Jump to content

Gunner HEAT PC


Galileo
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, TSe419E said:

Seemed more like a passive than an active IR.

 

I tried to keep it off most of the time. When you can suddenly start seeing targets somewhat clearly is usually when it is on. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was my experience that you couldn't see anything until the IR light was turned on.  Get very far from the IR beam and you couldn't see anything either.  It was an all or nothing kind of system.  What your video shows was more like a passive system on a moonless, cloudy, pitch black night then turning a light on that reflected off a low cloud layer to illuminate the whole battlefield at once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TSe419E said:

It was my experience that you couldn't see anything until the IR light was turned on.  Get very far from the IR beam and you couldn't see anything either.  It was an all or nothing kind of system.  What your video shows was more like a passive system on a moonless, cloudy, pitch black night then turning a light on that reflected off a low cloud layer to illuminate the whole battlefield at once.

 

 I have afor many many years wondered how that system even worked  in real life!  thank you, I think your post makes pieces to fit together!   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lumituisku said:

 

 I have afor many many years wondered how that system even worked  in real life!  thank you, I think your post makes pieces to fit together!   

 

Pretty much identical to visible light as far as our perception is concerned, just a bit farther down the electromagnetic spectrum; If it's too dark you use a flashlight, and that flashlight has a limited range and coverage. IR is so close to visible light that you can pretty much treat it identically. Same with UV... a lot of birds of prey can see invisible urine traces, which is how they locate prey like rodents. Kind of funny considering rodents have no bladder control. Nature is cruel! xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
13 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Eh, but the original scenario attacked from east to west, right after sunset, not midnight... you have it all wrong!

;)

You just can't win here  😎

 

Edited by Grenny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...

looks interesting. ID hope the devs consider doing 3d tank interiors with visible AI crew.

 

Even Arma 3 added that ( albeit via DLC) for the immersiveness

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

arma 3 leopard 2 interior.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kev2go said:

looks interesting. ID hope the devs consider doing 3d tank interiors with visible AI crew.

 

Even Arma 3 added that ( albeit via DLC) for the immersiveness

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

arma 3 leopard 2 interior.png

I don't see what value, besides eye candy, 3D cockpits add to a tank game...huge waste of manhours for very little impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

i admit i have not followed GHPC very closely, but i cannot figure out where they are going with it, seemingly in an endless beta state. on the one hand at least they are not selling broken software to the public, but on the other i don't see a development roadmap to keep me interested- i simply would rather follow software which has a proven record of actually selling copies to the public.

 

 at what state or what is the cutoff point to feature creep does the software go to market. if the target audience is somewhere between maybe arma and steel beasts for the casual gamer who wants more simulation than war thunder or something of the sort, but there is often expectation in the visitors comments section that GHPC is going to be the most realistic simulation available once fully released, which the developers don't seem to discourage as an idea. if they keep adding more features to be closer to realism, again, where is the cutoff point. it would be attempting to keep going further in the name of fidelity, once again creating a problem of audience. i am open to it if it offered something that either DCS or steel beasts does not- DCS beats it in graphics and environment content (the city size scale of environments in DCS is incredible), steel beasts has the edge in an integrated map and mission editor, models more procedures in more vehicles, and for all the criticism of its infantry model, still has the most complexity you will see for infantry through the context mission editor than any other software that i personally have used- and i would rather simply boot either DCS or steel beasts rather than spend time to follow a product that just seems to be plodding along more as a demo where the developer spends a lot of time playing the game for the camera and so on

 

 

 

 

Edited by Captain_Colossus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Kev2go said:

looks interesting. ID hope the devs consider doing 3d tank interiors with visible AI crew.

 

Even Arma 3 added that ( albeit via DLC) for the immersiveness

arma 3 leopard 2 interior.png

Only if the interiors actually provide a reason to use them.

 

ARMA's interiors were SORT OF functional - you could use the gunner and TC station screens to scan without actually being IN the sight - this allowed you full functionality of the position while maintaining situational awareness of other aspects of the vehicle. 

 

At the end of the day I still spend most of my time split between the TC hatch and the map. SB vehicles like the CR2 don't bother me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Grenny said:

I don't see what value, besides eye candy, 3D cockpits add to a tank game...huge waste of manhours for very little impact.

 even Red orchestra, a Infantry centric game had tank interior for thier tanks

 

 

 

 

 

 

Il2 Sturmoviks ground forces branch also modelled tank interiors

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Captain_Colossus said:

i admit i have not followed GHPC very closely, but i cannot figure out where they are going with it, seemingly in an endless beta state. on the one hand at least they are not selling broken software to the public, but on the other i don't see a development roadmap to keep me interested- i simply would rather follow software which has a proven record of actually selling copies to the public.

 

 at what state or what is the cutoff point to feature creep does the software go to market. if the target audience is somewhere between maybe arma and steel beasts for the casual gamer who wants more simulation than war thunder or something of the sort, but there is often expectation in the visitors comments section that GHPC is going to be the most realistic simulation available once fully released, which the developers don't seem to discourage as an idea. if they keep adding more features to be closer to realism, again, where is the cutoff point. it would be attempting to keep going further in the name of fidelity, once again creating a problem of audience. i am open to it if it offered something that either DCS or steel beasts does not- DCS beats it in graphics and environment content (the city size scale of environments in DCS is incredible), steel beasts has the edge in an integrated map and mission editor, models more procedures in more vehicles, and for all the criticism of its infantry model, still has the most complexity you will see for infantry through the context mission editor than any other software that i personally have used- and i would rather simply boot either DCS or steel beasts rather than spend time to follow a product that just seems to be plodding along more as a demo where the developer spends a lot of time playing the game for the camera and so on

 

 

 

 

 

 

True the only main weakness of Steel Beasts are its visuals (and maybe a more complex armor and ammo simulation, like you see in GHPC, which is taking some ideas in that regard from WT  would be a nice to have) even with the 4.0 overhauls. IT still looks very dated. Steel beasts probably would need from the ground up new engine to really be able to take advantage of the latest hardware and have visuals to match it.

 

DCS is not really a comparable to the likes of Steel Beasts or GHPC. as its not a combined arms or ground warfare sim, even with the combined arms module. I would argue its terrain fidelity is too low for my taste for ground forces gameplay, with the exception of the of the more recent maps Like Syria. Although fixed wing jet pilots dont care that much the rotorheads appreciate the extra fidelity in these newer maps.

 

 

Edited by Kev2go
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

 

 

DCS is not really a comparable to the likes of Steel Beasts or GHPC. as its not a combined arms or ground warfare sim, even with the combined arms module. I would argue its terrain fidelity is too low for my taste for ground forces gameplay, with the exception of the of the more recent maps Like Syria. Although fixed wing jet pilots dont care that much the rotorheads appreciate the extra fidelity in these newer maps.

 

 

 

GHPC is not really a combined arms sim compared to other games on the market. my point again is not that DCS is a high fidelity combined arms sim, whatever that means, but if you're going to go more 'sim lite' or what have you, then i'm not convinced at this point that GHPC is a better alternative for my purposes. if i want to fire up some takin in a large map with large urban areas, man made facilities, airfields, and so on- then i would go with DCS. it isn't going to have as much options with infantry, but neither does GHPC.  i simulated an island amphibious invasion in DCS- which came off rather spectacular in DCS, i must say. could not do that with GHPC. again, my point is not that GHPC is bad in itself, but difficult for me to justify looking at given other options- GHPC does not fill any particular niche. graphics might be a selling point, but there are other options there.

Edited by Captain_Colossus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 even Red orchestra, a Infantry centric game had tank interior for thier tanks

 

 

 

 

 

 

Il2 Sturmoviks ground forces branch also modelled tank interiors

 

 

 

 

 

And becasue otrher games are doing it? This chnages anything on the subject?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Grenny said:

And becasue otrher games are doing it? This chnages anything on the subject?

 

 

if other games have these benchmarks then yes thats something to consider.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Captain_Colossus said:

 

GHPC is not really a combined arms sim compared to other games on the market. my point again is not that DCS is a high fidelity combined arms sim, whatever that means, but if you're going to go more 'sim lite' or what have you, then i'm not convinced at this point that GHPC is a better alternative for my purposes. if i want to fire up some takin in a large map with large urban areas, man made facilities, airfields, and so on- then i would go with DCS. it isn't going to have as much options with infantry, but neither does GHPC.  i simulated an island amphibious invasion in DCS- which came off rather spectacular in DCS, i must say. could not do that with GHPC. again, my point is not that GHPC is bad in itself, but difficult for me to justify looking at given other options- GHPC does not fill any particular niche. graphics might be a selling point, but there are other options there.

 

i guess it depends what you want. because what you describe doing is more akin to playing  a battlefield commander at which point may as well be playing wargame or something. But what do i know I just play DCS for aviation experience, like probably 99% of the userbase. ( If anything the most asked for thing in development is the Dynamic Campaign like you had in falcon BMS)

 

Not really following GHPC, but then again it is something of a indie game, a passion project, so i suppose it may as well be indefinite development

Edited by Kev2go
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

if other games have these benchmarks then yes thats something to consider.

 

I'm just not sure if you can compare these.

 

The "switchology" in say a BMP-2 or a CV90 (or pretty much all of the fully modelled turrets) is very complex, not one or two buttons.

 

Getting it right tends to take time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
Just now, Gibsonm said:

 

I'm just not sure if you can compare these.

 

The "switchology" in say a BMP-2 or a CV90 (or pretty much all of the fully modelled turrets) is very complex, not one or two buttons.

 

Getting it right tends to take time.

 

 if these developers did more modern era vehicles than i would expect the same, or at least partially working features in the tank interior, the interior adds to the immersion, and thats a deal breaker to me. Its enough to turn me off from not playing certain tanks in SB.

Edited by Kev2go
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

 

 

if other games have these benchmarks then yes thats something to consider.

 

So if someone does something that is basicly useless...other should do it too?

Because?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 even Red orchestra, a Infantry centric game had tank interior for thier tanks

 

 

 

 

 

returning to red orchestra- that was a great little title. very playable, although entirely online experience; i wonder if GHPC could in fact fill a niche as a sort of more modern version of red orchestra- online like world of tanks but with features which approach more something like red orchestra.

 

the only problem is that players' attention spans aren't very long and soon move on, as fun as red orchestra could be, after awhile you knew it was ending when servers were coming up very sparse and soon after empty. in a strange way 'free to play' games like world of tanks or world of warcraft which gives advantages to players willing to spend more on content seem to have hit the right formula keeping players addicted or psychologically more invested in the game or whatnot and keeps the core game around longer.  with red orchestra you paid for the game once and that was all, ironically, this is probably what eventually moves players on and where the 'free to play' money sinks started showing up and doing very well keeping the player base and drawing new players in

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...