SB Pro PE 4.0 - Discussion thread

[Scrapper_511]

Cool snapshots, Dagger'. TC's bedroll is on fire.

 

Beautiful models. Definitely need to be more tactical in these than I have been in Abrams.

[Gibsonm]

20 minutes ago, Dagger1987 said:

 

Pictures for comparision that I took from the video:

 

....

 

And in the closing frames there is one with a roadwheel on the front of the turret roof.

[Stevo]

just wondering,can we expect oculus rift support in the future?

 

[Ssnake]

4 hours ago, Parachuteprone said:

Any chance we can see now the ammunition status of a unit in the map window ?

I hate not knowing if a vehicle I'm moving forward has the appropriate ammo left. Or if a squad needs to withdraw to resupply.

Actually switching to the unit spoils the game flow for me.

 

Have you ever tried the "Get Log Report" button in the map screen?

[RogueSnake79]

We implemented a system to randomize stowage layouts.   This will only be seen on some of the latest vehicle additions.   The M-60, M113 family, updated T-72's...   This happened pretty far down stream in this development cycle.   So not all of the newer vehicles take advantage of it.   But it is now a standard for all future vehicles(where applicable).    In the coming months/year, some older vehicles may, or may not receive this update.    

 

Although I think it is pretty self explanatory,  the purpose here is to combat the "clone army" effect.    So if you place a platoon of any of the above vehicles down on the map, all will have something different about them.   

 

And these stowage items are used on the armor models as well.   An example would be that, the spare road wheel will provide some standoff against a HEAT type warhead.   Packs and other soft stowage are not represented on the armor model, only things that might have a positive/negative ballistic effect.  This in of itself is not new, the fact that these type objects are random is.

 

This is a minor detail, but worth noting IMO.

 

[Stevo]

17 minutes ago, Stevo said:

just wondering,can we expect oculus rift support in the future?

 

Quote

Not in the immediate future. One of our developers has a kit (and gets sick every time when using it), so I won't rule out that he might surprise me one day. It could also be that one of our army customers would like to have an inexpensive VR solution, and Oculus might fit the bill.

But I don't want to create unjustified expectations here: We have more than our hands full with other tasks that the entire development team and I consider of higher priority. Like TrackIR, Oculus is a specific gadget with only a limited use if "slapped on" to an existing simulation. In order to generate substantial extra value the integration must go deeper and change the many parts of the user interface, which would be a disproportionate effort.
Some token integration might satisfy some owners of these gadgets but I'd like to go beyond minimal effort, and do it right if we do it. That requires more programming hours than we can afford at the moment.

Read more: http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3984304#ixzz49W4p4PLc 
Follow us: @SimHQ on Twitter | SimHQ on Facebook

 

[Ssnake]

20 minutes ago, Stevo said:

just wondering,can we expect oculus rift support in the future?

 

Not for version 4.0. Beyond that we have no specific plans yet. I am somewhat skeptical however as far as interaction with your equipment is concerned, or to which extent one could integrate the map screen etc. So, there are a ton of open questions. Also, I know of no large customer who has been actively requesting its support.

 

Ultimately our innovation is driven by "added traning value". Most game developers have a technology driven innovation cycle. They add a feature because the underlying technology allows for it. We (and our major customers) ask first, where re the current gaps and deficits in our training, and how can we use existing technology to close such a gap?

Not everything can, should, or needs to be done by way of software development when in the classroom you can just as well add role-playing elements, or punish stupid behavior with mandatory sit-ups or anything else that builds both fitness and character. Pure software developers often forget to keep such alternatives in mind, but the answer isn't always to be found in "more code".

[Major duck]

1 hour ago, GSprocket said:

A tank/missile and artillery effective range (min & max) would also be entertaining.

For most artillery the minimum useful range is around 2km, with maximum ranges ~15-18km for the in game examples.
(around half the maximum range for each charge is a reasonable minimum useful range with a fall adequate for limited searching fires).

Which means the AW artillery game is quite impossible... with a 1.4km map - the only location targettable by anything other than direct fire would be the extreme opposite corner.
 

Who Thought you that arty only have an min effective range of 2 km Nato artillery can fire from 0 to 30-40 km if 155mm depending on type out to 1500 m its most often direct fire.

A 155mm shell weighing 52 kgs hitting a tank at that range with over 900m/s and that tank is out of action (Same speed as a 12,7mm HMG round or better, but the HMG round only weighs 13 gram)

[GSprocket]

I did include the possibility of direct fires. But no searching fire is possible within at least 2km... and with the most common charges around 5km or so.

However... if you think AW "gets it right" then I guess it must do. </shrug>

[Marko]

1 hour ago, Jartsev said:

Well,  tracking at longer  ranges is easier to some degree because relative angular speed of target is lower(but  "sagger drill" can ruin your effort anyway)... Speaking of skill- it becomes lost  too easy, just don't exercise  few days and see what happens.

 

 I think this feature will really add to the immersion factor, its rare to see unified looking vehicles in the real world.

Hopefully one day i would like to see more visible damage as well dents ripped off side skirts etc. 

 

Edited May 23, 2016 by Marko

[dejawolf]

4 minutes ago, Major duck said:

Who Thought you that arty only have an min effective range of 2 km Nato artillery can fire from 0 to 30-40 km if 155mm depending on type out to 1500 m its most often direct fire.

A 155mm shell weighing 52 kgs hitting a tank at that range with over 900m/s and that tank is out of action (Same speed as a 12,7mm HMG round or better, but the HMG round only weighs 13 gram)

 

depends on where you hit. a 500 lb bomb has max fragment penetration of 12.7mm of MILD steel. (not RHA)

a 20-100 LB bomb can barely penetrate 3-6mm of mild steel. 

a 152mm shell fragment would probably be in the 3-6mm max penetration range, so you hit the front hull of an abrams with that, and at most you'll screw up the drivers vision blocks and maybe GAS if you're lucky, along with shred the bore evacuator, and dent the barrel up badly.  

[Ssnake]

You may be underestimating the effect of 155mm HE rounds. A direct hit is pretty much guaranteed to result at least in a mission kill, and potentially go beyond in damage. 

[Major duck]

Have you tried to calculate the kinetic energy, the Crew wont be able to do anything after that hit and if the round then explodes close to the tank which its suppose to do it will as you say not penetrate but the crew will be unable to fight anymoree (This is offcourse with the 0,2 sec delay on the shell). The Danish artillery scholl tested that when it still existed and a arty shell closer then 1 meter and the pressure on the crash dummies would be in most cases debilitating or worse 

 

[DK-DDAM]

with the amound of he there is in a 155mm if it hits the turret of a tank it makes massive damage to the vehicle, including fragmentation damage.

[Grenny]

I've seen a turret ripped of an M48A5GE by a 155er training round

[Gibsonm]

32 minutes ago, RogueSnake79 said:

We implemented a system to randomize stowage layouts.   This will only be seen on some of the latest vehicle additions.   The M-60, M113 family, updated T-72's...   This happened pretty far down stream in this development cycle.   So not all of the newer vehicles take advantage of it.   But it is now a standard for all future vehicles(where applicable).    In the coming months/year, some older vehicles may, or may not receive this update.  

 

Thanks for the insight.

 

Is it truely random or is there some pattern (e.g.: in a four vehicle Platoon vehicle 1 gets layout 1, vehicle 2 layout 2, etc.) so if I say see a road wheel I can say its the number 3 vehicle?  

[GSprocket]

The WW2 M107 had 1,240 fragments capable of penetrating 0.125" of plate at 20ft. The lightest of these was 0.035oz...
But, there are at least 111 fragments that would remain capable of damaging this target at 400ft (1.61 oz and heavier)...

So to characterise this as the "maximum" that the fragments could penetrate is to seriously underestimate them.
They use modified 20mm rounds as fragment simulators for STANAG protection testing (saboted 12.7mm blunt projectile) - and we know they are more capable than 6mm...
7.62mmAP @30m - 20mm FSP @60m = lvl3
14.5mm @ 200 - 20mm FSP @25m = lvl4
25mm APDS @ 500m - 20mm FSP @25m = lvl5
30mm APFSDS @500 - 20mm FSP @10m = lvl6

Not equal standards, but both are of similar degree and required for meeting the STANAG protection standards over a substantial portion of the vehicle.

Also the unitary shell has a considerable impulse, which could seriously damage internal and external components by direct impact and shock.

Even with tank gun energy and impulse there are issues with crew injury if in contact with the vehicle shell - and insurgents use artillery shells as improvised mines because they are effective in that role.




 

Edited May 23, 2016 by GSprocket

[Parachuteprone]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

 

Have you ever tried the "Get Log Report" button in the map screen?

 

No, I can't find one. I think I better post a question in the support forum so as not to clog things up here.

 

Thanks

 

[Ssnake]

Well, it may be that the button is limited to the classroom version, or that it will make its way into 4.0. I don't have a beta version installed on my notebook while I'm traveling, so I'm not entirely sure.

[Parachuteprone]

4 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Well, it may be that the button is limited to the classroom version, or that it will make its way into 4.0. I don't have a beta version installed on my notebook while I'm traveling, so I'm not entirely sure.

 

Ok thanks, I'll see if anyone knows in the other forum. Enjoy your trip

 

[12Alfa]

4 hours ago, GSprocket said:

The WW2 M107 had 1,240 fragments capable of penetrating 0.125" of plate at 20ft. The lightest of these was 0.035oz...
But, there are at least 111 fragments that would remain capable of damaging this target at 400ft (1.61 oz and heavier)...

So to characterise this as the "maximum" that the fragments could penetrate is to seriously underestimate them.
They use modified 20mm rounds as fragment simulators for STANAG protection testing (saboted 12.7mm blunt projectile) - and we know they are more capable than 6mm...
7.62mmAP @30m - 20mm FSP @60m = lvl3
14.5mm @ 200 - 20mm FSP @25m = lvl4
25mm APDS @ 500m - 20mm FSP @25m = lvl5
30mm APFSDS @500 - 20mm FSP @10m = lvl6

Not equal standards, but both are of similar degree and required for meeting the STANAG protection standards over a substantial portion of the vehicle.

Also the unitary shell has a considerable impulse, which could seriously damage internal and external components by direct impact and shock.

Even with tank gun energy and impulse there are issues with crew injury if in contact with the vehicle shell - and insurgents use artillery shells as improvised mines because they are effective in that role.




 

 and insurgents use artillery shells as improvised mines because they are effective in that role.
Well, we found they use them because thats what they have , or found.They also use cooking oil containers filled with fertilizer and gas, none of this is effective on most MRAPS, though a big bang and large hole is created. To penetrate armour, specialize AFV armour one needs more. Another factor is buried arty shells are easily found by various means, A gas jug how ever is not.They dont want to destroy in most cases, just cause the fear of the unknown when one leaves the wire, after some time this wears on the troops and they become lax, and then mistakes happen, usually with small arms, which they have lots of, arty shells not so much.

 

Edited May 24, 2016 by 12Alfa

[delta6]

3 hours ago, Grenny said:

no, then the game end with:"get ready for your court martial" message :-P

Oh well there goes that idea...Where do I send the bill for food,water,meds,housing,guards,clothing,etc????

[RogueSnake79]

41 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Thanks for the insight.

 

Is it truely random or is there some pattern (e.g.: in a four vehicle Platoon vehicle 1 gets layout 1, vehicle 2 layout 2, etc.) so if I say see a road wheel I can say its the number 3 vehicle?  

It is my understanding that it is random.  Vehicles have stowage "sets", some more, some less.   At random a set is chosen, then at random what parts of the set displayed.  This gives a very low mathematical probability that you will ever see two vehicles in a scene with exactly the same stowage layout.   I say some have more sets than others because, well, you simply can not fit as much stuff on some vehicles, compared to others.    The T-72 is the example here, it does not have a bustle rack.  And is not commonly seen(in the Russian army) with large amounts of stowage items hanging all over.   Not to say it does not happen, just that it doesn't seem common.    We've all seen NATO vehicles from the desert wars that look like gypsy wagons.   To see them without tons of crap is unusual at this point.   So how much effort an artist puts into the stowage system, for a particular vehicle will depend on the vehicle itself.

 

Having said all that, the T-72 still does have randomized stowage items.  Just less than say the other two I mentioned.

[mpow66m]

22 minutes ago, delta6 said:

Oh well there goes that idea...Where do I send the bill for food,water,meds,housing,guards,clothing,etc????

welcome to Levenworth,lol.

[mpow66m]

will there be any changes to arty model?is the arty 122mm or 155mm current model.itd be nice to have a choice between 155m and 122mm in the box.