Ssnake

It's the gist of what I've seen from reading a wide range of internet discussions, acknowledging that you'd get only partial truth from any of them individually.

Some Tanknet(.org) threads are ... well, acceptable aggregators, if with elevated noise-to-signal ratio, once that you get a feel for which user is good (=knowlegeable and reasonably critical of sources) in what area.

So, I couldn't and wouldn't name "a" source.

What kind of outcome would you expect?

Noice!

Per regulations, only one ammo bunker door may be opened at a time.

The sitting commander must reach behind him, slide open his door (if I remember it correctly, they are hand-operated), pull out a 25kg cartridge from the rack, then hand it across the gun breech to the loader, then close his door. Loader opens his door, slides in the cartridge, locks door again.

Repeat cycle.

The cartridges are heavy, the process happens in cramped spaces, in rather uncomfortable body positions.

So, that's why it takes so long.

Leopards are faster to reload because there's an open ammo rack in the hull. So, the fast reload comes at the price of reduced on-board safety. Conversely, the M1 is safer, but reload is slower.

Someone else reported trouble starting a scenario from within the Mission Editor in Test mode. Does that work for you?

If it is of any consolation, we're working on all those aspects, or have certain ideas how to tackle them. In V5.

No, but www.afvsim.com should.

How did it not work?

Everybody should. It's the centerpiece of all tactical behavior of units in SB Pro.

You know that you can get a kit with all switches & electronics plus 3D print files for the handles from AFV Sim, right?

These are probably "Defend" position tactics without an unconditioned route leading away from them, which prevents units there from actually adopting "Defend" tactics behavior as described in Chapter 8 of the user's manual.

5 hours ago, CharlieB said:

In my day job there is always a drive for the rapid generation of synthetic terrains for both virtual and constructive simulations, including the support to live training through synthetic wrap.  There must be a better way of generating.

There are, and we're working on them.

5 hours ago, Captain_Colossus said:

it has been established by now that russia is producing ~ 3 tanks per day

Source, please.

Maybe, by conflating taking tanks out of storage and repairing battle-damaged tanks, but definitely not new builds alone.

....just like the text on top suggests, HEP-T--APDS

Armies spend quite some effort to make such labeling as unambiguous as possible.

You'll need to fix a few things in the Windows Registry. Since this is the central database of the Windows Operating System, careless editing can cause major trouble, so usually I do not advise to do this. Ideally, you would remember where, exactly, you installed Steel Beasts Pro PE. By default, this would be

C:\Program Files\eSim Games\SB Pro PE

So then, open the Windows Start Menu, type "regedit" to find the editor for the Windows Registry. Select the root node, "Computer". Hit Ctrl+F to open the search function, and type in the file path above, then let the search function find entries. The first entries you can probably ignore, such as in Computer\HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Local Settings\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Shell\MuiCache, so hit F3 to find the next entry.

Eventually you'll get to the crucial path, which is Computer\HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\eSim Games\Steel Beasts Pro PE. Delete that key. That will erase the entry that Windows has about Steel Beasts already being installed. Same goes for Computer\HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\WOW6432Node\eSim Games\Steel Beasts Pro PE

You may also want to erase still existing entries about the uninstaller. You should find it in Computer\HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\SB Pro PE_...

There can be additional entries, such as for application-specific sound profiles; usually, they are irrelevant.

I do not think that this debate is going in a fruitful direction. I can understand both points of view, but constantly lambasting a guy for at least trying to improvise a solution for a potential Japanese invasion (which must have appeared as a frighteningly realistic possibility in early '42 to anyone in Australia and New Zealand) seems unfair. Explanations as to why this unfairness happens on the internet aren't going to lead us anywhere.

At what range, at what angles?

I agree that the behavior shown is as undesired as it eludes simple explanation.

While the interlocking of two units on roads is generally not very helpful (in real life as well as in the simulation), it's much less of an issue if one is a "single vehicle formation" like the XO in your case.

It seems like the oncoming Green traffic gets passed without major disturbance - except the trailing Blue vehicle; but the vehicle shows erratic behavior before it comes close enough to Green vehicles to trigger a collision avoidance response.

The "unclean" road connection at the corner isn't "nice", but Steel Beasts has been designed to usually work with less-than-ideal road networks which are pretty much guaranteed to appear whenever a map is made manually, and often enough when importing (badly) digitized map data from old ages.

Note however that the units are on Engage orders (with all the implicit behavioral baggage that comes with it). If that Blue unit spotted something Red somewhere, well, an expectation that the script is guaranteed to succeed is unjustified. I can't say if this is actually what happened, I can only mention it as a potential source of error.

My recommendations:

- Split long routes into smaller segments to reign in more control. Waypoints are, after all, something that units will try much harder to reach than mere road vertices, and every new route is like a little reboot.

- Where possible (in early stages of the "movement to contact"), use March tactics --- or Assault. Assault and Retreat are the only two movement tactics that near-guarantee that a unit will press on to reach a waypoint (at the cost of potentially losing units).

APFSDS rounds in SB Pro have a cut-off range of maybe 10, 15km or so. We track only rounds with explosive content to their impact point since it's far more likely that they will cause noticeable damage. An APFSDS rounds, after dozens of kilometers in the air, would still be quite dangerous to un- or lightly armored units. But it endangers only things that are directly in the way of the trajectory. The chance of damage is not zero, which is why we still have range safety regulations in actual army life - but it requires computational resources that we'd rather spend on other simulation tasks.

1 hour ago, Gibsonm said:

Summary:

Is there some way to ensure Blue has priority over Green on roads?

No.

I understand why one would be interested in this and see the justification for such a feature; alas, it's not a feature and unlikely to become one in version 4. Version 5, I see at least the potential to implement this, it's then a question of development priorities.

Advice for the moment is, reduce the amount of Green traffic on the critical routes, re-route Blue to secondary roads which are less likely to be taken by Green traffic.

In all honesty, if all my friends had jumped a cliff, I might be depressed enough to do it, too. Or maybe they all had a very good reason. At least, the friends I have wouldn't do this in the spur of a moment, so I have to inquire about the boundary conditions that make this scenario plausible to begin with.

What goes up, will come down. Often enough without consequence (and quite a few HE munitions have a self-destruct timer), but there will be those memorable, rare instances.

What are you trying to accomplish?

Well, our marketing assistant left rather suddenly, shortly after we were done with the 4.3 marketing campaign. I then spent the budget for his salary on hiring a sales agent instead, simply because it was a good opportunity, and didn't hire a new marketing assistant for the noblest of all reasons, money.

Now there's a new beta tester/marketing assistant. We will eventually renew efforts on video production. But he's got to familiarize himself with Steel Beasts first.

It definitely changes what the keyboard transmits. But Shift+Num* vs Num* isn't that kind of difference.