Volcano

Well, if you are are not Oscar Mike, then you are probably looking at the map because you are Lima Lima Mike Foxtrot.

Yes, that is my point (implied). They have the sounds that their sim concentrates on, and they have little need to go into detail on secondary areas, or areas that are seldom heard. Different games that concentrate on different aspects have different sound effects. SB does not have detailed infantry sounds because it does not model that aspect in the first person perspective... well, at least not yet anyway. In any case, the sounds that OFP: DR do concentrate on (infantry aspect) is the most realistic I have yet heard. Two joysticks up.

Well, I think that is an overstatement. I can think of a few games that have sounds just as good *cough cough wink wink* --although I haven't gotten inside of a tank in OFP yet, I am quite sure they don't have all the appropriate sounds in there. In any case, I definitely think that OFP: DR has the best sounds in any infantry based game yet made, certainly better than ARMA 2's infantry sounds. The sounds of the individual rifles are what I remember them to be (for the US ones at least), and the grenades sound realistic too. It also has nice Foley effect sounds for infantry movement too.

Yes, definately. The main method to put the gunner in the right "zone" is by picking the proper formation for the proper time. This cannot be stressed enough, most people just leave their vehicles in Wedge all the time. With proper use of Wedge, Line, and Echelon Left/Right -- that is the best way to put the guns where you want them. Beyond that it comes down to the SHIFT ARROW keys for temporary orientation.

Well, you can rest assured that if there was every a suggestion, then chances are, it has already been thought of in the 10+ years of business. Internally the suggestions fly like machine gun rounds -- but it is not the lack of suggestions that is the problem, it is the fact that eSim is still a relatively small operation with many things to do. In any case, you can use SBwiki which is here: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/Main_Page ...which has all kinds of info regarding SB (try the index feature at the bottom), and the Search function in this forum and probably find all the info you are interested in.

Now do you mean some tutorials that help with the basic operation of the tank? Or tactical tutorials? If the former, then go here: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/M1A1_%28HA%29

Well, for some reason I thought this post was in the Support forum. Anyway, if you have XP then you are not missing anything, it is all working. Yes, the sound is "subdued" as you say from SB1, but all the sounds have lower volume (which is intentional) so you can turn up your volume to higher levels and hear the subtle details. It also allows your system to generate louder sounds before your speakers reach the point of being overloaded (especially when multiple sounds are playing). All you have to do is turn your volume up to higher levels. I think SB1 sound would blow your speakers up if you turned it up past 25%, now you turn it up to 75% or higher and achieve the same sound without overload and distortion. Try it out.

A lot of times people do not reply verbally and type something in text if there is a lot of comms going on, they simply type something like "rgr" or "roger", "copy" etc and that works fine.

Do you have Windows Vista? If so, then read that sticky post about the X-Fi. Some features will not be heard if you do not use ALchemy with Vista, which has some EAX like qualities (from Direct X) but is not EAX per se.

Yep, I say it "depends". Do you mean do you need a mic to play multiplayer? No, but it would be helpful. You certainly need to be able to hear what people are telling you to do though... then you can type something in the text to let them know you copy.

FWIW, I have been playing it on the Xbox 360 and I like it a lot (yeah, i know, "ewww, 360... GHEY!!!"). The funny thing is, it sounds like the 360 version is of course lacking the editor, but has a more streamlined and easy to use interface. OFP: DR is quite realistic and I don't really see the AI "problems" mentioned in those various online reviews, but I think the primary issue there is that those special people writing the reviews just expect the team to follow you around and stay out of your way while you get all the the kills. Quite unrealistic expectations if you as me. The team command system is intuitive and easy. I dare to say that I like OFP: DR much better than ARMA 2, it just feels more realistic to me. ARMA 2 is fun, sure (but only after the many updates -- it was a stinking pile o' poo when it first came out), but everything is more polished in OFP, the weapon sounds are actuals, and the weapon effects on impacts are much better, weapon reloading times are more realistic, and for the love of god, the voice recordings are much, MUCH, better when the actual talking during the mission is going on (ARMA 2 voices will make you cry and cringe at the same time, whilst trying to go to the options menu to try to turn them completely off). The command system in OFP: DR is leaps and bounds better as well, and the interface (gear and weapon selection) is much easier and intuitive to use too. ARMA 2's command interface is a nightmare by comparison (press 2, then 1, then 3, then 6 etc. just to tell your guys to be cautious -- I am exaggerating). You can't even give quick tactical commands in ARMA 2, unlike OFP where you just point and click on the ground and you can tell your team to advance or flank to the right or left, change their ROE, formation, interval and tell them to rejoin formation with a couple of quick clicks of a button. But then again, people don't really use ARMA 2 for tactical commands to their squad, they use the squad as a follow on pool of spawns not the least of which, because they are too hard to control, and not very bright either. All of these also go to contribute to the fact that ARMA 2 is not a realistic tactical shooter which, in this regard, OFP: DR is much more of a tactical simulation in comparison. Having been an infantry team (and then squad) leader for four years... you can take these observations for what it is or you can leave it, I don't care. One thing is certain, it is worth the money; I wouldn't just wait until it is in the bargain bin for $9.99 if you enjoy the polished turd that ARMA 2 is. The sad thing is though, everyone wants to compare things like this to ARMA 2, because apparently ARMA 2 is the most realistic defacto infantry "sim" because it is now considered "military training software" so, therefore, they MUST have the fidelity for that capacity, right? I laugh at that, and it does not give everything a fair shake in comparison since you are comparing something to the standards that make up a quite unrealistic game in the first place. (None of this is directed towards anyone, I am just speaking in general in terms of all the online "reviews" of OFP: DR). Well, this is part of the unrealistic nature of ARMA 2 that everyone has gotten used to. The SAW (all types, not just the M249) are suppression weapons that you are supposed to use in short bursts of 3-4 rounds. Having shot both the M249 and M240G, yes, it is very hard to see if you hit something with a long burst. The way it is in ARMA 2 though, it is THE WEAPON of choice because you have 200+ rds and can hit stuff with quite a bit of accuracy with long bursts. Well, it isn't that bad in ARMA 2, but it is definitely one of the weapons o' choice if you want the high kill counts. The reality is, that weapon is used to suppress the enemy as another element flanks them. To that end, there is a "suppress" command in the command menu which works nicely with the SAW when left in the hands of the AI. If you are actually carrying the thing, then life is quite dull in terms of "kills", your sole purpose is to just shoot an area to keep the enemy's heads down while others get the glory. Such is the life of an automatic rifleman.

I guess the best advice is to simply have them displace to another position after about two or three minutes of engaging the enemy. The best way to do this is by simply backing up until you are completely hidden, then turn a little and move forward to a position that is either to the left or right of the previous one. This is done in real world... you don't want to stick around in one firing position for too long, but there is nothing wrong with remaining in the same general area (just not the same spot). Other than that, the AI will avoid artillery and back up to get out of it once it starts falling, but chances are they will catch a tank in the strike here and there.

Well, here is how it can happen: Step 1: Get your router working Step 2: Get online and play some SB Step 3: After a while, sit around in TeamSpeak and throw some ideas around Step 4: Listen to the brilliance of some of the TeamSpeak dwellers and their ideas ...and it will probably go from there (or go nowhere from there).

Well, unless I am mistaken, asymmetric in its basic sense of the word means that it is not symmetrical. In other words, you would no longer be limited to only two sides (red vs. blue), but rather you could have multi sided scenarios such as red, blue, yellow, green all versus each other and so on. This could be used to represent factions or, at the very least, it would make some interesting multiplayer scenarios.

Sure, why not. Maybe bomb a bridge in Falcon and it gets broken in SB, or bomb infrastructure and it reduces the ability (or raises the price) to purchase certain vehicles, or causes low ammo / fuel. The sky is the limit (pun), all someone needs to do is think of some rules on how they could be integrated.

I think the tank element is no better than what it is in ARMA2. The only real complain I have heard about OFP:DR is the friendly AI. Surely they will fix it (I hope).

Also, one other question: Go to: ...SB Pro PE\loc\English (US)\voices and see if you have a "voices.mrf" file. If so, what size is it? I wonder too, do you have any sound / voice files in your mods folders? You can also check in your ...SB Pro PE\Music folder and see if you have a "credits.wav" file there. If it is, then it should certainly be playing.

Interesting. No changes were made to the sounds (or the sound engine) from 2.460 to 2.480. I am not sure what the solution could be if you have the latest drivers. I think the Audigy 2 is at least 10 years old now, so you might want to consider upgrading the sound card at some point, maybe to an X-Fi, which you can probably find for about $50-60 now. Before you even think about doing that, trying doing this first: 1) Go into the options menu and change the voice to English (US) -- just click on it again since you already have it selected. Load a game and see if you have any voices. 2) If not, then it is probably best to try uninstalling and reinstalling SB 2.460, then 2.480 and see if that helps. Did you make any hardware changes to your machine lately? Or maybe you installed some other software recently?

Hmm, the Audigy 2 is not a bad card per se, definitely much better and more capable than the Audigy 1 (which was basically an SB Live! with a new name). With risk to stating the obvious, have you tried updating your drivers? Since you have Win XP, you won't have the Vista problems I pointed out in the sticky post (corrected with ALchemy). There might be some direct X compatibility problems with these older cards, but from what you describe it does not sound like it is the problem. Maybe a driver update will solve it.

Yes, definitely a good discussion. I think it does make it apparent that Leo2A4 and M1A1 crews should be playing to their particular strengths and trying to avoid their respective weaknesses. For the Leo2 (all) on the offense this means, a little more bounding while a platoon provides cover from a hull down position while the bounding platoon seeks another hull down position, and a little less traveling overwatch. Maybe there should be a pro and con section for each vehicle in the SBwiki. Well, at the very least, those who know their vehicle's limitations will definitely achieve greater success if they make a conscious decision to minimize those weaknesses.

I need a little more information. For example, what kind of sound card do you have? Also, what is your OS?

Whoa... wait a minute. I take that back. Change those BPs to two tier types. With the one tier they are firing at the oblique, not the front (because of the big sand berm), which results in some tanks engaging the side turret, or the rearward tapering angle of the Leo2A4's turret front armor not playing a factor at all (since many turrets are hit at the 10 or 2 o'clock aspect). If you change them to two tier, like I was intending for the full frontal turret test, the results are totally different. With two tier BPs, it becomes a one sided affair in favor of the Leo2A4s. In a test I just ran (twice), the total kill to loss ratio for the Leo2A4 was 5:1 (Leo2A4 lost 4 tanks to the M1's 20 losses). It seems that DM33 vs. M829 on the turret front is more equal than it seems. Actually in several more tests of M829 vs. DM33 in two tier battle positions, the Leo2A4 dominated with at least one result being 0 Leo2A4 lost, to 10 M1A1s, with other tests being a similar 4 or 5:1 ratio to my first two tests. Using ammo better than the DM33 would certainly skew it more in favor of the Leo2A4. Try the attached scenario. If anything, this shows the the M1 is better off when engaging in an open duel, but the Leo2A4 is far better when both sides are in the hull down, which balances the equation out. So, like I have been saying, if people use the Leo2A4 in the way in which it was designed, it will be the king. But then again, that is what its all about -- playing to your advantages and against your disadvantages. Honestly, I think both tanks are about as equal as you can get without having an identical tank. Its probably the best match up that highlight tactics as the winning element of success, rather than ammo types or fancy gadgets. At some point we start compensating for tactics...

Good test! OK, I will eat my CVC then. I think that giving them to +50 ammo over the M1's isn't a bad idea then for the lesser DM33/M829 selection (ie. M829 vs. KE-W scenario would be better). Once you get up to M829A1+ it probably does not matter after that since the ammo is above the threshold to do some higher % kill through the mantlets.

Yes, it is right. The M1 is certainly not invincible. But this is interesting... In the TGIF game tonight, at least one person (from the Leo2A4 side) was convinced that the M1 is the "greater than" (armor wise) tank between the two, which is the direct opposite of what others believe. The truth is, these tanks are so closely armored that a debate about it would be pointless. It simply depends on what area is being considered since they are so closely comparable -- so much so that you cannot definitively say one is "better" overall than the other (there are too many attributes and armor locations to consider). Both tanks have their own pros and cons between them. For example, while the armor might be similar in almost every place one tank might have a little more in one place, but a little less than the other tank in another area. The same is true of their traits. The Leo2A4 has the explosive hull ammo vulnerability, but, the Leo2A4 has the easier fire control system with the non dynamic reticle and the gunner does not need to index the ammo type into the CCP. I guess it would be nice to have nothing but pros, and no cons, but they both have their own little characteristics, traits and quirks that make them lovable, and hated. To elaborate a little further: while it is true that in most places the armor differences might be < 50-100mm RHAe or be less, one tank might have less armor in one place but more in another area, or might present a smaller target, or might have a certain vulnerability / survivability trait. In our game we were aiming for the hull on the Leo2A4, not the turret (knowing that it would be futile with M829 unless it was through the mantlet), it just so happen that we got most of our kills or heavy damage as the enemy presented the hull or flank, with an occasional one through the mantlet (or from a TOW missile). Another influencing factor of course is how many people still insist to bring a platoon forward, then break off one tank at a time to confront the enemy. Thankfully, a platoon will always win out over a single vehicle now, which does some great credit to the realm of "plausibility" as opposed to the way SB played before (pool of lone sniper tanks), but some habits die hard I guess. Anyway, to make a long story short, my point is that it really only depends on: 1) shot placement on target 2) what part (and how much) of YOUR tank you present to the enemy at any given time 3) massed / coordinated platoon fires (maybe a little bit o' luck too)