Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gibsonm

  1. Following suggestions about Navmesh in a linked thread I did some more testing. I wont re-write it all again here:
  2. Happy to have Navmesh routes on all the time if that's the best option (the jury seemed out for a while) but ... 1. I'd like to know how to have them "on" by default, not have to press "ALT" every time. I couldn't find it in the Manual, nor in the Options menu. 2. We seem to now have a plethora of options Navmesh on / off per route plus some four options for Route path finding?! By my maths that 8 possible combinations before you worry about tactics, formations, speed, spacing ...
  3. Right so I held down the ALT key .... 1. ALT + Breach route = The AVLB in the North now lays its bridge (the route no longer goes around the river). 2. ALT + Breach route = The South lays its bridge (no change). 1 x LeoScripted Bridging 4_250 - Nav Mesh.sce crosses the bridge. 3 x Leo wander off. 1993236449_ScriptedBridging4_250-NavMesh_20180_012421MARKS-PC-2012216.aar
  4. Does this mean this sentence is now incorrect: "When a scenario without an embedded navmesh is loaded , the navmesh will be generated automatically as part of the loading process" Page 67. I've just re-read pages 67 - 68 and I see no mention of a way to change the default in the Mission Editor to have Navmesh on - only the part about pressing ALT if you want it activated per individual route: If you have to remember to press ALT every time, I'm not surprised its not used too often.
  5. You're welcome. The bit I don't understand is the YouTube video works but mine doesn't?? I would have thought both would be the same - unless the video was done in 2.450 (v1), since my scenario was done in 2.450 (v2)?
  6. Looks like you need to save the plan and the overlay now to achieve the earlier product?
  7. Wow, wasn't aware of that - can't find it in the Release Notes either. Basically you need to save the plan and the overlay now?
  8. I've just spent a fair slice of the afternoon trying to use 4.250 to do something that used to be simple and failed. I was asked here to create an example scenario to show scripted bridging: After failing to get the AVLB to deploy a bridge across a "bridgeable" river -the "Breach route" ended up with the AVLB trying to drive around the river, as opposed to deploy the bridge - refer waypoints 6 and 7 in the example scenario attached - I gave up and tried to replicate what I'd just seen in this video (using an AT Ditch as the obstacle instead of a river):
  9. I've noticed in 4.250 that if you are trying to cross a river that is "too wide" (even though if a human is crewing the vehicle it can achieve the crossing) that the breach route does not actually cross the water but goes around it. Refer Waypoints 6 and 7 in the attached. Anyway in terms of the scripting, I've done it using an AT ditch. The good news is the Biber lays the bridge. The bad news is nothing uses the bridge. Even though it works here: Off to the Support page with my first bug for 4.250
  10. Which you can't do in RL with hand powered traverse. You can maybe hit it if its slowly tracking from left to right or something and you are static, but not if both parties moving. You are obtaining outcomes in your "simulation" that are not possible in the real world - is that an outcome I'm meant to take away from this?
  11. Sounds like you need to re-install a sound mod? M1064A3 is the M113 based mortar unit The Piranha V AAAMS is a wheeled unit (8x8)
  12. until
    Usual weekly meeting Refer relevant post in Multiplayer Engagements section for details. Global equivalent times: Your Local time Please use the RSVP function to facilitate planning.
  13. Daylight Saving in effect By now most readers will already know who BG ANZAC is, so I'll put the information relevant to this week in first, then background, etc. If you are new to the Forum, feel free to read the entire post. IMPORTANT: As a serving Officer, I am not allowed to make "public comment" about topics without clearance. This is why my signature block says what it says to cover written comment. Recorded audio on YouTube = "Public Comment", especially if I were to express a personal opinion (without knowing someone was recording). In addition rec
  14. As someone who has used the hand cranks on Scimitar, Scorpion and M113A1 (T-50 Turret), my 2c is happy to keep with what you currently have. Now if you want real "fun" you could introduce the "shoulder squeeze" elevation control as well - where you use your right shoulder braced against the 0.50" to maintain the elevation setting, effectively requiring you to restart the engagement every time you clear a stoppage. "click and drag" with a mouse certainly removes a whole bunch of effort compared to RL, but I can see why some would like it removed. Or perhaps o
  15. OK got it to actually do something. 1. Downloaded the seven component parts again (on the assumption that this is the "newer" version than yesterday's). 2. Installed that. 3. Then uninstalled that - via Windows Settings, same as previously. 4. Then downloaded the "SBProPEBundleInstaller_4250v2.exe" 5. Ran that. 6. Seemed to finally recognise the 4.250 was no longer there and happily downloaded and re-installed it.
  16. Hope it works for you. I removed the earlier copy of 4.250 and now it just assumes its installed already and does nothing.
  17. I had installed 4.250 and it was working fine. Then I read this: Based on this, I deleted my successfully installed / upgraded copy and started over. I initially ran the Installer v2 and it appeared to be using the pre-existing "SteelBeastsSetup.exe", "SteelBeastsSetup-1.bin" and "SteelBeastsSetup-2.bin" (nothing new was downloaded). I guess if you ran the first Installer and kept the files you actually need to delete those to force it to re-download the files including these "micro patch" changes? Working on that premise, I binned t
  18. Make sure its the "newest" version of 4.250. Refer here: Might have been nice to go 24 hours without installing again.
  19. Ah so its not just a new installer, its a micro patch too? I'm hoping executable hasn't changed - or am I sending you an email for a newer "server" executable?
  20. I doubt it. The new installer wont fix an issue with a model / ammunition type / bug. That would need 4.251 or similar. The new installer just ensures you get 4.250 (it wont change what's in the code for 4.250).
  21. Great outcome - now for the USB dongle to arrive.
  22. Our M113 with 106's only had limited ammunition capacity as they were scratch built. However you can't fill the internal volume with ammunition as the crew needs to stand up inside and have freedom move as they traverse the gun, etc. so I'd suspect the storage would be limited to the sponsons on either side.
  23. Sure but this one is is dated 3 hours ago, so for today at least, the one in the PM should be fine.
  • Create New...