Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Volcano

  1. I suppose it is only natural for something new to be scrutinized with a microscope. 😡 First of all, that SBwiki page literally has so far just been a few minutes of hasty copy pasting and retyping from the T-72B1's page. The stuff about the protection was something that I just typed over from what was already there, so it certainly isn't reliable enough to hold as some kind of ultimate truth. Although it does say "+K5 ERA". However, the T-72B3 armor model is finished and fully functional; it is NOT some kind of work in progress. It is quite literally a T-72B1 with K5 ERA instead of K1 ERA, and some other small obvious differences. The math is exactly the same, the values are exactly the same, the damages are exactly the same. The main difference is that the K5 ERA does provide significant protection over K1 ERA and is exponentially better, especially because its wedge shaped, and provides significant KE protection over K1 ERA. Now of course, as explained, the ERA is a very tricky thing to represent, and you can't really get it 100% correct in a computer simulation, in relation to KE, HE, HEAT, but its probably about as good as it can be to get the desired effects. So, there is nothing to it really, no bells, no whistles, no extra ordinary things, it is what it is - essentially not much different than the other T-72 armor models in general, but specifically the T-72B1, but with better ERA. I did a few test firings with M829A3, firing into the T-72B3 turret front thickest part of the tank (through K5 ERA), and it does penetrate with crew casualties. Those results are expected. If you are getting no effect type impacts on the turret, then likely you are hitting it low on the turret front, just above the turret ring. In this area there is a is a horizontal "lip" on the vehicle, where the turret ring extends from and the inner turret wall extends to (connecting the two, kind of like an inner armor floor). Here you would be impacting across a sort of flat surface that extends from the turret ring itself, towards the inside of the vehicle. This would be directly similar to hitting the roof of the driver's compartment at an extreme angle. This surface is not very thick (the thickness of the turret roof), and we do cap the impact angle multiplier now since 4.2 or 4.3 (a huge improvement), but right behind that lower "lip" it would then pass into the the back wall of the front turret armor, so you would also be passing through the entirety of that too - three difference surfaces. This is the absolute worst place to hit the turret. This is true for all T-72s, and isn't an error in modelling, although its probably at the upper limit of what a simulation can represent (a round is passing through multiple thick surfaces, at very different and extreme angles). Still, either way, real life or not, this would be the absolute thickest part of the turret.
  2. In the interest of SCIENCE, one experiment you could also try is the same situation but removing all STOWED maingun ammo from the T-72B3, which is something that they do IRL to try to make it a little less vulnerable. This is supported by most tanks now in SB (example Leo 2's hull stored ammo), and when stowed ammo is depleted or not present then it makes those stowed ammo areas inert. These stowed ammo areas on the T-72 are actually quote numerous above the carousel area. If you did this as a starting loadout, you would of course be sacrificing a lot of ammo for a % of extra post-penetration survivability, so its certainly a big tradeoff that may or may not be worth it, depending on the particular opposition. In some cases you probably wouldn't expect to survive long enough to use stored ammo, so why not. Would it make much of a difference? Maybe, maybe not (place your bets), but it probably wouldn't be any worse. πŸ˜‘ But of course the subtext here over the years is that some might think that there is a level of bias going on and that couldn't be further from the truth. It's really as simple as creating vehicles (as best as we have information about), and then putting them together and seeing what happens. You could say it's all one big (real) science experiment.
  3. Volcano

    CR2 HESH

    Not sure what to say - the CR2 hasn't be changed in ages. Are you saying that when you fire HESH with CR2 it hits way short, as if it is indexing the ballistics for the WP round instead? 🀨
  4. OK, thanks for that, we will take a look at it.
  5. You may be observing what was described above. Hard to say. You would have to observe it after the change to know. But let's say that if you aren't observing the bug above (because the sight would be moving all over the place erratically no matter what FOV you are in); in general - just because you are zoomed in to maximum magnification doesn't mean that the turret and gun of the T-72B3 should be less responsive. The T-72B3's FCS doesn't know any better (as far as we currently know), so what you will get then is like looking through a telescope trying to track a moving object - any input at that level of magnification is going to feel exaggerated. The highest zoom magnification on the T-72B3 is really intended to be used on long range stationary targets, or in conjunction with the auto-tracking feature (that's the main reason the latter function exists IIRC). But I am also not saying there isn't another issue there either. Just a general description that the higher the magnification, the harder its going to be to move the sight around, and this this might be getting confused with the bug behavior described above.
  6. Yes that works right as far as I can tell - the reason there is that the TIS has different and higher magnifications than the day sight, so it can appear to move a lot faster since your FOV is narrower. This is not related to the issue described above.
  7. Yes, good point - "Surrender if..." conditions should be used most of the time. One thing I like to do too is you can make it random as well, if you don't want to happen all the time. But in this particular case, in that above scenario, maybe you want the defenders to surrender if the infantry units in that area drop to a strength of < 2.
  8. To be clear, the process of loading a round in the Centauro is very similar to the DF90 now: Press the round type you want, like INS or DEL for example, then press V to load.
  9. Yes, we made a conscious decision to power down the 1A40 gun sight, because we couldn't really model two different FCS within the same tank at the moment. So, we represent it as a sort of auxiliary sight, deactivated, but allowing the user to adjust the range to engage targets (a sort of GAS, basically). At some point, a better representation might be to have the 1A40 GPS modeled and become active if the primary FCS gets damaged/disabled. So basically, it would sort of switch FCSs. But, that was way too complicated to try to do at first. In the mean time you can currently play in the T-72M, T-72A, T-72B1 where the 1A40 is modeled.
  10. OK, fixed now for next update. It was a general shader error, where something else entirely different got fixed and then fallout caused these buttons to no longer illuminate. πŸ˜‘
  11. Yes, this is a known issue. Direct fire is not something that artillery is allowed to do at the moment, of any type, apart from the TOS-1, which isn't technically artillery. Basically when its not executing a fire mission the gun is turret is stowed and is disabled, for other reasons (to keep it from scanning around like a tank, etc). So we restrict it to fire missions only, at the moment.
  12. Looks like we may have fixed this already for the next update. Or at least something very similar. πŸ˜… Still, if you observe this and you are able to provide a test scenario (or can do a save in progress scenario of it) then please post here anyway, as it might help us make sure its the same thing.
  13. OK, should be fixed now for next patch (changed back to black to be more visible again).
  14. First of all, in general, as a player you really don't want drones to be resupplied. If you are using the drone, yes, that would be fantastic if it could be resupplied, but if you are on the opposing side, then no you suddenly realize that its a bad idea for the enemy to be able to resupply their drones, especially if that means an unlimited resupply of drones. The only way a drone resupply could be handled would be if we had the ability to specify finite pools of ordnance and drones that is present in particular vehicles. Until that ever happens, no, it is good that you cannot resupply with infinite drones. We already have a problem with the unlimited ATGM resupply from vehicles (although usually the ATGM team doesn't live long enough to abuse this too much, although the Spike-LR is a significant problem when someone wants to use Spike missiles as a sort of probing blind-fire recon) - in which case the user should probably only give the Spike-LR ATGM team only 1x missile, so they have to go back to the vehicle each time to reload.
  15. Can you upload the scenario (hopefully its a simplified test scenario) where you see this? What I mean is, we don't want a full blown scenario that you have to play for so much time before this happens, rather, a simple test scenario where this happens right away. The thing is, if a guy is laying on the ground in that building, and not at window, then he is not occupying the "troop position" and so is not considered to be inside the building. At least two of those issues is probably the same cause -- that fire should kick out the troop on that troop position, and should not allow other troops to enter.
  16. OK, fixed that now - seems to have been a simple case of overlooking it.
  17. Interesting, it seems like we may have forgotten to set an interior dome light color, or we intentionally made it white (probably not). I will check into that.
  18. 12 AUG 2022: Island Invasion 02-4357 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes. Random CO selection? Yes (for Red). Minimum # players: 10-12 NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules ο»Ώand SB.com Community Rules.
  19. Right, the Bullitt drone doesn't work against the stand alone UAVs, because it would be ineffective against them (like a baseball hitting a helicopter). For those stand alone UAVs (which are essentially small planes/helicopter), air defense is what you would use. Also, as I mentioned in the community game this week, and might be good to mention here: Be careful about flying your own drones over a deployed Bullitt drone. It will target your own Munin/Libelle/Sb600 UAVs, which is realistic (it doesn't know any better, and friendly forces would not be communicating by radio the exact positions of their drones with other units on the ground, deploying CUAS (Counter Unmanned Aerial System - the semi-official designation) type drones, etc.). In other words, I shot my own Munin UAV down with my own Bullitt drone. Now obviously if a human was in the loop in a targeting procedure, then you could use judgement and avoid this, but probably would miss the opportunity to shoot down overflying UAVs, because you would have to micromanage them, within the narrow overflight window. At some point I think we should have a unified UAV/drones page in the SBwiki... (that's better said than done).
  20. Sure, go ahead - that text hasn't been updated in a while, and should be. πŸ‘
  21. OK fixed that typo now, although it wouldn't show up as fixed until (at whatever point) there is a fresh install (EXE patches won't fix it).
  22. This thread may not have been entirely warranted, because it seems to happen only in specific situations - so no need for there to be any mass hysteria here. πŸ˜‰ But now that it has been mentioned (vaguely), I will follow up and provide an internal detailed description of the bug (see below), to limit "false positives" of observations of legitimate behavior (the T-72B3 has plenty of real life quirks represented). So, to be clear, here is a detailed description of this behavior to look for: " (In certain, specific situations) when a target is lased, the sight jumps far below the target (1 to 2 target heights) with auto tracking on (and possibly off too). Then when the user tries to bring the sight back onto target by elevating), he cannot. The movements of the gun/sight then becomes exaggerated, like 2 to 3 times the normal speed - and any left/right movement of the input brings about a seemingly opposite movement of the turret, as if it is fighting against the input (like when you have lead being calculated on [a single axis type] stabilized sight and you traverse rapidly from side to side). The AI also cannot aim the gun when this starts to happen; if you jump out to F8 view (to let the AI shoot the target), you can instead see the gun swinging back and forth left and right, and the AI doesn't shoot. Also, if you are in the gunner position when this happens, the AI commander seemingly becomes completely inactive - doesn't put the gun onto target, etc. After going through all this, the user will eventually press P or O key to disable/reset the FCS and auto-tracking. When this happens, it goes away, until the user lases the target again. So the only way to engage the target when this occurs is through the GAS (the old T-72 sight). " If anyone encounters this described behavior then please post a test scenario here. We have discovered this issue post 4.3 release and are having trouble reliably reproducing it... πŸ˜” (The best way to get a test scenario might be to pause the game when you see it, then save in progress, and upload that here with a note on what vehicle on what side its currently being observed). I should stress that there are many unknowns here, whether auto-tracking is actually a cause or not, for one thing, or whether it is a Network Session only bug or not (probably not). Normally we don't put out unknown information like this, but here we are. So, as I said, the main thing that would help at this point would be a test scenario where someone is able to reproduce the behavior (or possibly a save in progress of a scenario where someone sees it occurring right then, with a mention of what vehicle it is happening on).
  23. Whaaa??? A daily limit on 'likes'? What kind of communist sh*t is this!? πŸ˜› (Seriously though, that is odd why it would be limited -- maybe too much kindness would ruin todays world, or some such... we can't be having that lol.)
  24. Right, well, the intent of this thread was to just let people know a general description of how it works, so they can intelligently use them with routes - but by all means this could be also be a discussion on observations too (although it might go under the radar, no pun intended). That said, no one thinks there isn't any room for improvement on the helicopters - like everything else its not perfect and needs improvement. The Apache shouldn't be doing an 8km race track, but I think it depends on the terrain, and whether or not its being shot at, and whether or not it can see the enemy, and it might be taking into account the range of its ATGM and the known targets (because the helicopter is aware of targets that it sees, gets into sort of a "hunt/attack mode", and is then trying to get maximum stand off range to avoid danger). You would have to run some experiments to know why it would be making that long of a race track -- but I'd say its probably the terrain, presence of known enemies, possibly lack of cover, range of the ATGM -- something in that order. Certainly the Hind and Cobra do not do this long race track and are quite effective. Still, the race track length is not necessarily a terrible thing - but scenario designers will have to take this into consideration in their map selection, and presence of penalty zones (most penalty zones should be made so that helicopters are exempt). Gun accuracy (lack there of) is a known issue - it has to do with the helicopter height, and also the fact that its usually flying fast closing the range on the target, so its really just a spray and pray type thing right now. Still, the gun should really be the last thing the helicopter uses in almost every case, unless you removed all other weapons to see how it behaves, and then you get what you get there. But from what I have seen, when the helicopter has ATGMs and rockets, it deals death unlike before and once it gets down to guns, its probably time to fly away. Scenario designers might even want to consider giving the helicopter half gun ammo, or no gun ammo, to avoid or limit gun usage (its up to you).
  25. OK, so its working now? If so, that is good. (It's one of the concern about mapping the focus control to buttons and other keys (some people dual map to an existing button/key that also does something else) and this can cause problems like that.)
  • Create New...