AngryMarvin Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 How about a compass? get driections from the commander no idea which way is the correct direction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 (edited) Well its already there. 1. The top of the map is North. 2. When you are driving (3D mode) there is a vehicle outline in the bottom right hand corner showing you where: a. The front of the vehicle is pointing b. The gun is pointing c. Where you are looking (white dot) Again with North at the top. 3. Then for extra clarity (and for those weaning themselves off CoD and other games) you can even get the bearings to appear at the top of the 3D mode screen (if the scenario designer has activated "Require manual azimuth determination). Pressing "K" is the default key to activate this, if enabled. How many compasses do you need? Edited January 22, 2017 by Gibsonm Added shortcut information 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iarmor Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 I think it is worth to add the engagement range to the engagement description in the AAR's playback control panel. It would help to explain the damage caused by KE rounds. Additionally, I wonder whether it would be possible to count the rounds fired at a certain target (including misses) and include the round counting in the engagement description as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varjag Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 (edited) On 17.01.2017 at 4:32 AM, OrangeFr3ak said: Here's my revamped wishlist! For me, I'd like to see these: MBT: T-14 Armata IFV/APC: BMD-4 T-15 Armata Kurganets-25 Bumerang BTR-82A ... And please try to find the documents and pictures of the interior of these machines with Google search... Edited January 22, 2017 by Varjag 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 8 minutes ago, Varjag said: ... And please try to find the documents and pictures of the interior of these machines with Google search... Bah, easy to find. They are on the same page, together with a detailed description of their Fire-control system and sketches of their armour layout 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varjag Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Grenny said: Bah, easy to find. They are on the same page, together with a detailed description of their Fire-control system and sketches of their armour layout Please show me them. Especially considering that none of them passed military tests. And documents to them are classified as "secret". Edited January 22, 2017 by Varjag 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 24 minutes ago, Varjag said: Please show me them. Especially considering that none of them passed military tests. And documents to them are classified as "secret". No problem, I'll PM you the link. But be careful, after reading the website, they'll flash your brain so you don't remember 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocalypse 31 Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 I just want to shoot the green men myself. This is so frustrating. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bond_Villian Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) I daresay this has been mentioned already, but it would be very helpful to be able to check a list of ALL 'ownership' of participants units in multiplayer! ie; no more: "...who owns 1/2/A...who owns 1/2/A... who has 1/2/A.....Dammit! Everybody look at the map now and see who owns 1/2/A.........&@#$." Cheers Edited January 23, 2017 by Bond_Villian 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingtiger Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Oh yeah I second that! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trackpin Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Hi, I have seen some neg comments on the issue, but more detailed amphibious ops, principally river crossing, would be challenging: 1)Currently Amphibious vehicles should have to pause to raise vanes and slow down, ie driving fast straight into water with vane unerected has a percentage chance of swamping the vehicle. Current code seems to make amphib vehicles unsinkable. The automatic vane raising is a bit of a fudge, as it needs to be up before contact to symbolise that the vehicle is ready.. 2) All other vehicles classed as "Amphibious with Preparation" to have option to prepare for an appropriate interval, during which they are immobilised/unavailable (like hitching/towing function) before entering body of water. No external modifications to models needed (KISS!), just buoyancy and thrust! 3) Snorkel/conning tower preparation for fitted MBTs. A bigger ask as changes the physical models. Perhaps also needs hi-res terrain to get level riverbeds? 4)Some vehicles which are amphibious eg Fuchs, are not so enabled in SB. Ditto some M113 variants. Consequently, bridges become just one of several avenues of approach, creating a more fluid scenario. Rivers then take time to cross rather than being impassable barriers. But unless the Pro users want these enhancements it is unlikely to happen. Trackpin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotareneg Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 The Fuchs 1A6 is amphibious in SB, the 1A7 isn't. I found that out the hard way one time when I was in a 1A7 with a group of 1A6's. I saw the props on the other vehicles and thought: "Cool, I didn't know the Fuchs was amphibious." The first pond I tried to drive across was a bit of a surprise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted January 24, 2017 Members Share Posted January 24, 2017 Well, there's always the question how detailed things should get vs. ease of use. We try to avoid making things too complicated. To be honest, I think we're more complicated already than I'd like Steel Beasts to be. The more detail-oriented things become, the more menu commands, hotkeys, and other things must be learned by the average user. The question is, does a more detailed consideration of deep-wading preparations really help with certain training goals, or is it detrimental for other student groups. There is no simple answer to that question. It's a matter of balance, and trade-offs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bond_Villian Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) The ability for infantry to go to kneeling posture when theres enemy around. I understand that they are being careful, but when youre trying to spot things with bino's you need to be able to see over grass etc. Cheers Edited January 24, 2017 by Bond_Villian 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Biggest wish right now: a "shot RPG here" option for the Infantry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 8 minutes ago, Bond_Villian said: The ability for infantry to go to kneeling posture when theres enemy around. I understand that they are being careful, but when youre trying to spot things with bino's you need to be able to see over grass etc. Cheers Pretty sure you can adjust their "stance" manually as required? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bond_Villian Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Gibsonm said: Pretty sure you can adjust their "stance" manually as required? I find that often i cannot get them to stand/kneel when theres contact, unless i make them run, which prohibits the use of binos anyway. I guess its a bug of sorts. Test Sce. attached. Not the best example, as you can see over the grass anyway, but notice that once the FO infantry 'sees' the enemy tank in the valley floor to his north (you may need to look at it through binos first), he will not stand/kneel thereafter. Cheers inf test.rar Edited January 24, 2017 by Bond_Villian 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDF Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 12 hours ago, Trackpin said: Hi, I have seen some neg comments on the issue, but more detailed amphibious ops, principally river crossing, would be challenging: 1)Currently Amphibious vehicles should have to pause to raise vanes and slow down, ie driving fast straight into water with vane unerected has a percentage chance of swamping the vehicle. Current code seems to make amphib vehicles unsinkable. The automatic vane raising is a bit of a fudge, as it needs to be up before contact to symbolise that the vehicle is ready.. 2) All other vehicles classed as "Amphibious with Preparation" to have option to prepare for an appropriate interval, during which they are immobilised/unavailable (like hitching/towing function) before entering body of water. No external modifications to models needed (KISS!), just buoyancy and thrust! 3) Snorkel/conning tower preparation for fitted MBTs. A bigger ask as changes the physical models. Perhaps also needs hi-res terrain to get level riverbeds? 4)Some vehicles which are amphibious eg Fuchs, are not so enabled in SB. Ditto some M113 variants. Consequently, bridges become just one of several avenues of approach, creating a more fluid scenario. Rivers then take time to cross rather than being impassable barriers. But unless the Pro users want these enhancements it is unlikely to happen. Trackpin +1. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speckfire Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 I'd like to see a T-72B3M / T-72B4 main battle tank and illumination flares/rounds etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trackpin Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Rotareneg, Thanks for the heads up. Seems that Rheinmettal Landsystems are now offering the German govt an "optional" amphibious pack put onto the Fuchs 2. Nothing like having to buy back a capability you have already paid for! Trackpin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trackpin Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) Couple of thoughts about riverine amphibious possibilities in SB, and their relevance. First, it seems that SBs Russian equipped Opfor have an edge in this area, which is as true now as it was 20 years ago. Much of Europe is dissected by many slow moving rivers with relatively shallow banks. This is the case in in the Baltic states, and across much of Central Europe. Soviet thinking always recognised that NATO would blow bridges (possibly every 30t class bridge) from the Elbe to the Rhine to slow a massed armoured thrust Westwards. Hence the need to cross rivers rapidly was a strategic, rather than a tactical issue. The geography has not changed, yet many of the newer platforms fielded by Western armies lack an amphibious capability, seemingly taken out of the spec to save money, after fifteen years fighting in arid countries with unsuitable rivers to cross this way. Whereas some older wheeled APC designs (eg LAV-25 and variants) were amphibious, Stryker, Boxer etc are not. My point is that playing around with this in SB, either for fun or education, or both, is a worthwhile exercise. SB Wiki is a fantastic resource, and I would like to propose adding an amphibious ( Yes/No/With Preparation) entry to the Vehicle Specification Pages. Some pages eg BTR-90, mention it in the copy, while the BMP3 (which swims like a dream) has no mention of its amphibious capability at all. Intrigued by the plethora of M113 based vehicles. I held a Swimming Gala this afternoon. Vehicles I expected to sink like M113 G3 (no fording vane just a luggage rack) floated, the AS4 and G4s sank as expected, the M1064A3 sank like stone when it should have floated, while the M981 FISTV floated tail down but the M901 ITV floated perfectly! I took a group photo of the contestants for your viewing pleasure Trackpin Edited January 25, 2017 by Trackpin typo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted January 25, 2017 Members Share Posted January 25, 2017 Can you please repeat the errors that you found for the vehicles in a less colorful description (simple "Floats, but shouldn't" vs. "Swims, but shouldn't") so I can pass this to our QA assistant. Not sure what to make of phrases like "floated tail down". WRT the Wiki, it's something where everybody (including you) can participate. If you want to create a page about amphibious ops, or add a section to every vehicle WRT amphibious operations, please do so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 23 minutes ago, Ssnake said: Not sure what to make of phrases like "floated tail down". From his graphic, I think he means that: 1. The M981 FISTV floats, but the rear of the vehicle is lower in the water than the front. conversely, 2. The M901 ITV floats, but the rear of the vehicle is higher in the water than the front. The others that do float have balanced buoyancy in that the water line is level. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trackpin Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Nils, Colorful? Moi? Far be it from me to wade in and start editing the Wiki. Let's work the issue first. I was hoping that others with direct knowledge of the DK vehicles would confirm real-world capabilities of the G3 and G4 models. I believe these vehicles are largely regarded as obsolete, or second echelon equipment anyway, so this is unlikely to be restricted info. Specifically, from what research I have carried out (Janes. Wiki, FSB.org etc): A1, A2, A2G and A3 float correctly All G3s float but shouldn't (see discussion below) All G4s sink correctly AS4 sinks correctly M1064A3 sinks but should float M113 FO, depicted by a G3, but could be *any* earlier model, therefore still floats M981 FISTV floats but does not sit level in the water. M113A3 Medic floats correctly (very nice model!) M901 ITV floats correctly (better than the FISTV) The crux of the matter. Is WYSIWYG critical? If yes, some additional A3 variants need to be provided. OR if a G3 model is used just to represent a generic M113, as in the FO, should it retain the amphibious capability of the earlier models? This is the case with several of the models at the moment. Only the M1064A3 is currently wrong however you look at it.. Going forward, to save model building time, we would need to agree that if the Technical Spec page states a vehicle IS amphibious then it WILL float in the game. Even if the model shows a variant that did/does not. That solves the G3 problem. Does this help? Before passing it along to your QA dept (!), I would rather find out if anyone else gives a damn! Trackpin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalager Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 G3 and G4's can't float, they sink like rocks. They aren't obsolete either, or in the sense that we still use them and the G4 isn't that old, was deployed to Afghan in 2012 first time 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.