Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Community Answers

  1. Volcano's post in 4.363 Leopard 2E, AI gunner behavior with GPS / GAS damage. was marked as the answer   
    Right, this is a known issue all the way back to SB1 (that you can remain in the vehicle with no turret crew until you jump away, then you are locked out). It would certainly make more sense to eject the user to F8 view when the occupied crew position is damaged, but there are technical reasons (I believe it is another problem that goes back to the 'no external view setting' that can be set in single player, rhetorically where does the user get thrown to when dead in such cases?).
    Need a sort of purgatory for the dead, where they are at map view but not in any vehicle until they select a unit to jump to, I suppose. 
  2. Volcano's post in 4.363 Duplicate IDs persist? was marked as the answer   
    Well, just because you saved an older scenario in newer versions doesn't mean the duplicate IDs would go away. It sounds like they are originally older scenarios, and the duplicate IDs were broken at that time, and its no surprised that they would still exist. They have to be manually fixed there.  Not saying that is what the issue is, but if it is, then it is expected behavior. 
    These are would be fixed by either removing the troops and replacing them, or by renaming the parent unit (with the troops inside) to some other name, then back again to their original name, or by renaming the troop units. 
    Also, it's important:
    There is something that I remember that is tricky about the duplicate ID test. IIRC, when you load the scenario in the Mission Editor, it doesn't automatically check the duplicate IDs except I think for the first party. You have to actually swap to the other sides in the drop down bar in that dialog and press the "Check for duplicate IDs" button.  Otherwise, once the mission begins in EXE Phase, then I think it checks all sides automatically when you open the dialog (that might be what you are observing here, or not).
    (However, if this is not what you are seeing, then I will need to take a look at the scenario.)
  3. Volcano's post in ural trucks resilient to tank HE/HEAT rounds was marked as the answer   
    Sorry but we cannot do much with that vehicle - it is very old. If you recall, the truck was made over 10 years ago and the only update it ever got was better looking wheels.  There are no meshes that we can remove (it doesn't even have doors that open), so the best we can do is flatten the tires (where is that Pawn Stars meme when you need it). We cannot remove the tarp either, because there is nothing physically in the back.   Also, none of this is different than it ever was before. 
    The important question is: does the vehicle die or become severely disabled on impact of large HE and HEAT? If it does, then that is good, if not then provide a test scenario here so I can address it (that would be bad of course).
    That said, we are being very conservative when it comes to removing meshes (aka. "destroyed meshes"), and this is because we never want a case that a non-superficial mesh is removed (like say the entire rear cargo area of the Ural) but the truck is somehow still alive. But what it really comes down to here is age of the model. If the model is very old, then usually any mesh that is removed will cause invisible see-through polygons underneath, or other ugliness, or it won't have specifically separate meshes at all, which prevents things from being removed.
    As for fire, well, this again is no different than it ever was before. It has a diesel engine so a general rule is that we don't have fire damage because, broadly speaking, the diesel engine is supposed to be quite safe from fire in the sense that we don't want it as a probability that kill the vehicle from the fuel tank being hit. Usually a fire on such vehicles would happen after the vehicle is dead, but not be something that would be so volatile that it would kill the vehicle in itself first, if that makes any sense. Now we want to see fire, because there are visual effects associated with it in 4.3+, so what we will likely need is some kind of post-kill fire probably (of say, a fire that starts following the vehicle's death).
    But this all really points back to old behavior, or old models, and yes, I am 100% sure there are other old vehicles that behaves similarly -- let's just say I am intimately familiar with them all. 😐
  4. Volcano's post in Ural Trucks: Infantry Incorrect Weapons was marked as the answer   
    Yes, so the issue here is that the Ural truck is very old, and never had its default LMG and RPG type defined (for its carried troops). So, it falls back to something defined in the code, ages ago, which is likely the very first RPG type that existed (M136) and very first LMG type that existed (MG3).
    I will try to script that to the PKM and RPG-7, or some such, for a future patch. 
  5. Volcano's post in Is T-72B3 Damaging model at close Ranges accurate compare to SB Wiki? was marked as the answer   
    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.
  6. Volcano's post in Apache Ammunition was marked as the answer   
    OK, that was fast.
    It was removed for a technical reason, at the moment.  
    So  basically, it was added to the Apache but then later removed because its laser guided behavior is not yet supported in code (and so it behaved exactly like the standard rocket. It was removed to avoid confusion).
  7. Volcano's post in Looks like we broke the T-72B3's Fire Control System, in some specific (and possibly rare) situations [FIXED?] was marked as the answer   
    Looks like we may have fixed this already for the next update. Or at least something very similar. 😅
    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.
  8. Volcano's post in Cockpit Night Lighting T-72B3 [FIXED] was marked as the answer   
    OK, fixed that now - seems to have been a simple case of overlooking it. 
  9. Volcano's post in T-72B3 ammo counter [FIXED] was marked as the answer   
    OK, should be fixed now for next patch (changed back to black to be more visible again).
  10. Volcano's post in LED lights missing from ICDU, cannot tell what FCS mode im in [FIXED] was marked as the answer   
    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. 😑
  11. Volcano's post in Typo in ORYX [FIXED] was marked as the answer   
    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).
  • Create New...