Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Calicifer

  • Rank
  1. That is great to know. Thank you for your answers.
  2. I had heard some stories of simulators even from 90's getting some classified data and amazing military personal of knowing more than any civilian should. Usually such things are more akin to not publishing original material, but being able to use that. For example War Thunder developers said that they have access to sources which they can't disclose/make public. It seems that in such agreements using material in some way is acceptable, but not giving it away to public. Even, if in the end it is not 100%, if developers has access to sources and even if they can't put it into their game, they are still going to produce realistic game based on that game even if they do not take precise information from those sources.
  3. Well, it is 140 dollars for me and asking questions are a lot faster than purchasing a subscription for a month and trying game for yourself. A good example of this is game which I'm currently playing: Steel Armor. When I started to play, I have to spend several hours just learning all the mechanics until I got comfortable in that game. Then I started noticing some things. In post action analysis tool I was seeing some really weird and seemingly impossible shell penetrations. GUI is abysmal and half of the time you are unsure what anything does. I could not fire my gun, gunner reported that gun's mechanism is damaged. What that was supposed to mean? Everyone is alive in tank, there is no visible penetration from the outside. Then commands are bizarre. There are many of them and none seem to do anything. My fast movement means that tanks stroll around 10 km/h on flat ground. Tanks AI has a nasty tendency of moving its tank rear to the front of the enemy and then stopping to return fire as begging to be putted out of their misery. You see, there are a lot of tiny details which you can't notice easily from gameplay videos and playing game takes a lot of time. I watched Steel Armor gameplay, it looked solid. When I played myself, it starts fall apart with these tiny bits. I watched Steel Beasts footage and I looked at wiki. I would like to know what to expect before jumping in, so I asked what is most important for me at the moment. I have a list of games which I have to finish first and I do not want to just jump all over the place on a whim, it takes a lot of time and in the end you have achieved nothing, like completed a single game. Plus it gives other people more information on a product if they need it. Forums have longevity and this thread will help everyone for decades to come. I of course won't quote anything for research papers. It is more if information that is presented there is backed up by something solid or some things are just a speculated guess. Here is a perfect example with which now I have problems in Steel Armor. Chieftains there have loadout of 5 L23A1 shells marked as APFS (which should be marked as APFSDS). Game timescale takes in 80's. It is Iranian Chieftains delivered before Iranian revolution. So, the only shell which I could find was finished in 1985. Here are two problems with this shell. It has vastly different penetration data presented in publicly available sources. Second problem, did Iranians truly used those shells? I find it extremely hard to believe that British would sell its latest invention to new Iranian regime who turned hostile to western world in 80's. If I can't trust what simulator is saying me through its mechanics then it is poor learning aid. Such games are also a great way to check some information which otherwise would be tricky to find. What a historic loadouts for T-72 tank in 80's? What ammunition types what tank carried? How those shells are named? When one shell type was replaced by another? Such information sometimes can be very hard to find for someone speaking just english, some information is locked up in books, other by language barrier. Such games often has a secondary value as melting pot of all the knowledge accumulated by different cultures. What I can't look for in Russian, a game might have already figured it out and presented to easy to investigate manner. In a same way how I adore War Thunder armor viewer, it helps me to get quick overview of vehicle armor and likely outcomes of being fired with anything. That is an extremely powerful tool, of course you won't put it in phD thesis, but it helps you immensely to learn and to substitute gaps in knowledge at least with something. ...and in the end, academia is highly overrated and full of themselves. A difference between paper being accepted into scientific journals and constantly rejected is completely arbitrary (that is a fact). Scientific paper is likely to pass peer reviews despite massive errors in its own research (that is a fact). Scientists are being considered innovative by using video games to simulate pandemics...see world of warcraft pandemic and how papers are being written on it as it somehow is valid representation of a real world.
  4. Thank you for your answers. I have few more questions: 1. What are developers roadmap? What major things we can expect in near (1-2 years) future? 2. Are interior elements in a vehicle interactive? 3. Is AI smart enough to simulate real life tactics and behavior?
  5. Here are my main questions. I'm mostly concerned if game can give me historically accurate picture of combat at any time during cold war. I can see this simulation is leaning heavily on mid to late cold war from vehicles available in the wiki (I'm under impression that game properly starts at 70's as there is a distinct lack of earlier vehicles in a wiki to make proper fights with. I'm particularly interested in late 40's - 60's combat at the moment). I'm more interested in earlier vehicles, but there isn't much of a choice in the market. My main problems are when game inaccurately portrays engagements in a sense that newest and rarest tanks become common sight in a field or that game assumes that vehicles are firing most modern and expensive ammunition types and fails to simulate fights with more probable loadouts. Are all vehicles done at a same level of quality or some vehicles are more complete than others? Can I trust wiki to be able to play with any armored vehicle presented there? More important question is, how game simulates ammo types? Does game tries to simulate quality of any particular shell? For example, I'm firing a shell who historically is known to be unreliable. Will game simulate such a thing or all shells performance is theoretical (like advertised on paper)? Are ammo loadouts simulated according to their historical loadouts? I'm often frustrated with other games where they do not show any respect to introduction date of a shell and how common it was at that time. I'm most interested in analysis tools for study and understanding combat. For example, Steel Armor has post combat analysis where I can see impact of every shell and what it did. DCS world has flight recorder after battle to allow player to analyze everything what had happened in a match. Does Steel Beast has any of such features? Are Steel Beasts information on shells and armor thickness reliable source of information? Like everything else I would read about particular vehicle, can I trust said information to be reliable and true or should I take something with a grain of salt like one would do reading a wiki? What are limits of this simulation? In a linked thread I saw that game does not simulate night fighting properly. Is there anything else that I should be aware of? Does this game can simulate reliability issues? Does game has powerful battle editor? Can I put my desired variant of a tank with shell types and conditions if I want to? Is it intuitive to use?
  6. Hello, I had decided to purchase your product in the future. Though, I would like to ask few questions about it, since this thread is very similar to what I wanted to create, I will just post my questions here instead if that is fine with everybody.
  • Create New...