Jump to content
Gibsonm

SB Pro PE 4.156 Release Notes - Clarifications requested (if possible)

Recommended Posts

I've been reading the Release Notes (thanks for posting them) and have a few queries / requests for clarification.

 

1. Page 7: "Especially, the performance of navmesh generation was improved by several orders of magnitude (!), and likewise the use of the navmesh works so much better now that we strongly recommend enabling their use by default."

 

Yet the picture shows the choice requiring you to select "alt" to use the navmesh being "on"?

 

Am I correct in thinking we need a sentence in there to the effect of:

 

"In view of this improvement, we recommend you de-select (uncheck) the option requiring the use of the "alt" to access the navmesh routes for both the Planning Phase and the Mission Editor"?

 

Edited by Gibsonm
Helps if you get the version number right. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. Page 9: Even better, for the moment eSim Games provides a map server from which Steel Beasts will attempt to automatically download the necessary map data if they can’t be found on the local computer by querying their map UID

 

How do we access this map server?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. Page 10: I'm hoping there is a bit of a write up in the Manual about the Map Page Download Tools?

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4. Page 14: I'm guessing the sequencing of the diagrams is off? A little harder to understand as they have no titles.

 

I also don't fully understand the "converge" and "diverge" part (no doubt because its "Release Notes" not "User Manual"), e.g. how is the order of march determined or is it just based on when units arrive at the common waypoint - I guess I work it out sometime after the 29th.

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6. Page 16: " IEDs may form craters; these will be played back in the AAR, but discarded when saving in-progress. "

 

Noted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7. Page 18: Civilian vehicles, even if member of a hostile party, will be exempt from computer-controlled units firing at them if they are not equipped with a mounted weapon (Tech-nicals), or if the passengers are clearly visible (motorcycle).

 

Can I just clarify, does " computer-controlled" mean units that have been placed under the computers ownership on the Mission Editor, or does it mean a player owned vehicle that the AI is currently looking after because the player is currently elsewhere (perhaps in a different vehicle in that platoon).

 

Effectively the player needs to be in a given vehicle (I guess F7 or F6) for that vehicle to fire on any enemy civilian vehicle (even if its a HVT)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8. Page 20: Apart from the information for the 152mm and the M26 / M26A1, do you have a listing for the number of rounds required for the impact areas specified?

 

e.g. 152mm 145 x 90. Requires 9 rounds

 

M26 / M26A1 200 x 100 per single rocket

 

But say the  M483A1 DPICM (155mm Howitzer): 75 x 40m² requires ??? rounds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9. Page 23 (and 19/20): APS.

 

Similar to the main armament, are the blast effects of these (and perhaps ERA too) modelled as well?

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10. Page 26: Concertina wire obstacles are now available as line object

 

Does this apply to all the current types of concertina wire?

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11. Page 28: " BTR-50:oSoldiers #19 and #20 were elected to participate in a new Siberian student exchange program"

 

Does that mean its capacity has been reduced?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooookayyy... here we go.

  1. Your assumption is correct; the reason the checkmark is show is a. to make it more obvious, and b. because when uninstalling Steel Beasts 4.0 the "options file" will remain, and with it your old preferences. In summary: Yes, you should consider enabling the use of navmesh routes by default, both in the Mission Editor and in the Planning/Execution phases. Yes, you should consider opening legacy scenarios to replace the old style navmesh (done automatically) and then save the scenario in the new format.
  2. The user manual describes, I think, a config file (for which we don't yet have an in-application option to edit it, maybe with the October patch) which contains several network addresses that Steel Beasts will automatically query (so you don't have to do anything, initially). If you want to set up your own map package server (highly recommended in a closed military network (that is, when thinking about the 4.2 classroom version)) we'll provide you with the meands to do so; in that case the XML config file needs to be adapted to use your own network servers (whether preferentially or exclusively is up to you).
  3. The Map Download Manager contains an extensive Help page (the blue circular icon with a question mark in it) which hopefully answers all questions
  4. I can see now how the impression of out-of-sequence placement of the reference images could be created (it actually is the result of shortening redundant text passages). Nevertheless, I think that the text itself is relatively unambiguous and in any case it will provide you enough clues to figure things out with two or three test cases. :)
  5. That may reflect my status as a naive German with the asscociated limited command of the English language. So "was" would probably have been the better choice (although the picture is not entirely black and white; the more modern a graphics card is, the more powerful it is, the more RAM it has the bigger will be the gains in framerate - older models on the other hand may not always see improvements, so what I wanted to say was that many (if not most) users will see framerate improvements over 4.0 in most cases, sometimes even dramatic improvements, but it very much depends on the scene, the CPU load and other factors so I didn't want to create the impression that improvements are guaranteed for everybody).
  6. OK
  7. "computer-controlled" is not "computer owned" but rather to be understood synonymous to "AI controlled" (I just don't like the use of "AI" because sure as hell it's artificial, but very often not very intelligent)
  8. Here we go. This is limited to DPICM (cluster) munitions with a specific covered area; but that still doesn't mean that they are absolutely identical in their effect on the ground, the O-23 sure as hell isn't, all others are with no less performance than 25% from the "227mm M26 gold standard":
    1. 152mm O-23 DPICM: 145 x 90m²
    2. 155mm M483A1 DPICM: 75 x 40m²
    3. 122mm M-42 ICM: 30 x 20m²
    4. 122mm M-42D ICM: 30 x 16m²
    5. 122mm M335 DPICM: 45 x 20m²
    6. 122mm Type83 DPICM: 45 x 25m²
    7. (a future round) 220mm 9M27K1 ICM: 75 x 35m²
    8. 227mm Rocket ICM M26: 200 x 100m²
    9. 227mm Rocket ICM M26A1: 200 x 100m²
    10. 227mm Rocket M30 GMLRS-ICM: 160 x 80m²
  9. Blast effects are modelled, yes. Not sure what kind of an effect you expect on ERA since these do not form a HEAT jet...?
  10. I believe it does, at least, I have no reason to believe that it doesn't. But I don't remember testing this personally.
  11. Shhh, comrade. (yes, it does) The exchange students have been held up in transit, and will be redirected to another unit. Now stop asking questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious about this:


• Fixed bug #5745; all M1 series tanks now require to switch to Emergency fire control mode for the CDR to control the turret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Assassin 7 said:

Just curious about this:


• Fixed bug #5745; all M1 series tanks now require to switch to Emergency fire control mode for the CDR to control the turret

 

A reaction to this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice the sub-munition dispersion area for the M483A1 DPICM is slightly different than what the school house at Fort Sill teaches (accepting that in reality; sub-munition dispersion area and pattern changes with range, distribution of the sub-munitions is not uniform across the effective area, and there is a dud rate).  Does Steel Beasts ~model (or abstract) 88 sub-munitions within the dispersion area?

image5.thumb.jpeg.dec1a8373e6035787eb06cf5302ac04d.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will change those dimensions in a future upgrade - naturally, at the expense of making them less effective. For a lot of munitions I had to estimate/interpolate, so I trimmed the targeted areas to make the rounds roughly similar in effect. You don't find data for everything. Now that here is something reliable, well, wel'll see a differentiation in effect (which IMO is a plus, the kind of development that I hoped we would trigger by switching to the new system).

 

And Yes, 88 subminitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious/confused about this one:

"Fixed bug #3663; for all but instructors, the 'Set Unit Spacing' and 'Set Unit Formation' entries in the Planning Phase are now disabled. Instructors may also change a unit's heading."

 

No more setting your platoon up in the planning phase for, say, a road march? Instead let them untangle themselves after mission start?

 

SS_13_56_00.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ssnake said:

...

 

7. "computer-controlled" is not "computer owned" but rather to be understood synonymous to "AI controlled" (I just don't like the use of "AI" because sure as hell it's artificial, but very often not very intelligent)

 

8. Here we go. This is limited to DPICM (cluster) munitions with a specific covered area; but that still doesn't mean that they are absolutely identical in their effect on the ground, the O-23 sure as hell isn't, all others are with no less performance than 25% from the "227mm M26 gold standard":

  1. 152mm O-23 DPICM: 145 x 90m²
  2. 155mm M483A1 DPICM: 75 x 40m²
  3. 122mm M-42 ICM: 30 x 20m²
  4. 122mm M-42D ICM: 30 x 16m²
  5. 122mm M335 DPICM: 45 x 20m²
  6. 122mm Type83 DPICM: 45 x 25m²
  7. (a future round) 220mm 9M27K1 ICM: 75 x 35m²
  8. 227mm Rocket ICM M26: 200 x 100m²
  9. 227mm Rocket ICM M26A1: 200 x 100m²
  10. 227mm Rocket M30 GMLRS-ICM: 160 x 80m²

9. Blast effects are modelled, yes. Not sure what kind of an effect you expect on ERA since these do not form a HEAT jet...?

 

11. Shhh, comrade. (yes, it does) The exchange students have been held up in transit, and will be redirected to another unit. Now stop asking questions.

 

Ssnake,

 

Thanks for clarifying most, If possible can I tease some of these out a little more:

 

7. I'm just wondering if this cuts down the number of vehicles a person may control.

 

e.g. I have a Tank Platoon, broken up into three single vehicle check points / VCPs, each one covering an access route to location.

 

Blue has been tasked to engage a red OPFOR station wagon (red in colour and red in terms of side) designated as a HVT and has "fire at will" as the fire control setting.

 

As I understand it, this new change will mean that if I'm in the vehicle over-watching VCP 1, the currently AI controlled* vehicle at VCP 2 will do nothing if the red station wagon drives by?

 

Therefore I need three players, one sitting in each vehicle, to ensure that surveillance on the three VCPs is maintained?

 

* defined as "player owned" but currently unoccupied by a player.

 

8. I was more interesting in the number of rounds required to be fired to achieve the coverage.

 

For the O-23 you specify that 9 rounds need to be fired in order to achieve the specified coverage.

 

For the other ammunition types (apart from the M26 / M26A1 where the answer is one) there are no quantities.

 

e.g. How many rounds of 155mm M483A1 DPICM need to be fired to achieve the specified 75 x 40m² coverage?

 

9. I was wondering in the over pressure and frag type effects of the main gun (thank you BTW) were now modelled for the various APS and ERA systems.

 

e.g. Dismounts patrolling beside their APS / ERA equipped IFV.

 

Incoming ATGM (on the Infantry side of the IFV) either activates the APS or (if no APS mounted) is ideally defeated by the ERA blocks (assuming the ATGM hits a protected location).

 

- Does the APS firing effect the Infantry?

 

- Do the fragments generated by the destruction of the incoming ATGM by the APS round effect the Infantry.

 

- Does the blast from the ERA block that disrupts the HEAT jet, effect the Infantry?

 

Those sorts of things?

 

11. Ah OK, I'll need to check if my USMC platoon still fits. :)

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Splash said:

Curious/confused about this one:

"Fixed bug #3663; for all but instructors, the 'Set Unit Spacing' and 'Set Unit Formation' entries in the Planning Phase are now disabled. Instructors may also change a unit's heading."

 

No more setting your platoon up in the planning phase for, say, a road march? Instead let them untangle themselves after mission start?

You still can do that - inside of deployment zones. If a unit is placed outside of one, then No.

Which, I think, is in line with user expectations/intuitive understanding of the implications of deployment zones (which is why the ability to change this outside of deployment zones was characterized as a bug).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that means that Scenario Designers now need to check that units outside deployment zones are set up as they intended them to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

7. I'm just wondering if this cuts down the number of vehicles a person may control.

e.g. Blue has been tasked to engage a red OPFOR station wagon (red in colour and red in terms of side) designated as a HVT and has "fire at will" as the fire control setting.

 

As I understand it, this new change will mean that if I'm in the vehicle over-watching VCP 1, the currently AI controlled* vehicle at VCP 2 will do nothing if the red station wagon drives by?

Therefore I need three players, one sitting in each vehicle, to ensure that surveillance on the three VCPs is maintained?

Correct. But there was never a way to give a specific description of a vehicle (color, type) to computer-controlled units. They just magically knew which vehicles were enemy and would shoot them at the first opportunity. This made it impossible to try infiltration tactics, which is the only viable means of attack that VBIEDs have. I remain hopeful that one day we can be a lot more granular WRT to fire/no fire decisions by computer-controlled units, but for the time being this appeared to be the most practical compromise we could come up with.

Quote

8. I was more interesting in the number of rounds required to be fired to achieve the coverage.

For each case, "one round". The effect however will be different, depending on the number of bomblets per round. Obviously, with the O-23 when you have a mere 42 submunitions and 311m² per bomblet, and a tank's footprint is about 32...35m² it becomes obvious that you need about nine rounds on the same area in order to achieve an effect on target that is comparable to the M26 MLRS rocket.

 

Where we had data, we used them to parameterize the rounds properly. Where we had none we tried to shape the coverage to achieve, roughly, a bomblet density of one per 35m². In subsequent updates that will change if new data comes to light, e.g. M483A1 seems to have only 94m² per bomblet, reducing its effectiveness accordingly.

 

 

Quote

9.

- Does the APS firing effect the Infantry?

- Do the fragments generated by the destruction of the incoming ATGM by the APS round effect the Infantry.

- Does the blast from the ERA block that disrupts the HEAT jet, effect the Infantry?

The FIRING of the APS won't have an effect

 

But the detonation of the intercept grenade will (which, in the case of Afganit, is a meaningless distinction since the intercept point is so close to the grenade launcher; in the case of AVePS it is "probably meaningless" under the assumption that the system would, in real life, only be armed with closed hatches)

 

If the incoming round is rendered inert, it will not detonate and therefore not harm nearby exposed personnale. If the incoming round is triggered prematurely (both effects can happen), then yes, that explosive force will also have an effect on nearby infantry.

 

No, ERA blocks exploding won't have an effect on infantry, but they don't have to because at the same moment a much stronger HEAT round explosed on the same surface, therefore creating a much stronger effect anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

I guess that means that Scenario Designers now need to check that units outside deployment zones are set up as they intended them to be.

Yes... but they should always have done that in the first place, I'd say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bug with the tanks in battle positions hitting ground half of the shots is fixed?. I don't see it in the release notes, but there are a lot of bugs without description,so who knows.

Edited by Colebrook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it is, but I would need a reference (a thread when it was discussed here, or a bug number) to verify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...