Jump to content

Ssnake

Members
  • Content Count

    21,768
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ssnake

  1. This is now bug #8060
  2. I honestly don't know what to say. If you choose not to read and try to understand what I'm writing in rather plain and direct text, that is your choice, but not my failure. I made clear that "more than nothing" would happen in real life. If you want to harp on that point, enjoy your strawman, but I'm notgoing to participate in such a phantom debate. We're modelling reality. Every model has its limitations and abstractions. This is one of them. Where we can, we try to err on the side that's supporting/reinforcing doctrine - in this case, that APFSDS rounds aren't the best choice against infantry. The vector line of the shot missed the soldier, so nothing happened. End of story. This isn't a bug. It's not a case of an insufficiently documented suspected bug. It's an (undisputed) model limitation.
  3. As was demonstrated with the tank commander's ear that was nicked by a sabot fin, we don't simulate the atmospheric supersonic overpressure wave. Our projectiles are points flying through the virtual space, a necessary simplification to conserve precious CPU cycles. If that sabot point object struck a location for which no damage was assigned - and we are somewhat limited in the kind of damages that we can assign to crew served weapons in the first place - well, then nothing will happen. I'm not losing sleep over this. You aren't supposed to shoot trucks or infantry with Sabots in the first place because they are not very effective. Here we are: No effect.
  4. Arguably, they shouldn't.
  5. These are now bugs #8054 and #8055, respectively. That said, a scenario demonstrating the reluctance to use coax would still be nice, so we can find out which trucks specifically don't get engaged by coax and why.
  6. We will certainly have a critical view at the component damage likelihoods in the Armata. I'm not saying that everything is perfectly fine as it is. 24% of shots passing through the vehicle and not causing any damage at all is not exactly what I'd like to see either. But we have to ask all these questions to make sure that there really is something that needs to be done. Wouldn't be the first time that someone is frustrated by a single game session and then starts blaming game design rather than accepting bad luck.
  7. Chances are, you have a version 4.0 license on your stick; SB Pro PE 4.161 requires a "version 4.1" license, which is available in the eSim Games web shop: https://www.esimgames.com/?page_id=1530
  8. I don't think so. Other ambulances are still being ignored. I think it's a problem of this ambulance model, specifically.
  9. No. It's a good point, but our AI isn't that sophisticated. They would know that they're dealing with a non-target. It's just, probably, that the magic bit hasn't been set. Besides, in real life you're usually expected to apply proper ID procedures (including an optical comparison to the thermal signature).
  10. There is a sensor for cant angle that should make the fire control system compensate for such a situation. This may be a refactoring issue. Can you provide a test scenario?
  11. It's somewhere in Bugzilla as an enhancement request. One day...
  12. I'll go even further, and go on the record (not for the first time) that I categorically reject the idea of "game balance" for a combat simulation. No way. Some combinations of equipment and tactics are unwinnable, and should be, period. If that forces some of you of of their comfort zone - good. That means that you're learning something.
  13. Chris' findings are very much in line with what I expected, except that the number of shots to kill an Armata went slightly up without Afganit - I suspect a statistical anomaly, something that would probably even out with a larger sample number. The salient point being, that Afganit doesn't have much of an influence on the terminal performance of DM53 (or M829A3 for that matter - one reason why I felt it being premature to introduce the M829A4 without yet having a clear idea of its terminal ballistic effect), since we deliberately configured the Afganit to cause only a gradual reduction in the attacking KE round's perforation limit. After all, APSs don't destroy the attacking penetrator but cause a yaw oscillation which will then make the dart impact at an offset of maybe 1...2° from the optimal strike angle (=head on); the effect is bigger for AVePS simply because the intercept distance is about three to ten times longer, more time for the oscillation to cause an even bigger yaw. So, here we are, looking at a figure of 1.6 APFSDS rounds, on average, to kill an Armata. That doesn't strike me as particularly noteworthy. That a handful of isolated rounds don't cause any damage - well, that's also to be expected if you have an energy based non-deterministic damage model. Of course we could dial up the component failure likelihoods to eleven, but then you no longer have a non-deterministic damage model. You can't have chance, and then reject the possibility of luck. Maybe we can dial down the chances of "no-damage" hits a little, but it's not going to be a dramatic effect. Nor would the introduction of an M829A4 dramatically change the picture either. It would reduce the "shots per kill" figure by a noticeable margin but even then it's never going to be close to 1.0. You don't get that against a T-72, or even the T-55.
  14. "F2" has two view modes, toggled by "O".
  15. The "o" key is supposed to give you a wider field of view and the ability to walk tracer fire into a target, rather than using the sight. The sight, on the other hand, offers more precision. "r" was taken to toggle between regular and AA sight.
  16. WRT the question why the M829A4 hasn't been added earlier - well, to model it accurately more needs to be done than to simply add another set of ballistic property data and call it M829A4. Some programming will have to be involved to accurately reflect capabilities and limitations. When that'll fit into the workplan, we'll have to see.
  17. Yeah, but the legacy maps were exactly not what you needed in this case. Please download and install the SB Map Tools if you happen to participate in network sessions ruinning old scenarios with still embedded maps. One day you'll need the map package downloader; until then you can ignore it (but you don't want to find out that you need them and THEN download and install them before you can join a network session). Even more important especially for your specific issue, you'll need all the map packages. We converted them for you so that at least all the stock scenarios that are installed with Steel Beasts will work right away. For your own scenarios you may still need to convert some maps; that part, unfortunately, can't be helped. But the Map Packages will be a good starting point for you in any case.
  18. My Documents\eSim Games\Steel Beasts\reports
  19. Extraordinary claims require that you have more than a mere opinion to support them, sorry. We're not asking for iron proof, or something that you can't provide so we can avoid the discussion by deflection. All we're asking for is that you shoot the targets some more and actually COUNT how often _no_ damage occurs, only light damage, a mission kill, or a complete kill. And that you document where exactly you hit them if you believe that you identified a "problem spot". You can even go through all the report HTML files that Steel Beasts generated, and load them into Excel for a rough evaluation. It will at least say what kind of major components failed and give a rough indication of the impact location, and from what engagement range. You're sitting on a heap of data! It just requires that you go through it. And you don't even have to look for a needle in a haystack, you can search the spreadsheet for anything reading "Armata" and then simply compile the lines.
  20. I have put off implementing the M829A4 so far because I haven't assembled enough data but if you feel that you can't win without better ammo, I suppose I'll create a preliminary approximation. Undoubtedly some will then go REEEE! on the inevitable subsequent revisions but I guess that can't be helped. What would help however if you actually started collecting and providing meaningful data along the lines already described so we have something to work with, rather than repeating opinions and assertions. We only have so much time to investigate. Everything that you can do to help us will result in a faster turnaround time.
  21. Did you download and run the Map Packages Installer that you can find on our Downloads page?
×
×
  • Create New...