SB Pro PE 4.0 - Discussion thread

[TSe419E]

11 minutes ago, Volcano said:

 

Simple answer there then, stop traversing violently. All we do is model the sound it makes when you traverse quickly back the other direction, or suddenly stop traversing.

 

It's not me, the gunner, causing it.  I notice it mostly when the TC is laying the gun on a target.

[Volcano]

2 minutes ago, TSe419E said:

 

It's not me, the gunner, causing it.  I notice it mostly when the TC is laying the gun on a target.

 

The fact is, its how the gunner moves the turret. If he swings one way, and back the other way, then it triggers the sound. I have no doubt that you, as gunner, would likely trigger it as well in the heat of the action too.

 

Unfortunately this is standard behavior so you will just have to cringe and hear it.

 

We could remove the sound altogether, but then that might be completely bad the other way as you could traverse violently and not hear anything at all.

 

 

[TSe419E]

7 minutes ago, Volcano said:

I do understand the feedback from TSe419E, but with all due respect to him, he said he was on the M60A1 which had a totally different stab system and we would prefer additional feedback from others to confirm it before we go in with a sledgehammer smashing things up.

 

Just because a real world procedure or feature is annoying to players is no reason to remove it...

 

 

I was just commenting on what Maj.Hans attributed to a former tanker with 'A1 and 'A3 experience.  I know it's a different stab system.  But if I had been a gunner on one and the loader was constantly throwing off my aim by the unnecessary use of the stab cutoff he and I would have had words, somewhere an NCO or officer couldn't see or hear.

[Volcano]

8 minutes ago, TSe419E said:

 

 

I was just commenting on what Maj.Hans attributed to a former tanker with 'A1 and 'A3 experience.  I know it's a different stab system.  But if I had been a gunner on one and the loader was constantly throwing off my aim by the unnecessary use of the stab cutoff he and I would have had words, somewhere an NCO or officer couldn't see or hear.

 

Right, well, I am sure that (ideally) the use of the stab cut off would depend on the terrain - but that is true for the Leopards too, I imagine. And unfortunately we don't model this case by case based on the situation, but rather something that just happens all the time. Maybe we can do something about this in the future. For example, perhaps we only have him turn it off when the vehicle is moving at high speed (in which case the breach movement would be the most rapid, and abrupt, I think).

 

Ironically though, if the terrain isn't rough then the sight won't jump off target very much at all and you will still be mostly on target, but if it is very rough, then it will, hence the justification for the use of the stab cut off in the first place. 

 

 

 

 

[Volcano]

Actually, the AI apparently knows not to disable the stab cut off when the vehicle is "steady". Maybe we will have to increase this tolerance of what the AI loader considers "steady" to be, so it might improve in that regard at least (and it would make it more situational specific).

 

A general rule of thumb though will be that if the vehicle is moving at a high rate of speed then expect the stab to be turned off.

[Volcano]

42 minutes ago, Volcano said:

Actually, the AI apparently knows not to disable the stab cut off when the vehicle is "steady". Maybe we will have to increase this tolerance of what the AI loader considers "steady" to be, so it might improve in that regard at least (and it would make it more situational specific).

 

A general rule of thumb though will be that if the vehicle is moving at a high rate of speed then expect the stab to be turned off.

 

OK we made an improvement here (which may not make it into the first update). Basically, the AI loader will consider the vehicle "steady" (and consequently will not turn off stab) when the vehicle is moving at the SLOW speed setting (20 kph or less). Anything faster than that and he will shut off the stab, as before.

 

We could further increase this "steady" tolerance of course, but its better to see how it feels. Also, and this would be hard to convince otherwise, but it sounds about right that FAST and TOP SPEED would not be considered "steady" in an M60, as this sort of conforms nicely with what my old tank commander recalled about it (he was an old M60A3 commander). Obviously though, IRL it really depends on the bumpiness of the terrain, whether the vehicle is on roads, etc, but having it based on speed is a necessary simplification and is better than nothing (previously the loader considered the vehicle steady only when it was not moving).

 

[Maj.Hans]

1 hour ago, Volcano said:

 

OK we made an improvement here (which may not make it into the first update). Basically, the AI loader will consider the vehicle "steady" (and consequently will not turn off stab) when the vehicle is moving at the SLOW speed setting (20 kph or less). Anything faster than that and he will shut off the stab, as before.

 

We could further increase this "steady" tolerance of course, but its better to see how it feels. Also, and this would be hard to convince otherwise, but it sounds about right that FAST and TOP SPEED would not be considered "steady" in an M60, as this sort of conforms nicely with what my old tank commander recalled about it (he was an old M60A3 commander). Obviously though, IRL it really depends on the bumpiness of the terrain, whether the vehicle is on roads, etc, but having it based on speed is a necessary simplification and is better than nothing (previously the loader considered the vehicle steady only when it was not moving).

 

 

Since we all agree that the tank has an older stab system only suitable for firing while moving slow, I can agree with this.

 

Can we convince the driver that if the vehicle is moving at TOP SPEED it is NOT APPROPRIATE to stop while loading the gun?

[Volcano]

Not sure I understand. The only reason the driver should stop is because you are on an ENGAGE type route. Is the AI driver stopping on assault too?

[Maj.Hans]

24 minutes ago, Volcano said:

Not sure I understand. The only reason the driver should stop is because you are on an ENGAGE type route. Is the AI driver stopping on assault too?

I'll have to go back and double check.

 

My driver seemed to stop after firing the gun, in response to the stabilizer being turned off, and to resume driving when re-engaging the stabilizer.

 

This is the behavior I got:

When on an "Assault" route, the M60 will behave normally with the AI in control, or with an AI gunner.

With a human gunner, the M60 will stop after the gun is loaded, and remain stationary until the human gunner re-engages the stabilizer.

 

The AI gunner appears to have NO ability whatsoever to apply lead to a target when engaging with the laser and lead does not appear to be automatically generated or applied when the AI uses the laser.  He will miss each and every single time.  If a Human TC does not reset the laser, the AI will manually lead targets until the laser is reset, then he will lase and engage without applying lead.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Maj.Hans

[Volcano]

OK thanks for the info, we will check that out...

[Tango29]

12 hours ago, []_--__[]KITT said:

Just tried the T-55 for the first time in gun range.

 

She's one beautiful tank. I didn't realize I could zoom in the optics so I fired away at zoomed out magnification but still managed a score of 52!!!

 

Will search for missions for the tank!!!

I've missed this, even though the answer is probably hiding in plain sight. How do you zoom in the optics on the T-55? I can't find it in the Wiki entry, but I find that it does happen occasionally and by chance when I'm working the gunnery system. TIA for any guidance! 

[[]_--__[]KITT]

20 minutes ago, Tango29 said:

I've missed this, even though the answer is probably hiding in plain sight. How do you zoom in the optics on the T-55? I can't find it in the Wiki entry, but I find that it does happen occasionally and by chance when I'm working the gunnery system. TIA for any guidance! 

 

 

It's the 'N' key. Without zooming in it's a pain to read the optics.

[Gibsonm]

I think he just means to magnify the sight from wide field of view at low magnification to narrow field of view but higher magnification.

 

Yes, hit "N" to toggle back and forth.

 

Edited August 27, 2016 by Gibsonm

[Volcano]

6 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

I'll have to go back and double check.

 

My driver seemed to stop after firing the gun, in response to the stabilizer being turned off, and to resume driving when re-engaging the stabilizer.

 

This is the behavior I got:

When on an "Assault" route, the M60 will behave normally with the AI in control, or with an AI gunner.

With a human gunner, the M60 will stop after the gun is loaded, and remain stationary until the human gunner re-engages the stabilizer.

 

The AI gunner appears to have NO ability whatsoever to apply lead to a target when engaging with the laser and lead does not appear to be automatically generated or applied when the AI uses the laser.  He will miss each and every single time.  If a Human TC does not reset the laser, the AI will manually lead targets until the laser is reset, then he will lase and engage without applying lead.

 

Actually, I am not seeing this. I tried it myself but the AI driver isn't stopping for me.  Can you report this in the Support Forum and attach a simple test scenario to show it? I just want to make sure we are doing the same thing here.

[Maj.Hans]

17 minutes ago, Volcano said:

 

Actually, I am not seeing this. I tried it myself but the AI driver isn't stopping for me.  Can you report this in the Support Forum and attach a simple test scenario to show it? I just want to make sure we are doing the same thing here.

 

OK, do you also need a demo about the lead problem?

[[]_--__[]KITT]

4 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

I think he just means to magnify the sight from wide field of view at low magnification to narrow field of view but higher magnification.

 

Yes, hit "N" to toggle back and forth.

 

 

 Yeah just that 

[Tango29]

Thanks, Mark and Kitt. When in doubt, go to the experts!  

[Varjag]

Toggle laser rangefinder shown on the picture is not working. When you click it, nothing happens and the cursor blinks.

 

Edited August 29, 2016 by Varjag

[TSe419E]

Should go in the bugs thread under Support.

[Barkhorn1x]

Shout out to Vikingo for his excellent NVidia CP settings.  Been using for over a week now and everything is smoooooth and looks great.  "Like butta!".

[Vikingo]

1 hour ago, Barkhorn1x said:

Shout out to Vikingo for his excellent NVidia CP settings.  Been using for over a week now and everything is smoooooth and looks great.  "Like butta!".

 

haha !! shout gladly received  I'm also very happy with the "magic settings"  I saturate the battlefield with units and all is super smooth  4.0 is so well builded!

[Kev2go]

AFter doing some gunnery, im confused how is a M735 capable of penning the Upper front plate hull of the T72 at 2200m, when IRL tests showed that the T72A Hull only vulnerable to the M735 Apfsds, at 500m, and the M111 hetz, only at around 800m? those being T72s without the addition 16mm HSS plate...

 

 

 

 

 

 

i cant help but feel this is a implication that either the T72a/M1 hull armor has improper modelling,  or the M735 is overperforming.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Kev2go

[Maj.Hans]

13 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

AFter doing some gunnery, im confused how is a M735 capable of penning the Upper front plate hull of the T72 at 2200m, when IRL tests showed that the T72A Hull only vulnerable tot the M735 Apfsds, at 500m, and the M111 hetz, only at around 800m? those being T72s without the addition 16mm HSS plate...

 

 

this implies either the T72a/m1 hull armor has improper modelling in SB or the M735 is overperforming.

 

Is it possible that we have the T72A without the plate?  That was an add on wasnt it?

 

After all, right now the T-72A/M1 seems to be a composite tank representing several very similar but slightly different vehicles, and I think the T72 vs L7 is one of the very few times in Pro PE where we have both a vehicle and a gun that:

1. Actually fought against each other

and

2. Were developed over time to defeat each other, with developments and results that we know very well from open sources.

 

So things that may have seemed trivial in the past are now showing up in a big way.  I mean, in the last version it may have been OK for eSim to "compress" the T-72A, 72A Uparmor, T72A RadLiner, T72M1 series into a single tank because it essentially existed to be cannon fodder for Leo2s and M1s. 

 

The differences didn't matter, it was going to die anyway because it was going to get hit by a DM33/53 M829/A1/A2/A3 etc.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Maj.Hans
Edit to clarify my reasoning.

[Kev2go]

8 minutes ago, Maj.Hans said:

 

Is it possible that we have the T72A without the plate?  That was an add on wasnt it?

 

After all, right now the T-72A/M1 seems to be a composite tank representing several very similar but slightly different vehicles, and I think the T72 vs L7 is one of the very few times in Pro PE where we have both a vehicle and a gun that:

1. Actually fought against each other

and

2. Were developed over time to defeat each other, with developments and results that we know very well from open sources.

 

but the model we have in steel beasts would very much be a T72A with 16mm hss plate. by the time T72M1 went into production in 1984 it would have and did incorprate the 16mm thicker armor, as well as smoke dischargers which was only around in later T72A production batches starting in the 80s.

 

They changes the name in 4.0 from T7M1 to T72A/M1 becase the respective models represented here would have near identical features. In any case id think this warrants a rexamination and fix of performance.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 31, 2016 by Kev2go

[Vikingo]

 

Maybe the tank was already knocked out with other hit (in other place) check that the AAR "Destroyed" in the pic is in grey. The "Destroyed" have to be in red to know the "real impact" that produce the kill/damage (if I'm not wrong...)

Edited August 31, 2016 by Vikingo