ChrisWerb Posted July 1, 2017 Share Posted July 1, 2017 1 minute ago, Nike-Ajax said: I agree with your agreement ... As a former bouncer, then I can surely say that there are times where dialogue ends, but am very hardpressed to see the context where this is neccesary here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted July 1, 2017 Share Posted July 1, 2017 4 hours ago, ChrisWerb said: 1. A lot of forest - the majority - regardless of tree species or age/diameter, is so dense that it would be practically impossible to drive any armoured vehicle any distance through it. However, you could reverse into some of the less mature growth in order to hide from ground level threats, although it would be hard to disguise the new "notch" in the treeline from above. Can you please stop with these global assessments? "the majority"? Well the majority of forest in Australia is far more open than Europe. More than happy for caveats like "the majority I've seen" but you keep using terms like "the majority" and "obviously" when it isn't. It may not be what you mean, but we can only go off what you write. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted July 1, 2017 Members Share Posted July 1, 2017 In all fairness, those statements were made in the context of Southern Karelia, a rather specific region. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisWerb Posted July 1, 2017 Share Posted July 1, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Gibsonm said: Can you please stop with these global assessments? "the majority"? Well the majority of forest in Australia is far more open than Europe. More than happy for caveats like "the majority I've seen" but you keep using terms like "the majority" and "obviously" when it isn't. It may not be what you mean, but we can only go off what you write. Hi Gibson. As I wrote, I spent the afternoon looking at terrain in the area where I have been making scenarios - Southern Karelia. I can't actually travel there to check the place out, but Google streetview, which I spent quite a long time on, is a pretty good substitute. Forests/woodlands there can be of a few different types depending on species and the degree of human interference; from planted commercial forests to (apparently) zero (recent) human intervention wildwoods. What was particularly good fun was comparing actual points on the SB map with their Google streetview coverage. Anyway, here are some, pseudo-randomly chosen examples (non random in that I have tried to provide shots with something of relatively known dimensions in them to give a sense of scale) Dense conifers - summer? http://tinyurl.com/ydgkfy7n Dense young growth conifers, winter http://tinyurl.com/y7ghegru Dense mixed relatively young birch and conifers. http://tinyurl.com/ybt7ur4j Young birch in winter (note they obstruct vision much less than many conifer species) http://tinyurl.com/y6wq8ofg Edited July 2, 2017 by ChrisWerb Me, being picky with myself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisWerb Posted July 1, 2017 Share Posted July 1, 2017 (edited) Gibson, I'm not disagreeing with you about anything. I actually went back and checked what I had written. The last time I used the word "obviously" was about the 10mph rear-on collision with a 20cm diameter softwood tree in an MBT incapacitating the driver thereof (I meant buttoned up, but I added the caveat about the falling tree specifically) being an obvious bug - Ssnake has said that was the case twice on this thread so it's not really open for argument. If we are talking turret crew and faster impacts with completely unyielding or nearly so objects - and not necessarily a 40 mph impact with 500 year old oak tree etc. - then you're probably going to have a really bad day. Accepted. When I used the words "the majority of" - I meant the majority of forests in Southern Karelia. Put the little golden man anywhere you're allowed to on the map in S. Karelia near to a forest and look around. I think you'll agree what you see is usually pretty dense (or at least collision is unavoidable) and indeed nothing like Northern Australia, Malaysia, the Amazon basin etc. which I never claimed it was. You could doubtless find some recently thinned parcels of old growth conifers that would let a tank through, but they are few and far between. Generally, in S. Karelia, I believe you would be restricted to roads and tracks if needing to move significant distances through forests/plantations rather than just to pull off the road and hide. Edited July 2, 2017 by ChrisWerb Sheer pedantry on my part. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boner Posted July 2, 2017 Share Posted July 2, 2017 I would like TAPV 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12Alfa Posted July 2, 2017 Share Posted July 2, 2017 (edited) You are aware that when the electronics goes down (fragile), the whole vehicle goes down, and is very prone to roll-overs? Edited July 2, 2017 by 12Alfa 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisWerb Posted July 2, 2017 Share Posted July 2, 2017 The list generated by this thread must be pretty vast by now - what I would like to do is just give three things I would most like to see change or be added in SB that I guess (I'm not a programmer) would be relatively easy to implement and not too resource intensive. 1. Helicopter damage model fixed. 2. Infantry fighting positions - with and without overhead cover, with and without camouflage. 3. 155mm SMART/BONUS type top attack munitions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted July 2, 2017 Share Posted July 2, 2017 Is the helicopter damage model broken? Or just not what you want? I really didn't think it was broken. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpow66m Posted July 2, 2017 Share Posted July 2, 2017 id like to simulate a gas attk and be able to hv the crews go lvl 3 and stay buttoned up,and hv the dismounts simulate going to MOPP Lvl 3 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisWerb Posted July 2, 2017 Share Posted July 2, 2017 1 hour ago, thewood said: Is the helicopter damage model broken? Or just not what you want? I really didn't think it was broken. Helicopters - and the Mi-24 in particular, can take astonishing numbers of hits frontally from pretty much everything (in one case four RBS70 Mk 2 hits). From other angles they're fine. What usually happens is that something manages to hit from other than frontally. I don't have specifics to hand, but I tried modelling this in scenario builder trying various variations of weapon and the same thing happens over and over - also happens everytime I play the Finland defence scenario I made (which I must have played various iterations of 50-60x now). Someone on here posted a CV9035 instruction video, and they had the same thing happen with an Mi-8/17 taking numerous AHEAD (or whatever the directional subprojectile round is called) direct hits to take down. (Ssnake, I will happily re-do those trials and send you AARs.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted July 2, 2017 Share Posted July 2, 2017 I think it was explained that it is working as designed. Maybe not as you and others feel it should work. I even think esims said that was the case. So I'm questioning whether its broken or just doesn't have the fidelity. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted July 2, 2017 Members Share Posted July 2, 2017 The problem with helicopters and other complex military weapon systems that are lightly armored is that Steel Beasts doesn't model redundancies. As a consequence we have to adjust the damage model to reflect the chances of all redundant systems failing simultaneously from a single hit. In real life you might see a cumulative effect, where one component among two or three fails, but the others don't, so that the system becomes more vulnerable to subsequent attacks (and where the pilot might already decide to abort the mission, which our robots never do). So the vulnerability model in this context can only be a compromise which by definition cannot be fully satisfactory. At the same time our current model of terminal ballistic effects isn't as good as it could be when it comes to blast effects and fragmentation. That is an area we're working on right now (will still take a while until it's ready), but particularly fragmenting rounds explosing in close proximity to, say, helicopter targets, might become more effective in future versions of SB Pro. It's a bit too early to go into details. Not everything in the old model is wrong; there are cases where we won't see a massive difference because we tweaked the old model (for obvious reasons) to deliver somewhat plausible results in the majority of cases. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted July 2, 2017 Share Posted July 2, 2017 Please fix that A.S.A.P....It is so frustrating not to be able to fight a mobile battle with the Marder http://farm1.static.flickr.com/256/19501592239_e28c6a004c.jpg 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted July 2, 2017 Members Share Posted July 2, 2017 If it was easy to "fix" we would have done so long ago (I'm putting "fix" into quotations because currently it works as designed, so it's not a bug as such; this amounts to a feature request - which is fine, this is the wish list thread after all; ASAP suggests however that we should stop working on everything else until this has been implemented, which implies that this is more important than, say, finishing the feature development for the New Terrain - I strongly object to that prioritization). Therefore: No cookie for you, I'm sorry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj.Hans Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 Any word on MILAN launchers on Marders? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted July 3, 2017 Members Share Posted July 3, 2017 ...?! See above. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 3 hours ago, Maj.Hans said: Any word on MILAN launchers on Marders? Yep. Please read the post immediately above yours. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 14 hours ago, Ssnake said: If it was easy to "fix" we would have done so long ago (I'm putting "fix" into quotations because currently it works as designed, so it's not a bug as such; this amounts to a feature request - which is fine, this is the wish list thread after all; ASAP suggests however that we should stop working on everything else until this has been implemented, which implies that this is more important than, say, finishing the feature development for the New Terrain - I strongly object to that prioritization). Therefore: No cookie for you, I'm sorry. I know, and part of me says: well its better then not having it at all. But a times its like having the Leopard without the coax or only KE-round modeled. And then you can't use the vehicle like you should in a given tactical situation...and last sunday, this was verryy frustrating 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted July 3, 2017 Members Share Posted July 3, 2017 Well, I'm not asking you to be happy about it, but setting priorities we must. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 1 hour ago, Ssnake said: Well, I'm not asking you to be happy about it, but setting priorities we must. That I understand... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nike-Ajax Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 AMOS Mortar system and/or STRIX 120 mm. antitank mortar rounds 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major duck Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 (edited) Merc 240 GD with crew that can dismount (Both RECCE and FO and Command) M41DK1 Piranha 5 EAGLE 5 CAESAR 8×8 MD Edited July 3, 2017 by Major duck 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boner Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 I would like the Tapv as well as the AMX 10 RC 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boner Posted July 4, 2017 Share Posted July 4, 2017 On 01/07/2017 at 10:36 PM, 12Alfa said: You are aware that when the electronics goes down (fragile), the whole vehicle goes down, and is very prone to roll-overs? no ALPHA i didn't know iv only seen them in vid,s which of course dont show the negative side , i would still like to see them here in SB as well as the AMX 10 RC 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.