mpow66m Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 14 minutes ago, Gibsonm said: New terrain, bouncy road wheels, TOW guidance jets, Terminal / impact effects, Penetrator shown in the AAR, ... All good. are these all new?or have they been in the Mil version,if you can say. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotareneg Posted May 8, 2016 Author Share Posted May 8, 2016 Is that memory usage going to be typical? Just wondering if I need to upgrade the ram on my laptop, it's currently got 4 gigs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Rotareneg said: Is that memory usage going to be typical? Just wondering if I need to upgrade the ram on my laptop, it's currently got 4 gigs. Have already asked the question I think you will need twelve to get the best out what's coming. Posted 1 May · Report post On 01/05/2016 at 3:34 PM, Grenny said: can't access this site... Nils wrote... "It's still a bit too early to give the final recommendations, but since we're going 64 bit only we also recommend 8 GByte RAM or more (I have 16, and occasionally they are needed (when converting legacy map data). Likewise in the past I said that it would be better to have two cores at a higher clock speed than four or more. While the high clock speed still is a desirable thing - large parts of SB Pro are still single threaded, and probably will remain so for years - we DO have certain multithreaded operations now (mostly when it comes to converting old maps) where an i7 processor shows a massive advantage over an i3 and even some i5s. Graphics cards - nominally no increase over 3.0 (Shader model 3.0, 1GByte video RAM recommended), but as always, faster is better. I have a (normal) GTX 980 and see no problems whatsoever in full HD resolution. But then again a 980, even if it's not a Ti version, is pretty much at the top of the food chain right now. Cards that "still cope" with version 3.0 will probably no longer cut it. Once that we are done with a number of performance tweaks we'll have our beta testers to run a benchmark scenario that should represent typical game scenes, and based on the results we will give a performance indicator for at least the graphics card/processor combinations that we have in the team. That should allow you to make at least an estimate how your own system will fare. In the end, try it out. Only you know what combination of screen resolution, frame rate, and graphics detail selection you find enjoyable or not. Our time-based licenses aren't very expensive and allow to run both version 3.0 and version 4.0, so e.g. a four month license is $24.50 in our web shop, so you could run 3.0 until end of August if you bought today, or switch over to version 4.0 in June for the rest of the time. ...and if you hate it, go back to version 3, no problem. What can be said at this point is that map sizes generally inflate by about a factor 10...20. Given that we increase the terrain raster resolution by a factor 256 that's not too bad. Also, scenario file sizes will shrink back to a few hundred Kilobytes again, so the net storage space demand may actually be almost neutral if you had a lot of scenarios based on the same map, particularly if you chose to embed the full map data set. But as always, new fancy graphics options here and there, they always eat half a frame per second or one, and when you add ten or twenty of these improvements you're down from 35 frames to 20, and that certainly is a noticeable drop. At the same time we cannot make all graphics settings fully optional because, well, you want a level playing field in multiplayer sessions. Disabling smoke grenade effects may improve the frame rate, but you can't really leave that decision to the individual network client for obvious reasons. ...oh, our preview videos. Hope you'll like them. All based on late Alpha/early beta versions; expect some warts to be removed before release." Edited May 8, 2016 by Marko 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotareneg Posted May 8, 2016 Author Share Posted May 8, 2016 "Shoot at unit..." ? And I bought an 8 gig upgrade for the laptop, it doesn't support 16 gigs so that made the choice really easy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaphod Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 1 hour ago, Gibsonm said: New terrain, bouncy road wheels, TOW guidance jets, Terminal / impact effects, Penetrator shown in the AAR, ... All good. You could almost swear you were describing porn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted May 8, 2016 Members Share Posted May 8, 2016 2 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said: Will the new terrain effect how infantry units 'dig in' when set on Defend or Guard? Yes: Infantry still does a bit of the sink-in. But we're tinkering with it a bit. The original rationale, that there were no actual bumps in the terrain behind which they could hide, is no longer valid. At the same time we haven't modified the animations so that dismounts could really flex to adapt to the terrain, and use some random bump both for cover and as support in prone aiming. So we're using the approach now that the troops will switch between the highest bump's height in their vicinity for firing, and the lowest local valley to take cover. We considered the option to let them shoot from the kneeling position if the bumpiness exceeds a certain threshold, but as we want to minimize the risk to introduce new bugs so close to the release date we rejected the idea in the end. Future updates will certainly review the issue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted May 8, 2016 Members Share Posted May 8, 2016 "Shoot at unit..." ? Yes. It's similar to the "suppress here" command, except that you can use it to have your own unit fire upon a specific other unit even if it's moving. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Marko said: Shoot at unit, Excellent been looking for that feature for awhile. Edited May 8, 2016 by Marko 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpow66m Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Ssnake,any chace of the spread sheet that used to list rounds fired ect for AFVs coming back?would be nice for a campaign to be able to realistically set ammo for next phase.If you know what I mean. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted May 9, 2016 Members Share Posted May 9, 2016 If you're referring to the records, they are kept as HTML files in your Documents\eSim Games\Steel Beasts\records folder. They never went away, maybe you stopped looking for them. You can import them into Excel. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 In the "killing M1A1(HA)s with M2A2" video, did I see passengers visible with the reloading hatch open around 1:50? Is that new? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 7 hours ago, dejawolf said: BP 101. killing M1A1(HA)s with M2A2. notice the lack of flaming basketballs: The hatch should open before the TC's head pops up @ 3:10 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumituisku Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 What I'm really curious to see is if crew is modeled as well inside the vehicles. Apparently one cannot see character in his position but could commander be able to see gunner while inside. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotareneg Posted May 9, 2016 Author Share Posted May 9, 2016 1 hour ago, Holman said: In the "killing M1A1(HA)s with M2A2" video, did I see passengers visible with the reloading hatch open around 1:50? Is that new? You can see the dismounts in the rear of PCs currently, not sure how long that's been around though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrapper_511 Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Check out the wheels on that Bradley before the driver drifts towards the end. Lovely. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 1 hour ago, Rotareneg said: You can see the dismounts in the rear of PCs currently, not sure how long that's been around though. 2.654 or 3.002 not certain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 M1 TTB is a beast with that front armor and rate of fire. Pity it never was finished and put in service. I wonder if they could up armor turret in the final production variant, while still keeping reasonable weight. @dejawolf do you have exact data on TTB's weight? Or estimations at least? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejawolf Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 2 hours ago, Damian90 said: M1 TTB is a beast with that front armor and rate of fire. Pity it never was finished and put in service. I wonder if they could up armor turret in the final production variant, while still keeping reasonable weight. @dejawolf do you have exact data on TTB's weight? Or estimations at least? i made some estimates, and came to a weight of approximately 52-53 tonnes or so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 So yeah, pretty lightweight for such decent protection. If you think about it, they could probably still add armor to the turret, while keeping weight below 60 tonnes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnO Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Just wonder with all these new vehicles being added, will there be any new additional AVLBs, or is it just a waste of time worrying about blown bridges in a scenario? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 15 minutes ago, JohnO said: Just wonder with all these new vehicles being added, will there be any new additional AVLBs, or is it just a waste of time worrying about blown bridges in a scenario? Well most of the AVLBs are designed to span gaps of only 20m or so. If you have a broader river then its probably time to consider building a bridge from 2 or 3 AVLB (first one provides the foundation and first 1/3 of the gap, 2nd drives onto the first and launches its bridge to cover most of the remaining gap, 3rd one drives over first two bridge sections and launches the 3rd to finish the span). If you want to cross the Rhine then you need different bridging to AVLB. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejawolf Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Damian90 said: So yeah, pretty lightweight for such decent protection. If you think about it, they could probably still add armor to the turret, while keeping weight below 60 tonnes. yeah, more armour could be added to the front of the turret, but then the design of the turret would have to change. you'd have to balance out the extra front armour by adding counterweight to the back turret. IMO what could be done by taking the components in the side sponsons, and move them into a turret bustle. this would minimize front turret profile, and allow you to put a pretty hefty slab of armour in front of the gun. the only problem with this would be that it would interfere with the rear ejection of stub casings. Edited May 9, 2016 by dejawolf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 21 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said: 5 hours ago, Damian90 said: 3 hours ago, Damian90 said: So yeah, pretty lightweight for such decent protection. If you think about it, they could probably still add armor to the turret, while keeping weight below 60 tonnes. I Reckon the TTB will be a very difficult target to hit if its in a prepared hull down position, there is not a lot of turret to hit especially if your in a T-tank Hoping somebody skins it in a Soviet camouflage scheme and I am going to call it the T-2000. LoL 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnO Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 5 hours ago, Gibsonm said: Well most of the AVLBs are designed to span gaps of only 20m or so. If you have a broader river then its probably time to consider building a bridge from 2 or 3 AVLB (first one provides the foundation and first 1/3 of the gap, 2nd drives onto the first and launches its bridge to cover most of the remaining gap, 3rd one drives over first two bridge sections and launches the 3rd to finish the span). If you want to cross the Rhine then you need different bridging to AVLB. Thanks Mark, I was more concern with the AVLB MLC, is there any armor vehicles including the new armor over 60 tonnes, if not then there's nothing to worry about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 (edited) I don't think they have modelled MLC for AVLB. Either that or the Biber is well engineered. Certainly you can push a M1 over a Biber bridge (haven't tried a MT-55) without it collapsing. Or are you after a M104 Wolverine HAB? Edited May 9, 2016 by Gibsonm Added the M104 reference. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.