Jump to content

Volcano

Moderators
  • Posts

    8,372
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    15

Everything posted by Volcano

  1. 3 FEB 2023: Allied Force MTC 01-smaller-4363-FMU SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes. Random CO selection? Yes. (four COs) Minimum # players: 8 (2 per side) NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.
  2. Volcano

    Graphics anomaly?

    Assuming that: a) It is seen in the Map Editor. b) It is purely visual, not actual terrain issues. ...then it might be when you are in the Map Editor, flying around in 3D, and you fly too far away from the loaded/streamed area. If that is what is is, then going back to the map and reloading the 3D view in that location should fix it.
  3. OK, yeah that should be simple enough.
  4. Arty sounds are pretty good (and others). Back in the beginning of SB, there was but the one arty sound -- which had to be for all perspectives, so it was a one size fits all sound. Now we have three: near, mid, and distant. I always wanted to go back and redo the mid range, to have more reverb, that I couldn't do it before the "near" was implemented (otherwise it wouldn't sound right when you were under barrage). But you did exactly what I was wanting to do but haven't yet had the time, being that there are so many other things going on in development. What I am trying to say is: Nice job! 👌😎👌
  5. In almost every case, the best thing to do is try to simplify the logic behind the condition. If the logic is based on too many variables, then its difficult to guarantee the outcome. I am speaking from a very general sense here, in scenario design, that usually every logical condition can be simplified by approach it from another way (such as, rather than units arriving at exact waypoints, use a transparent box as a region it enters, instead).
  6. 27 JAN 2023: Brush Fire-Town Dispute-UN-4363-MAD SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes. Random CO selection? Yes. Minimum # players: 9-12 NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.
  7. Actually, I figured it out. Looking at the image, and measuring myself in that test scenario, the distance is about 210m. This is actually a feature - the distance a vehicle is allowed to pick up troops from a waypoint is 200m, so its just barely on the edge of this threshold. The solution (here) would be to move waypoint 201 forward to the top of the hill, or move it backwards about 50 to 100m on the back side of the hill. I know this is probably annoying, and we can increase this distance to 250m, but there has to be some kind of limit, and the distance cannot be so far way that an AI unit moves far out of the way to pick up troops (so the idea being, if they are so out of position then the AI will just leave them there instead). I will spare all the other rationale behind it, but it is intentional behavior, it's just that the waypoint's location and enemy presence put the vehicles just barely out of range of that radius to go back and pick up the troops, and so they leave them behind. Still, I'd say its probably safe (in and update) if we increase this radius to 250m to catch this case though, so I will suggest that change. In the mean time, knowing that, you can hopefully easily adjust the situation easily to work around it.
  8. Yes but trimming it down broke the condition causing the unit to not mount again (which I thought was the original complaint in the first place), so when I looked at it I was thinking quite literally. OK, can you estimate (as accurately as possible, ideally using the measurement tool) how far away the PCs are from the troops after they move forward (ie. how far do the PCs move from the troops in that image)?
  9. Looked into this. The second condition... Unit {this} {has} reached waypoint { } ...is missing the waypoint. After adding 201, it works fine, so that seemed to be the problem (they correctly mounted back up again in a test). If there is some other issue, then let us know.
  10. 20 JAN 2023: Mechanized Gladiators 100-2023-1 And now for something totally different. Let's see how it goes, its a 6v6 royal rumble, but it requires a bit of pre-game effort as each CO has to "build" their force. Also, we need at least 6 COs and ideally 12 players (2 per side, although myself and probably a few others could play alone if need be). SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes. Random CO selection? No. Minimum # players: 6, ideally 12 NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.
  11. OK thanks, that helps. Yes, its a common theme among the winter versions, because its hard to get the similar density with the bare branches on the lower LODs while still reducing them dramatically to allow for reasonable performance (it is the ugly tradeoff). But perhaps it can be improved with more panels on the LOD2s, we'll see...
  12. I know we have the scenario there, but can you take a non-thermal view of the tree in question, just to make sure we are focusing our attention on the correct tree? (It also wouldn't hurt to go into the F8 "floaty cam" (in the Mission Editor) and turn on thermal and see if the same thing is true, and move the camera forward and backwards to see if it only happens at a certain distance (this would imply an LOD issue).)
  13. 13 JAN 2023: TGIF Watan Saraf Ekhlas v9-smaller_4265a SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes. Random CO selection? Yes. Minimum # players: 10-12 NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.
  14. 6 JAN 2023: Bridge Crossing Heavy 2013-smaller-4265a-FMU SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes. Random CO selection? Yes. Minimum # players: 10-12 NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.
  15. I agree, but in regards to the map itself (and you probably didn't make it, so this is just a general comment for everyone to keep in mind), when drawing the power lines, its always best to briefly check them in 3D at that time, and they can easily be conformed to roads by slight movements of the nodes (or by adding additional nodes). Not taking the time to do that, as a map designer, is just like putting a bridge over a road and not checking if the road under it lines up and conforms with the overpass columns. Each node must be a pylon, so what I try to always do is add a node on either side of a road that might be a concern, to ensure that the road isn't blocked (by forcing the pylon to be where I want them to be at the added nodes). Certainly things could improve though (like a large buffer area around roads when it comes to the larger sized pylons). But really, how is any of this different from those cases where there is a building in the middle of a road on some maps? If the map area is vital to the outcome of a scenario, the its always best to just create an "edited" delta that is tailored to a scenario. Beyond that, of course we will continually try to improve the overall situation though.
  16. 30 DEC 2022: !Zollerheim 2012-4265a-FMU/OMU SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes. Random CO selection? Yes. Minimum # players: 10 NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.
  17. Pretty cool stuff. Mixed campaign with linked effects is a great outside-the-box idea. 👍
  18. Just FYI... Looks like no TGIF this Friday (23 DEC). We will pick it back up the Friday after that (30 DEC). Have a good Christmas. 🎅
  19. Now back to the regularly scheduled program... 16 DEC 2022: MBT-S07A-27-Op Garden (BAOR)-4357 (We played this once before but it had lots of issues that were discovered that have now been fixed) SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? No, unless teams are not balanced. Random CO selection? No, unless no volunteers. Minimum # players: 8 NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.
  20. As a campaign coordinator you do want to see things end close (a draw being best to me) but it's also good to see a BLUE victory here too to know it is possible. The previous several times we played there was a theory (held by some) that it wasn't really possible for BLUE to win, but that myth has now been busted. I think also the awards have shown to be a nice potential influence on the outcome, especially in narrow situations, without being too much of a factor nor too little, and is certainly also something that both sides can "catch up" in (like RED managed to do in the last scenario with all the awards gained). Still, to put things in perspective, the margin for victory was < 1000 points (it was 906 over +500 without awards factored in) which isn't bad at all and could have been made up in two missions. Certainly plenty of mistakes were made by RED, and I have the distinction of CO'ing the mission with the biggest loss in points (yay!), so the situation could have very easily been better. And best of all, RED didn't get an early loss halfway through the campaign when it seemed grim; we stuck with it and pulled through to the end. Good job. 👍 Now if Red wins "next time" then we know its pretty balanced. Also, each time it is played many refinements and improvements are made each time to dial it in. Anyway, we'll see how it goes again in 2024 or so... 😎
  21. I doubt it, because no one ever complained about those vehicles being hard to kill, but you can easily see this by placing one in a scenario and looking in the damage menu. If they have "Loader" or "Gunner" damage available to disable, then its a similar issue. If not, then its correct.
  22. Thanks for reporting. Originally it was suspected to be some kind of issue with armor (because this is the most obvious explanation), but after seeing that it is pretty straight forward and relatively simple, further investigations were made. So, after digging further, it seems that because this vehicle was based on the T-72 family, a mistake was made that caused it to (logically) have a Gunner included, when there shouldn't be one. So the issue was that with the crew killed, the vehicle wouldn't ever actually die because the gunner could never be damaged (because he is not physically present). Anyway, that should now be fixed in the next update. (You can tell the BREM-1 erroneously has a gunner present by being in the Mission Editor, right clicking on the vehicle, and going to the damage menu and observing that "Gunner" appears in that list, along with all sorts of other components that the vehicle shouldn't have, which have also been fixed now too).
  23. Thanks for playing the 10th Firefight 79 scenario. It was a well fought battle, looks like Blue was about 2 or 3% away from too many losses, so it was pretty close. Red did make up a lot of the awards points in the final battle, but Blue got a breakthrough. That ends the campaign in a Blue Victory, at +1432 points. Blue demonstrating that the campaign be won by Blue. Nice job! https://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=Firefight_79 (Left-click on the image to enlarge it) The participation "ribbon" for your signature, if you are inclined for memories. Thanks for playing! 😎
  24. BTW, I noticed that the US side's M113s all say "Overhead weapon station" as being damaged. I could probably fix that, but it doesn't seem to do anything (the HMG still functions) so its probably best to just ignore it, since either side might have developed a saved plan by now. In other words, it shouldn't hurt anything.
×
×
  • Create New...