Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ssnake

  1. Microprose formulated the dream of a "complete" combat simulation that would involve jets, tanks (and presumably also helicopters, submarines, surface vessels) as early as with Falcon 3.0, even before there were first person shooters (which add yet another complexity dimension). Not only isn't the technology there yet. You'd need a world model that is highly performant and at the same time sufficiently detailed for ground units and fast air movers alike, which right now is simply impossible. You also would need to assemble a team of development teams to reach equal competence in each domain, and the likelihood of that happening is small to zero for obvious reasons. Alternatively, create a framework that works for all simulation genres, use a common network architecture, and invite independent devlopers to create their title within this common framework; but then you need to apply strict QA standards, and boy do game developers love other people who tell them how they have to program their titles. Microsoft tried to build such a framework with FS X, cancelled it, then sold the scraps to Lockmart, and I don't know, maybe the technology somehow lives on but as far as games are concerned, it was a stillborn. A combat omni-simulation is possible if you abstract all the components enough, but then each component will be inferior to a study sim, so people interested in the subject matter will rather take the study sim. How many flight simmers prefer X-Plane over DCS? Arguably X-Plane offers a much wider range of planes to fly, but at the end of the day the more detailed simulation of a narrower field usually attracts more customers. Simulation game companies are commercial entities. We choose a topic because we feel most competent & confident in it, and then we do what we can to do what we like while running a profit, eventually. Building a "world combat simulation" is a monumental task which has an overwhelming likelihood to fail, and at that scale it's not just going to be a "failure" but an economic disaster of epic proportions. Finding an investor for that is impossible. Maybe you could find a sponsor who isn't interested in making a profit, but most people who have billions of disposable equity tend to be rather mindful about the way they spend it. Jacques Littlefield is, I think, the relatively unique model case of a really rich person willing to spend his fortune on something relatively nerdy, but even his tank collection would not outlast his mortal existence for long, because it was his passion, not his children's.
  2. Old scenarios have parts of their map data embedded, but since version 4.1 we can no longer do that. So, in order to convert them, you either have to find the original map (and convert it), or you extract the map data from the scenario (which you can do if you open the Mission Editor with a blank scenario, then go through the File menu to open the scenario in question). Try it. Worst case, it doesn't work and we're here to explain what went wrong and how to fix it. Or Mark find the time to do it for you, but then you don't learn anything from it. The user Manual attempts to describe the process, but there's also these help threads:
  3. If you use the full installer and not the patch, prior versions are not required (what's why we removed them). And if you used the patch but didn't have the older versions installed, it will abort with an error message. Whatever it is that appears squirrely to you, it's something different.
  4. Keeping the resolution at 1280x720 is a very good step to preserve a decent framerate for older hardware. I'd just like to draw your attention to two or three more things; I suppose you know that you can activate a framerate counter (Alt+F12?). The user manual, you'll find it in the Windows Start Menu | eSim Games | User's Manual.PDF, has a section about graphics card settings. The points are listed roughly in descending order of effect that they will likely have on the frame rate, just to let you prioritize which of the many options to reduce first.
  5. Thanks. Please keep the file up for a few more days, so we'll have a chance to review it.
  6. It might work, but I can't rule out that some common files may get removed that 4.1 actually needs. So, installing 4.1 over the existing installation (after removing 3.0) would prevent possible problems. No need to uninstall 4.1 first.
  7. Ssnake

    Jump to end

    Jump to end works only for routes that originate directly from the unit that you want to jump, and gets evaluated only when the unit spawns. That could already be at the beginning of the Planning Phase (e.g. when using a simple random variable and no other restrictions), or later during the mission, if the unit spawns with a delay. I'm relatively confident that it's described in the user's manual, which, being a PDF, has the awesome full-text search function allowing you to find a keyword like "jump" in less time than reading this reply.
  8. Attitude is (only) needed for linear targets (much wider than deep).
  9. I liked the original Combat Mission as a turn based strategy game that would work well for the battalion level. The product design decision to pursue a real-time strategy was one that I wouldn't have recommended since, predictably, they had to confine the new version to company level engagements; a step back in scope that I at least regret. The addition of modern tanks is particularly questionable given the dimensions of map sizes that the engine can handle, which forces players to decide if they want to have standoff range for their M1s and no effective tactical mobility, or let them drive around but then come in close contact with weapons that could otherwise not harm you. Tank-on-tank engagements are therefore not particularly well made, especially if reinforcements are involved which materialize out of thin air at a map edge. On the other hand, infantry-centric urban combat is well represented.
  10. ...where the 300m for MCLOS Saggers is a highly optimistic figure. 800m is probably more realistic. Our model is the SACLOS controlled AT-3d, which is brought under control by the guidance electronic much sooner.
  11. Yes, usually it's the arming distance, and usually it's rather short.
  12. The first question is, do you have the sensors for proper target identification. The next, even if the velocity decay is gentle, it's still there. Suppose your ammo overmatches the armor protection value of your target by 5%, you lose those 5% energy in the first 650m of flight, so even the small loss can make a difference. Say, your target was at 6km and you could identify it, losing 330m/s over those 6km means losing 33% of the projectile's initial energy (starting from V0=1680m/s; 1350²:1680²=0.6726, don't forget that the velocity goes squared into the kinetic energy formula). So it only makes sense to fire at the target if you have still have an overmatch at that range, IOW 400mm RHAe or (preferably) considerably less. So, what targets does that leave, PT-76, T-55? And of course side-on shots against pretty much any target. Accuracy is another issue. I heard rumors that the aluminum stabilization fins of 120mm DM33 heat up due to air compression at (initially) Mach 5 that they actually erode so that the projectile actually starts to flutter ever so slightly beyond 10km range. I haven't done the math and I can't say if that's even remotely possible (I don't think so, to be honest, although the tail section certainly receives some heat treatment while still inside the barrel, so... who knows). But if true, that would certainly be another limiting factor. Then there's (not) knowing the crosswind along the whole trajectory, and at really long ranges Coriolis force might start to play a role too (though the projectile spin is too slow for the Magnus effect, at least). The Israelis fired tank guns at targets up to 10.5km against Syrian bulldozers (and hit them) during the Jordan water diversion project (just before the Yom Kippur war), but they used artillery observers and fired the guns blindly, so that would be a military historical example of extreme tank gunnery.
  13. RHA equivalency is probably not a term with which you can impress weapons design engineers in a conversation. It is problematic in a number of ways. At the same time it's incredibly handy to get a rough but reasonably useful idea. We're using it because we don't attempt to nail every aspect of terminal ballistics with scientific precision. We want to convey a sense of what would happen, no more. MInd you, I'm not claiming "artistic license" here, which we certainly could. It's more the fact that reliable and standardized data are impossible to find. So, terminal ballistics is as much a matter of guesswork than it is of physics and parameter estimations. It's less of an issue with WW2 vehicles because as the archives are being opened you can read up the weapons test results, and the models and formulas that were used at the time, and calculate the parameters accordingly. Even then, what happens after the last armor plate has been successfully punched through is highly contentious. It starts with the question of the definition of plate failure. A visible bulge in the back plate? A crack? The white hot tip of the projectile poking through, saying Hello? A projectile's full-diameter or bigger hole? Once in a series of shots? In 50% of all shots? In the vast majority of them? Then, what happens as the fragments start flying in the crew compartment; what's the mass and velocity distribution of them, which fragments "count" as being destructive for which component inside? Those who know can't tell, and they know only isolated test. Therefore, those who tell are either liars or traitors, and in any case they don't know the full picture across all nations.
  14. There's several things behind it. First and foremost, it's the cutoff range for AI engagements. Even if the ammo flies farther out (e.g. up to 130km for 120mm APFSDS DM33) , computer-controlled units won't fire. You can try trick shots as a human gunner if you want, but your AI commander might order you to cease fire (in our simulation you may disobey the vehicle commander without fear of consequences, a highly unrealistic aspect). Typically this range is derived from published data. It could be a limit of the ballistic computer not having values in the firing tables beyond a certain range. It could be the tracer burnout range after which you can't properly observe your fall of shot. In rare exceptions it could be that the ammo is so slow that beyond range X we decide to cut it off so that the AI won't waste a lot of ammo on targets that it can't effectively hit. I don't remember that we ever did this, but we reserve the right to do so for the sake of sanity. Our RHA equivalent (=RHAe, not RHA) values represent the energy at the muzzle, for range-dependent rounds. The energy of sabot rounds depends on a number of factors; where you look at a fixed design the impact velocity becomes the sole determinant, of course. You may find this page useful, use it responsibly. A classic APFSDS round like 120mm DM33 loses about 50m/s velocity per kilometer travelled. Older rounds tend to slow down quicker, also Soviet designs with their larger fins due to the different sabot designs (less parasitic mass = higher muzzle velocity attainable, but more drag in exterior ballistic flight because the fins must reach bore dialeter in order to stabilize the projectile during the interior ballistic phase (while it's scraping the walls of the gun tube))
  15. I thought the randomization had a certain East Bloc charm. Anyway, it's a classic example of Pareto effort. Having the laser range finder gives you 80% of the benefit. Making it perfectly align drives up the integration costs at the factory with only gradual functional benefit. It's "irritating" but not debilitating in this fire control system. The Soviets tried to optimize for minimal production cost and minimal production time. So, in a way it's radical pragmatism at work.
  16. From my limited understanding, they simply never bothered with the effort of lining it up with the crosshairs, and every batch of T-72s would have it somewhere else. Originally we randomized its location so that it would be in a different place in every tank you hopped in, but we were later assured that in real life it wasn't quite so bad.
  17. I suppose you'll be in the advantage as soon as ballistic computers go out. Unfortunately, often enough that coincides with your tank being on fire.
  18. There is no "Legacy Maps Converter". Just the "Legacy maps" (=data). It's just that they can be useful for many scenarios that use the old height maps, even if the terrain map is just embedded in the scenario file itself. From which you could extract it with the Mission Editor if you couldn't find the original map.
  19. The basic procedures are described in the SB Wiki: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=T-72B1_(m.1984)#Lead Now, the ballistic computer in the T-72 doesn't include lead calculation. This may contribute to the reasons why AI gunners miss, although I cannot rule out a bug, and I won't spend much time searching the bug tracking database, sorry. My recommendation would be in the case of moving targets to take the shot yourself. As far as lead calculation is concerned, it's effectively a linear function of the time of flight. As a first order approximation, use the muzzle velocities of your different munitions. Suppose your APFSDS round has a muzzle velocity of 1,800m/sec and your target is at 1,500m, expecting a time of flight of one second is a useful guess. You could measure how many mils the target will travel within one second, and then apply as much lead. HEAT and HE-F rounds can be expected to fly at half the muzzle velocity (=twice as long). The difference will actually become bigger at range, but then again shooting moving targets with HEAT at ranges above 1.5 kilometer is literally taking a long shot/a somewhat desperate measure. Not that Steel Beasts wouldn't allow you to train yourself for exactly that kind of scenario, if you like practicing your skills over and over and over and over again. After all, these virtual rounds cost no money. Alternatively you could try to estimate the target's velocity by the size of it's dust plume. Fast targets would travel off-road at maybe 30km/h, or 8.333 meters per second. That's about a tank's length. So, with APFSDS, give a tank's length as lead, applied from the center or the target, if it is moving exactly perpendicular to your position. Most likely, it's driving at an obligue angle, probably somewhat towards you. So, use half the lead. IOW, aim at the forward edge of the hull. And double all that, if you're not shooting APFSDS. It's not perfect, but it's a useful rule of thumb. Treat it as a starting point for your investigation, not as gospel.
  20. Ssnake

    Hungarian Leopards

    They must be from somewhere else; German surplus stocks have been completely depleted even before Finland came and bought the entire Dutch fleet. If I'd were a betting man, maybe the Swedes' Strv 121s, or Spanish Leopardo 2A4s which were both mostly intended as the "training wheels Leopards" in both armies. Or maybe the Swiss wanted to sell off some Pz 87s.
  21. I think the easiest and fastest solution is to uninstall, and then to reinstall in the recommended sequence (map packages first, only then SB Pro, and finally the Transfer Manager), as recommended in the version 4.167 Release Notes which can also be found on our Downloads page. What, most likely, happened is that you installed SB Pro PE first which sets the default path for the expected location of the map packages (C:\ProgramData\...). Then you installed the Map Packages, but set a different directory. In that case however, for reasons that make perfectly sense but would lead too far to explain, the path in the Windows Registry for the location of the map packages does not get updated and Steel Beasts will continue to search for the maps in the default directory (where however the maps aren't). Installing the map packages first lets you set the file path to the map packages right. If you then install SB Pro PE, it will accept the file path already stored in the Windows Registry, and all the relevant files will end up in the same directory. If this background information does not fit your situation at all, then I need more detailed context to understand what your situation is before I can recommend a remedy.
  22. A "Technical" is a pickup truck with some armament. The term was coined in the Somalian civil war, possibly for mercenaries hired by international NGOs under the accounting term "technical support", if Wikipedia is to be believed. Anyway, it does not apply to the dismounted soldiers. In this context, "Technicals" are the poor man's APC that will offer, like real APCs, ammo reloads for attached infantry (but no armor protection, obviously).
  23. Triggers only toggle state. They start as "off" by default. Activate them once, they are "on". Activate again, and they are turned "off" again. Do that as often as you like.
  • Create New...