Maj.Hans

A lot could be said about the Stryker, but the tires do not appear to be a big problem. They have a run-flat capacity, and quite often after a mine/IED blast a Stryker can still extricate on its own power even after the loss of more than one of the wheels.

But of course, in a combat zone the demand for replacement tires is very high and apparently it took the US Army a bit by surprise. (Kinda "d'oh!" if you asked me, but ... oh, well.)

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

I'd love to finally have a playable Marder!

After all, the Grennies need something to carry them around!

Dran! Drauf! Druber!

That one at least is a feature (a concession that SB is just a sim): if you were able to activate the gun-to-peri override while in the GPSE, the turret would move towards the peri, wherever the peri is pointing at! In RL, you quickly glance up and see where it is (ie if it is 'safe') but you can't do that in the sim and hence the decision was to force the user to be in the peri view in order to activate KH mode.

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...

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!

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?

It is a pretty horrible system.

I understand that there were actually several generations of IR equipment, with each successive generation being better able to function without the use of an illuminator.

I just think it would be interesting to be able to play around with the function of the night sight, for example you might set up a scenario, discover that the T-72s loose every time, and then ask the question "But what if they could just see their targets?". Or even to set the IR sight to work as a normal day-sight to get a feel for how the reticle works with various ammunition might be helpful.

Okay...I understand that the T-72's IR system was (is) basically total crap.

However, the other thing I noticed is that it's actually possible to see targets further and easier through the primary sight at night than it is through the IR sights!

Is this correct?! Were the Russian IR systems THAT crappy or is the SB model for IR currently messed up a little bit?

Second, is there any chance we could see the option to tweak the IR sight? For example, to set it's performance levels similar to the NVGs or to act as a thermal sight? I know it's a simulator, but it still might be interesting to see how that would effect the T-72's capability.

Oh and lastly...Does it actually elevate with the main gun when reloading?

OK, I'm going to wrap it all up in one neat little package...Most of it is just ammunition so I hope it should be easy enough to implement at least that part.

M900 APFSDS and ATK's 105mm MPAT for all the 105mm guns, and add the existing ME-456A1 HEAT to all the 105mm gunned vehicles.

Some newer ammunition for the older Russian tanks, like the BM-21 or BM-28 for the T-62 and the BM-20 for the T-55 to simulate ongoing use of these older vehicles in countries like Iraq during the 90s, North Korea, Libya, Syria, etc.

(BTW, on the subject of the T-62...Isn't the BM-5 actually the two-part round for the early T-64s?)

An older TOW missile, perhaps the basic TOW or maybe ITOW, for earlier scenarios where the modern TOW-2 isn't really appropriate.

A playable IPM1 Abrams.

An M113 ACAV version, or at least an M113 with a gun shield set for the M2.

And a T-64A or B to blow up with my new IPM1!

Oh and if you wanted to cast all the turrets to get us a Leopard1A5, that would be cool too!

It's usually a situational thing with me. Usually, if I'm using the main gun against troops, they're either in a structure or about to whack me with an anti-tank weapon.

Given how plentiful coax ammunition is on most of the MBTs, I don't mind having to really blast away from long range in order to eliminate an infantry squad with it. I can't ever remember actually running out of coax ammo...Maybe ONCE in the Leopard2A4 in the original SB.

In the original SB the coax ammo on the M1 was basically unlimited. I think it was something like 12,000 rounds all linked together, so you'd jam the gun or get killed before you ran out.

One more question for you:

What exactly am I supposed to be using the DM33 PELE rounds for? They seem to be surprisingly ineffective against APCs compared to HEAT rounds?

OK, so basically HESH is something I should use both against light armor and troops, just make sure to hit some kind of a dense object with it if possible.

I knew that the M830/DM12 had a frag or spall sleeve added to it, but I guess some users decided they also wanted a dedicated HE/Frag round.

Now, if the spike on DM11 is just an aerodynamic thing, I still don't get why they didn't just shape it like a normal shell?

I'm familiar with standard Sabot rounds, standard HEAT rounds, the MPAT, and Cannister. I'm also familiar with HE rounds, but they aren't typically something I think of

However, I've noticed a few oddities.

First, while many countries were out developing anti-crunchy rounds like Cannister and HE, the UK apparently felt satisfied with HESH. Are these rounds still effective against troops, or are they simply used as a substitute like the M830/DM12 HEAT-MP round was?

Second, I noticed that many of the HE/Frag rounds have surprisingly good penetration values. Is this just a side effect of the velocity of the round, or an intentional design? I can understand why the Slsgr.95 with it's delay fuse would have an AP capability, but why the OF rounds on Soviet tanks? Hell the HE/Frag round on the T-62 is more effective than the Sabot rounds!

And finally, although it's not modeled, I noticed that the DM-11 HE round has a spike tip on it, almost exactly like the DM12/M830 HEAT rounds. Is that round actually a smaller diameter HEAT round with a large HE round wrapped around it or something?

Well I've got some more for this list, all ammunition related, and mostly from playing around with the Centauro as an Ersatz-Stryker MGS. I don't actually know much about the Stryker, but it's interesting to play "Tank Destroyer", aka "Don't shoot me, I haven't got any armor!", on occasion!

1. M900 APFSDS for the 105mm guns! I understand that this round offered similar or slightly better performance when compared to the M829, and might be pretty much all that you can squeeze out of the M68.

2. Add the 105mm version of the MPAT to the array of 105mm ammo. Apparently was developed for the Stryker MGS, but I bet it'd be fun to use for all the other 105mm stuff we've got. I guess it should have the same penetration and fuse settings as the 120mm version, but fly a bit slower?

Alliant Techsystems makes these:

http://www.atk.com/capabilities_defense/cs_ms_w_tgs_105ammo.asp

And finally:

3. Add the ME-456A1 HEAT round to the available ammunition on the M1 (And for that matter the ability to mix HEAT and MPAT on them too). It's listed as a US round, but only seems to be an option for the Leopard AS1 and the Centauro, and while the M1 would probably never fire it given the much more recent date, it's still nice to have. I assume this was also developed as part of the Stryker MGS program?

Here is a vid of it that I found

OnT3xpdSVEk

I hope this kind of thing will be the wave of the future, it almost became the wave of the past.

Modular simulation. If you want tanks/choppers/infantry/jets/whatever, buy that module, and have a detailed representation of what interests you, that can interact with the others.

IIRC, Spectrum Holobyte was going down that path with the Falcon 3.0 sim back in the day, it was part of their "Virtual Battlefield" series and each sim was a detailed sim (For that time!) for one aircraft in particular.

I know quite a few Arma players who enjoy simulating hearing loss and tinnitus from forgetting to wear earplugs in infantry combat who would LOVE to be able to link up to SB Pro PE like that!

...and that doesn't include the far more frequent (but not modelled) issue of barrel strike where the barrel is off the side of the hull (say 10 O'clock) and hits a tree as the vehicle goes past. Or indeed the bustle (or back of the turret) which in this case is hanging off the other side at 4 O'clock.

The resulting damage to the turret and traverse mechanism from this is almost always major.

There is a reason why in real life tanks travel slowly cross country through forests.

Now there's something! What if part of the "punishment" for moving high speed through forests was to have the gunner traverse the gun somewhere over the frontal arc, release the palm switches, and just sit there hoping his gun doesn't catch on a tree until his TC stops acting like a fool?

_--__[]KITT;218238']One I don't think the trees portrayed in Steel Beasts are that large' date=' they even look rather small in diameter.

Second my head is not weighing 50-60 tonnes. If you mean the crew bumping their head then rolling over trees doesn't mean hitting them at full speed but slowly tumbling/crushing them one by one at very low speed.

So I say to you you should think again....[/quote']

I think probably the best way to do it right now, because we don't have trees of various diameter, would be to randomize it.

If you are moving at slow or reverse speed, maybe you've got a 75% chance to crush the tree (and thus a 25% chance that the tree wins), a certain % chance to screw up external equipment like radios, and a 0% chance to injure your crew if the tree wins, because you're moving slowly enough.

The faster you go, the more likely you are to get injured or bust up equipment, you can break more important equipment, and you start taking crew casualties even if the tree doesn't win. Maybe at the higher speeds you might smash your GPS, TIS, Peri, or main gun. Maybe tanks with mine plows or rollers could break their mine clearing equipment, or APCs could suffer casualties among the troops.

...but I'm not a Cylon either who feels best in the company of mindless robots.

...Or...Is your seemingly innocent claim that you aren't a Cylon just a ploy to make us feel safe, because you actually ARE a Cylon....

:shocked:

Well, on the subject of the Russian tanks, as the T-90 is little more than a re-branded T-72, I'd be perfectly happy to get some more T-72 versions with Kontakt1 and 2 to give us a little variety in the armor we're up against.

As for making them playable, while I'm sure we'd all love to see accurately modeled interriors and FCS, I guess some of that information isn't available.

I will say that, for the purposes of having more OPFOR variety, I'd be perfectly happy to see that the T-72/80/90/64/etc were made playable even with an incorrect interrior or "best guess" optics and fire control.

But still, I'd also be perfectly happy just having more stuff to blow up.

Heh, I remember one of the reasons why we never got a playable T-72M1 in the first place was that people would start asking for more playable T-80's and T-64's. That prediction seems to be coming true.

But not matter what...

Yes a playable IPM1, T-72B, M60 and computer controlled T-64A, T-64B or T-64BV to fill the missing pieces.

I third (or fourth?) this!

Same, sometimes the gunner moves around to much.

I presume they have a lot to do currently but hopefully we'll see these things at some point.

Actually, I'd be more than happy just to have them as AI only units...

I just want them so I can blow them up!

Oh, one more thing, if possible.

I'd like a way to tell the gunner and driver to keep doing their thing when I hop up on the .50 cal in the M1's. I don't always actually intend on engaging something with it. Sometimes I just want to put out some suppressing fire on infantry real quick.

There are more differences.

In fact there are 3 types of turrets used.

Type 1 used on M1, Type 2 used on M1IP that have thicker front armor, but for example blow off panels are same as on M1, and Type 3 used in M1A1 and M1A2 with thicker front armor and different blow off panels.

So I do noth think it is just so easy to add new tank as something fully playable.

Fortunately, as the blow off panels aren't really visible in the game, I don't think it would make too much of a difference.

I'm willing to accept a few "wrong" bits here and there in order to get it in the game!

It happens only with certain maps, so far the two I've noticed it with are the two Fulda Gap maps in the download section.

I don't see anything pop up in windowed mode either.