Jump to content

SB Pro PE 4.377


Ssnake

Recommended Posts

similar things will happend for the 2A5. Paul L had used a non-structural high hardness steel for the structural portions of the turret, and impossible to manufacture thicknesses of these parts. with this being corrected, we arrive at a more sober estimate for the walls of the turret. i say estimate, because we still don't know for sure how effective the main portion of the armour array actually is, and neither should we or you, until the time the vehicle is phased out of service.  

Edited by dejawolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2023 at 12:35 PM, Ssnake said:

Most likely, you'll need to upgrade your SB Pro PE license to 4.3, rather than a new CM stick.

Just installed my new license and the codemeter control panel still pops up on computer startup..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, delta6 said:

Just installed my new license and the codemeter control panel still pops up on computer startup..

If it is just Code Meter popping up at computer startup you can fixed it thusly:

 

1) Right click on the task bar

2) Click on "Task Manager"

3) When opened click on the "Startup" tab

4) Highlight "Code Meter" and click "disable"

 

Code Meter will no longer pop up but will still operate as normal when Steel Beasts starts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is an entry in the release notes re: the tendency for ammo brew up in the m1 was toned down; honestly i do not remember specifically when i last saw such a case in steel beasts in several years, perhaps once i can remember after an ICM strike on a destroyed M1. in the original steel beasts legacy i seem to recall this was much more common, with however the stipulation that the model in steel beasts didn't at the time have a condition where there was an ammo brew up compartmentalized to the turret storage while the vehicle still survived, since all vehicles are inherently destroyed with an ammo cook off- that is, there was no special case for the only tank in steel beasts back then which had a separate ammo storage from the crew. be that as it may, a computer T-90 hit my M1 ammunition store recently, and the program recorded the damage as an ammunition destruction, but the tank was otherwise operable and not destroyed. if esim doesn't mind the question, what sort of situation is this where the M1's ammo is destroyed, but doesn't cook off (a simplification of the model which isn't ready yet for an ambiguous condition of mission killed, but not exactly knocked out?) if i understand correctly, as far as ammunition damage is concerned there is no distinction between ready racks and semi-ready racks- if ammunition is 'damaged', the tank is reduced to zero main gun rounds in either case

Edited by Captain_Colossus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Not sure I understand, exactly, but maybe this answers the question:

 

The problem that was fixed is that when the tank died, it had a probability to shoot a flame out of the hatches into the sky (the flame-jet ammo cook effect). This was a mistake, so we removed it.

 

The actual description to that fix was rephrased in the release notes, and probably not in the best way. But the point being - it was only a graphical effect that was changed, nothing else. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Right, they shouldn't, at least not right now - because we thought the visual effect was misleading for M1s (flames coming out of the crew hatch), and wanted to wait until we support blowout panel effects. 

 

Now obviously, in real life, the ammo could cook off when the loader has the ammo door open, but that too would probably blow off the panels and escape inside the turret as well, and we felt that people would complain about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2023 at 5:35 PM, Ssnake said:

First of all, everything that we do is putting our estimations into our models. Estimations are always subject to revision. We never base estimations on a single source,

 It is exactly the nature of those sources that my question pertains to. I sincerely hope you havent based your revisions on stuff like the "leaked " swedish armor test report (obviously fake) or the british report on Leo 2 which is likely real but based on a very subjective analysis of german test data ?.....There has to be something more tangible behind the decision to reduce the Leo 2s armor  I'll also note that the M1A1 and especially the HA version maintains the , apparently, unrealistic levels of protection (for HA even higher than the last A4 batch) , despite there being absolutely no (open source) material to corroborate that it actually HAS that much armor.

Quote

 

It seems like the final production batch of the Leopard 2A4 received a significant upgrade to armor arrays contained in the frontal turret and hull cavities respectively. 

AFAIK there were at least 3 different armor packages/ upgrades to the A4 model, with the first 6 batches having B-tech arrays , the 7th  featuring C-tech armor (100 tanks)and then the final batch of 75 with the D-tech modules perhaps also fitted to (some)A5s . Though ofc it doesnt really change the main picture , it could perhaps be an argument in favor of creating a "heavy armor" A4 version in SB .  

Quote

Even then it overestimated the protection level. 

Did it ?....how do you know?....There is no reliable open source information regarding the protection level of the D-tech or later armor packages.

Quote

 That overestimation has been reduced for the entire Leopard 2 fleet.

Well that is hardly fair, as not all A5s and certainly A6s retain the armor arrays from the last batch A4s.

Quote

All Leopard 2A5 and later use a Leopard 2A4 with the new armor package as a baseline

Well that cant be correct as both A5DK, STRV122 , Leopardo 2E and A6HEL all received improved armor modules. And ofc there are the rumors of some german A5s actually retaining C-tech arrays in their hulls, which at least SEEMS plausible. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, dejawolf said:

similar things will happend for the 2A5. Paul L had used a non-structural high hardness steel for the structural portions of the turret, and impossible to manufacture thicknesses of these parts. with this being corrected, we arrive at a more sober estimate for the walls of the turret. i say estimate, because we still don't know for sure how effective the main portion of the armour array actually is, and neither should we or you, until the time the vehicle is phased out of service.  

I dont understand.?...the thickness of the turret shell including backing armor plates have been well known for a long time, and even if the steel quality used in the SB armor model was wrong , the difference between HHS and RHA would only result in a marginal reduction in protection level. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For more than a decade it is quite known that Leo 2s produced in batches 1-6(and partially 7) were  designed to withstand  frontal impacts by 115mm APFSDS  at 1km range/125mm  APFSDS at 1.5km range, but until recent time it wasn't known what  were actual threat munitions. But thanks to declassified information discovered in NL archives we know now, that surrogate round to represent 115mm APFSDS was  105mm XM735.  Specified CE protection is 115mm HEAT-T and 116mm ATGM  simulated  with 105mm M465 HEAT-T and 96mm MILAN warhead respectively. This is  about what we have in SB at present time,  and for simulation purposes it is  way more beneficial to know exact nomenclature of specified threats than some abstract RHA equivalents.

 

In other words at this point armor  protection  Leo-2A0-A4 is very well documented  from overall protection requirements down to armor plates nomenclature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MikeKiloPapa said:

I dont understand.?...the thickness of the turret shell including backing armor plates have been well known for a long time, and even if the steel quality used in the SB armor model was wrong , the difference between HHS and RHA would only result in a marginal reduction in protection level. 

on the contrary, difference between THS and RHA is quite large. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MikeKiloPapa said:

 It is exactly the nature of those sources that my question pertains to. I sincerely hope you havent based your revisions on stuff like the "leaked " swedish armor test report (obviously fake) or the british report on Leo 2 which is likely real but based on a very subjective analysis of german test data ?.....There has to be something more tangible behind the decision to reduce the Leo 2s armor  I'll also note that the M1A1 and especially the HA version maintains the , apparently, unrealistic levels of protection (for HA even higher than the last A4 batch) , despite there being absolutely no (open source) material to corroborate that it actually HAS that much armor.

AFAIK there were at least 3 different armor packages/ upgrades to the A4 model, with the first 6 batches having B-tech arrays , the 7th  featuring C-tech armor (100 tanks)and then the final batch of 75 with the D-tech modules perhaps also fitted to (some)A5s . Though ofc it doesnt really change the main picture , it could perhaps be an argument in favor of creating a "heavy armor" A4 version in SB .  

Did it ?....how do you know?....There is no reliable open source information regarding the protection level of the D-tech or later armor packages.

Well that is hardly fair, as not all A5s and certainly A6s retain the armor arrays from the last batch A4s.

Well that cant be correct as both A5DK, STRV122 , Leopardo 2E and A6HEL all received improved armor modules. And ofc there are the rumors of some german A5s actually retaining C-tech arrays in their hulls, which at least SEEMS plausible. 

 

 

600-650mm in a 60 degree arc for the 1991 HA is not unrealistic at all, but is on par with the last batches of the 2A4. 

current 2a4 level is also similar to M1A1 (non-HA) and IpM1 in SB, and higher than original M1. 

 

i would also like to remind you that 2289 M1A1's were upgraded to the HA standard, while less than 90 leopard 2A4 received the last batch upgrade. most 2a4's sold by germany to other countries were actually of the older armour standard, and we saw the result of this in turkey. 

as such, since the model in-game does not represent last batches of 2a4, and there's such a small number of last batch 2a4s made, its more representative to use the older armour in-game. 

besides, there's plenty of mid 1990s leo 2a5 and A6 versions to choose from. 

 

Edited by dejawolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On 3/10/2023 at 4:42 AM, MikeKiloPapa said:

 It is exactly the nature of those sources that my question pertains to. I sincerely hope you havent based your revisions on stuff like the "leaked " swedish armor test report (obviously fake) or the british report on Leo 2 which is likely real but based on a very subjective analysis of german test data ?

 

Sorry, but someone on the Internet claiming that certain sources are subjective, is also entirely subjective. The very nature of all this *is* subjective, from the sources, to those that have opinions that disagree with those sources. 

 

But the fact is that no one source was used in the revision; it was a multitude of sources, and discussions between at least four knowledgeable individuals until a consensus was reached after several days of review. 

 

We had the late version of the Leo 2A4 represented, because back in 1998-1999 there were two tanks in SB, the M1A1(HA) and the Leo 2A4, so we made both comparable, giving the latter the protection level of the late variant. Now we have the Leo 2A5 present, and so after consideration, we felt that it makes far more sense to model the earlier Cold War version of the Leo 2A4 instead, since:

  • that is what the model visually represents
  • there were so few of that specific improved variant of the 2A4 (<100 tanks)
  • scenario designers were using a late period Leopard 2A4 in Cold War scenarios, putting them out of the time period by about >5 years
  • as mentioned, now we have the Leo 2A5 modeled for the 1990s, being more of the M1A1(HA)'s contemporary - a better representation for that time period

 

In other words, from a scenario design point of view, the way it was before was far too limited in what we could do. We essentially had a "diet Leo 2A5" of the early 1990s, to use for 1985-1989 scenarios, which meant that it was a terrible representation for that. It made little sense after we thought about it. Instead, what you have now is what we strongly feel is a better representation for Cold War scenarios.  Obviously we knew that would cause controversy and grumbling, but we are pretty confident in what we did or otherwise we would not have went through the process.

 

Speaking of the other Leo 2s, as mentioned, in the mid-1990s the Leopard 2A5 should be used instead, which we feel is pretty good in its representation (any revision of the later Leo 2s would be minor adjustments, not necessarily all negative either). And of course we want to make different versions of the Leo 2A4 -- the heavier armored one that we think was represented before, and even possibly a Leo 2A2/2A3 for early 1980s (where at least they can only have up to the DM23, for example, and some visual differences - the all green texture, etc.), and maybe even an earlier mid-80s Marder one day. So its not like we are taking an hammer to all the Leo tanks, so please try to remain open minded about it. 😎

 

Edit:

 

Does this mean that some Leo 2A4 scenarios will have to be rebalanced? Most likely, but not always. If needed, then it would be adjustments like this:

 

  • Leo 2A4 vs. M1A1 scenarios? Give the Leo 2A4 DM33 now (we used to give them the older DM23 vs. M829 on the M1A1 to compensate for the better protection on the Leo 2A4. Now its not needed).
  • Leo 2A4 vs. 1990s threat scenarios? Change to a Leo 2A5.
  • Leo 2A4 vs. Cold War 1985-1989 scenarios? Consider, if anything at all here, giving Soviets the ammo of the previous available round in some scenarios (we often give Soviets ammo that would be extremely rare for them to field in large numbers, when they often had very few of the latest arounds available), or give a few more Leo 2A4s to the NATO side. (I say "if anything at all", because we have played plenty of 1985-1987 Cold War scenarios with cutting edge Soviet ammo versus M1, M1(IP) and M1A1, all of which were still in US service, and its tough but not impossible).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2023 at 2:13 PM, TSe419E said:

If it is just Code Meter popping up at computer startup you can fixed it thusly:

 

1) Right click on the task bar

2) Click on "Task Manager"

3) When opened click on the "Startup" tab

4) Highlight "Code Meter" and click "disable"

 

Code Meter will no longer pop up but will still operate as normal when Steel Beasts starts.

Thank you Volcano..Looks like i didn't need the license upgrade after all...

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.

×
×
  • Create New...