Grenny Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 solution: put in some own units purely as MP and then park them next to the POW to simulate "handover". This way you don't burden the combat units with it.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSe419E Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 2 hours ago, Maj.Hans said: I just played a quick scenario with the M60A3, and I can't fathom a few small things, like why doesn't the unity sight (on the real tank) have something like a T shaped aiming post in the center of it, and why doesn't the M1 have an awesome unity sight like the M60? Seems like a unity sight that tracked with the gun, and had an aiming pipper like that, would be great for using the Coax in urban areas. The round circle (which should be illuminated and look like a nixie tube) IS the aiming point. It is meant to be used with the coax and since that is supposed to be an "area of effect" weapon the aiming point, naturally, covers an area that you can affect. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted August 15, 2016 Moderators Share Posted August 15, 2016 3 hours ago, Kingtiger said: I managed it once, but not since. Do not know what made it work. I assume there is some randomness in play but tried enough times so I actually should see it agan. @Ssnake: Help on medic and prisoner movement? /KT http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=Infantry_Units#Medics 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingtiger Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 Oh love it, fantastic 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingtiger Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 1 hour ago, Volcano said: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=Infantry_Units#Medics Question on the engineers: When they do BREACH they use the minesweepers, mark with blue spray etc (all perfect). But when they are done there are 3 seperate 1m lanes with 1 meter between them still containing mines. Normally when working with so many minesweepers at the same time you would indeed have a few meters gap so they do not interfere with eachother, but after the first lanes are cleared you would clear the remining lanes and open up the breach for wheeled traffic by propper marking. Right now there is no good way to get them to go back and sweep the last lanes so you get a complete minefree breach? /KT 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt DeFault Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 4 hours ago, Retro said: Yeah actually you cannot guide them at all ATM. 1 hour ago, Volcano said: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=Infantry_Units#Medics Thanks! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted August 15, 2016 Moderators Share Posted August 15, 2016 24 minutes ago, Kingtiger said: Question on the engineers: When they do BREACH they use the minesweepers, mark with blue spray etc (all perfect). But when they are done there are 3 seperate 1m lanes with 1 meter between them still containing mines. Normally when working with so many minesweepers at the same time you would indeed have a few meters gap so they do not interfere with eachother, but after the first lanes are cleared you would clear the remining lanes and open up the breach for wheeled traffic by propper marking. Right now there is no good way to get them to go back and sweep the last lanes so you get a complete minefree breach? /KT Not sure about that -- if the military wanted it to be an imperfect way to clear mines. Can't you just route them back through the minefield for a more thorough clearance? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted August 15, 2016 Members Share Posted August 15, 2016 In my tests they retained a close enough formation. Maybe some late changes to the infantry code resulted in better dispersion... at the price of "dispersed breach lanes". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingtiger Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Volcano said: Not sure about that -- if the military wanted it to be an imperfect way to clear mines. Can't you just route them back through the minefield for a more thorough clearance? Here is some pics from test I just did: First breach order: 3 minesweepers clearing around 1 meter in with but leaving 1 meter untouched. (Love the AK5C by the way!) With the result of this: Not what I consider cleared breach. And I am having a hard time finding a good "turn around" so they take the remaining lanes and just not overlapping some weird way. 2nd thing: when they have breached there is no breach marker showing up on the map like it does with a AEV? AI vehicles do cross using the breach so its just a show for human players in map view. Edited August 15, 2016 by Kingtiger 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted August 15, 2016 Members Share Posted August 15, 2016 Well, I think that in order to be considered a "complete breach" the lanes are supposed to be proofed by at least a mine roller. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted August 15, 2016 Moderators Share Posted August 15, 2016 Well, given the speed in which they clear the lane (which is very fast), then they are not considered to be working thoroughly. The idea is to put several Engineer Teams behind each other to be sure, and ideally followed by a roller, plow or (preceded by) a MICLIC. The idea wasn't to have an engineer team thoroughly clear a vehicle lane in minutes though. What I mean is, it sort of creates a tactical dilemma... devote more engineer units to one lane? Bring up a plow or roller? Spend a MICLIC? Or spend more time having engineers check the lane (by going back and forth)? Risk it with one quick pass? And so forth. That said, I am going off what I remember. I also seem to remember that the engineer infantry were a little closer together in formations in the past when clearing mines, but they always had a gap between them (at least that part is intentional, but the degree of which I cannot recall - we will have to check notes). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj.Hans Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 9 hours ago, TSe419E said: The round circle (which should be illuminated and look like a nixie tube) IS the aiming point. It is meant to be used with the coax and since that is supposed to be an "area of effect" weapon the aiming point, naturally, covers an area that you can affect. That makes sense, although I'd still prefer a central aiming point as the end user. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El_Chacho Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 On 8/13/2016 at 5:07 PM, Vikingo said: 4.0 Running very nice here!! Amazing work eSim! So glad we didn't have to wait for enjoy 4.0. Thanks for that giant effort !! Countless hours inside the BMP-2 and T-72B1 m.2012 After playing a little with nvidia settings I reach the "perfect" balance. I was suffering from some stuttering while moving fast the sights/optics but using these settings all is smooth now... I share them and maybe this will help other nvidia users out there. Here with Windows 7 64 + i7-4770@3.9Ghz + 16 RAM@2400 + GTX 770 2GB (latests drivers 368.81) Game settings maxed out, 1920x1080 and vsync ON. A big thanks to you. I replicated this and overall it runs smoother. Cheers, 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Turn off Vsync in the game. Either have the vid card handle Vsync or have the game do it, not both. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vikingo Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Your welcome El_Chacho!! (please keep reading) Yes, Homer. I was about to post that. This is my updated settings. Vsync OFF in game, and ON in drivers. Please check final configuration here. Is super smooth and NO stuttering at all !! http://imgur.com/a/jjhlx 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El_Chacho Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 8 hours ago, Homer said: Turn off Vsync in the game. Either have the vid card handle Vsync or have the game do it, not both. 7 hours ago, Vikingo said: Please check final configuration here. Is super smooth and NO stuttering at all !! http://imgur.com/a/jjhlx Thanks, fellows! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varjag Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 NVIDIA driver ver. 372.54 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munckmb Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Anymore info about the AMV XA-360? This thing seems indestructible! It is very hard to destroy with auto canon fire. Looks even better protected then the Boxer. Wonderful model BTW and so is the Pandur I. Very nice details. I keep being amazed with the amount of detail you guys added. Very much appreciated! For instance the MG-3 HGM, great optics! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vikingo Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Yep, new driver is out. Thanks for the heads up Varjag! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varjag Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Why developers are not added to the game T-72B1 mod. 1985 with active armor and full ammunition instead of sand? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jartsev Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 33 minutes ago, Varjag said: Why developers are not added to the game T-72B1 mod. 1985 with active armor and full ammunition instead of sand? There were certain reasons to do so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varjag Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 It seems to me, it should not have artificially restrict the already meager arsenal of vehicles that can adequately resist the "blue" coalition. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted August 16, 2016 Members Share Posted August 16, 2016 Huh? There is no "Blue Coalition". You can create scenarios entirely devoid of any Leopard 2, M1, Leclerc. It's totally up to you what kind of scenarios you create and play. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev2go Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Jartsev said: There were certain reasons to do so. them being? i mean i too dont understand why not a T72B1 1985 with Kontact bricks, when the 2012 version is basically the same thing but worse due to not having any ammunition stowage. IF the concern is about extra ammo with the tank being at an extra risk for cookoff after penetration then they still have a choice of simply taking out less ammo. Also I never did hear of a T72B1 model 2012 as a official designation. IS this some local in house modiifcation? only nation that i found was as ordered any meaningful #s of T72B1s from Russia in 2012, was Venezuela. Edited August 17, 2016 by Kev2go 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bond_Villian Posted August 17, 2016 Share Posted August 17, 2016 3 hours ago, Varjag said: It seems to me, it should not have artificially restrict the already meager arsenal of vehicles that can adequately resist the "blue" coalition Ironically, the sand instead of ammo is intended to help the t72 "resist" the blue forces, by increasing its survivability! (If i understand correctly) 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.