done to death but now it's back again after a little face lift! I wouldn't mind this one either: Edit: Actually, I think I'd prefer the Canadian Leopard, eh? I don't know where you put the maple syrup on the SG model.

We are, of course, Norweegans...

"Leopard 2020 - Yes, we know it's just a Leopard 2A4 that was upgraded from a 2A0 built back in 1981 and all we did was repaint it, change the oil, and grease the tracks, but it's still better than your T-whatever!"

This one really made me go "Huh!" I think this is the first time I've seen an old flat-front Leopard 2 painted in desert tan. When I thought about Leopards used in desert wars I always tended to think of the more modern ones like the 2A5/2A6 rather than something so old. But then again, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised, given how it seems like the old 2A4s never get melted down, just repainted and sold to somebody else! Like the Canadian 2A4Ms, the Singapore 2A4SG, and now I guess South Africa is looking at some 2A4s. I guess they made so many of them that it's a nice economical export vehicle now?

This is what I would like to happen.

You're exactly correct. I swear I've tried this several times now. It seems as if towed vehicles always point their hull in the direction of travel.

Yhea I know that feeling. Feels kinda like.... "S***! S***! Who the f*** is shooting us!? Oh well, fire smoke grenades!"

If possible, a few more things I wouldn't mind having: 1. The SCWS for the A1 Abrams tanks, as an option similar to the remote weapons systems on other vehicles -OR- the option to add a CROWS to the M1A2. Either one works for me since these are pretty much only useful in Iraq type scenarios. http://www.defence-point.gr/news/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SCWS_usmc.png 2. Where applicable, and if possible, the ability to specify how you want to hitch a tank with the recovery vehicles. IIRC, right now all tanks hitched to a recovery vehicle are attached with their front facing the rear of the recovery vehicle. It might be nice to be able to hitch the front of a recovery vehicle to the rear of a disabled tank and then drag it backwards for some distance if it is disabled in a relatively exposed position, or perhaps down inside a firing position. 3. If it exists, standard smoke rounds for the GALIX system. I'm unfamiliar with that system so if they only have multispectral smoke, don't worry about this one. 4. The ability to swap the default M2HB on the M113 for an MG3 to represent cold war era West German M113s, or an M240 so we can use it like an ersatz-FV432.

I'll seriously pay you $40 just for the new vehicles and civilian traffic. All of the graphical stuff I consider to be nice to have, however I just want to point out that I bought two separate copies of the original Steel Beasts well after it was released. I'm here for the fire control systems and the physics of blowing up Russian tanks.

I go out of my way to shoot them with a HEAT round whenever possible. I'm confused now... It's a feature, or a bug?

The BTR-80 is the worst...I don't think I have EVER seen one burn.

My CPU itself should be just fine. I mean, eight cores running at 3.1Ghz isn't exactly top of the line, but it was the biggest one I could afford at the time and I had NO working computers at that time. The onboard audio on my old PC went out, and I took that as a sign to upgrade. I went shopping for a new box with a limited budget. My video card is probably crap, and I'm not shocked. I went with pretty much the cheapest one they had, just so that I could have something a little bit better than the onboard...Er, actually I don't think I have an onboard video...I have nothing invested in it so I'm not hesitant to replace it. I think I honestly paid $15 for it.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.