Nike-Ajax Posted June 26, 2017 Share Posted June 26, 2017 7 minutes ago, Grenny said: as if you'd anywhere near the target ? Que ?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted June 26, 2017 Share Posted June 26, 2017 1 hour ago, Nike-Ajax said: Que ?? forgot the word "hit"...makes sense now ?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssidiver Posted June 26, 2017 Share Posted June 26, 2017 9 hours ago, Marko said: Never say never. The Merkava Mk3(Baz and Dor Dalet) and Mk4 could be implemented as non-crewable AI tanks like the current Merkava 2B. I do not want to be "promiscuous" towards "my baby" but they are beauties: Quote Yes please, perfect for me! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpow66m Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 12 hours ago, Gibsonm said: Well arguably the last two or three updates have all been "major Inf overhauls". well yes,but you know what i mean. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavictoireestlavie Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 17 hours ago, Marko said: Never say never. The Merkava Mk3(Baz and Dor Dalet) and Mk4 could be implemented as non-crewable AI tanks like the current Merkava 2B. I do not want to be "promiscuous" towards "my baby" but they are beauties: Quote Hell has just frozen over. LoL lavictoireestlavie has just cheated on the Leclerc. LoL I did not cheat on my Leclerc. Yes, i do have an eye for the Merkavas, T-XXs, ZTZ-XXs; Types and Ks but that does not mean i was unfaithful to my baby. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted June 27, 2017 Members Share Posted June 27, 2017 19 hours ago, Zaphod said: Yeah , try backing up from a still position and hit a tree in much less of 10 meters and knocking out the driver..... it is unreal That part at least is not intentional. As far as tree strikes causing crew damages at medium and high velocity I am utterly unapologetic however. No crew damages will occur at slow speed collisions, so there's an easy way out if you can't be bothered to avoid collisions (because you have to look at the map) No crew damages will occur if you aren't in the vehicle (so you won't get your crew killed in absentia) Not all trees in forests are indestructible (but admittedly a lot of them are); someone brought up birch forests - sure, you can plow through them. It's just that there are no birch forests in SB; if we had forests with much higher tree densities we'd make them way less sturdy. Given that our engine only supports forests with relatively wide distances between the trees - IOW, mature forests with large trees - we make those forests behave accordingly. The army trials that I've seen and the experiences that I made personally while still riding tanks are pretty unanimous: a) Crews are vulnerable out of hatch while driving through forests (particularly at night); b) trees that you can't knock down are usually spaced widely enough to drive through them; c) trees that are very close together are usually not putting up enough resistance to stop heavy tanks. But we don't have high density forests in SB, so only a) and b) apply. There is no forest in Steel Beasts where you couldn't weave through the trees - particularly at safe speeds, but even at medium velocity. It's high-speed races where you collide with trees, and f'in' YES: THAT SHOULD HURT As Mark Gibson hinted already, a lot of other nasty stuff could be added that is entirely realistic in forests (particularly barrel strikes, loss of remote weapon stations and mounted MGs, smashed primary sights, losing track). It would complicate your life in Steel Beasts a lot more while forcing you to the same behavior - to slow the hell down as you drive between trees. In conclusion, if you constantly die a lot in forests, you're doing it wrong. That's the whole point of this feature, that if you take unnecessary risks you get punished accordingly, so you learn that it was an unnecessary risk and amend your ways, in other words, that you LEARN from the experience not to do it again. I'm not keeping track if it is new players that bring this topic up time and again, or if it is "old hands". The former would be somewhat understandable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nike-Ajax Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 (edited) 12 hours ago, Grenny said: forgot the word "hit"...makes sense now ?? I can put 15 rounds from my P226 within a fist at 25 meters and the same with 6 rounds from my Colt Python .... can you claim the same Herr Grenny? Or to put it in another way: give a yell whenever you are near Copenhagen and we will make a friendly gentlemans wager of say 1 Euro, My claim is respectfully that I can beat you with a handgun at a range of your choosing. Sadly we cant use a fullsize poster of Khomeini as a target, for some obscure and irrational reason that is frowned upon at most public shooting ranges. That makes perfect sense I think ... Edited June 27, 2017 by Nike-Ajax 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azure Lion Posted June 28, 2017 Author Share Posted June 28, 2017 Basic, untextured 3-D modelling of the more commonly used crew-able AFV driver positions. (i.e. Abrams, Bradley, Challenger 2) Or textured, if you're feeling exceptionally giving. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 (edited) On 27.6.2017 at 10:47 AM, Nike-Ajax said: I can put 15 rounds from my P226 within a fist at 25 meters and the same with 6 rounds from my Colt Python .... can you claim the same Herr Grenny? Or to put it in another way: give a yell whenever you are near Copenhagen and we will make a friendly gentlemans wager of say 1 Euro, My claim is respectfully that I can beat you with a handgun at a range of your choosing. Sadly we cant use a fullsize poster of Khomeini as a target, for some obscure and irrational reason that is frowned upon at most public shooting ranges. That makes perfect sense I think ... Challenge acepted :-)...but we do that after 400m running and a 5 seconds time limit for 6 shots Edited June 28, 2017 by Grenny 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nike-Ajax Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 Sounds like a splendid afternoon spent in good company. I win no matter if I lose. However there is no need to run: I am not shooting at you. As for the shots, then lets remove the chance element: 3 sets of 3 series of 5 shots each with 2 reloads at 15 meters, with an unsupported standing stance of the shooters choosing. Each series finished within 6 seconds. Reload not timed for security reasons - all these silly rules with civilian shooting ranges. My suggestion is that we both use my pistol - a Sig P226, with Magtech 9D 9 mm parabellum. Winner is the overall best ie. 2 out of 3 sets. And as Gentlemen we will settle our bet in private. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 If you are using your side arm, something has gone seriously wrong with your plan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted June 28, 2017 Members Share Posted June 28, 2017 Quote "...by the time I will need a rifle, there will be plenty lying around." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nike-Ajax Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 (edited) There always have to be some besserwissers ... Thank you Gentlemen for your input. I can see that you are managing your envy admirably. No you cant be a part of it, but you can certainly have your own party? And Sgt. Maj. Basil Plumley by way of Ssnake is also quite right of course. From a practical standpoint, then there are certain challenges in mounting a contest with Leo 2´s firing live ammunition. From a context standpoint, then we were talking about shooting at the Khomeini poster. If you need a tank to take one man down, then there are something seriously wrong with your sidearm aim. Allthough I concede that a APFSDS, would probably do the job. And from a standpoint of a respectful gentlemanly contest in good spirits, then a handgun will do nicely for the purpose. Particularly so as Grenny seemed to be under the impression, that I could not hit a fullsize poster of a very tall metally disturbed geriatric who fortuitously have been dead for 28 years, with a handgun. Edited June 28, 2017 by Nike-Ajax 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisWerb Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 I don't consider myself a noob or an old hand. I have played single player an awful lot and gotten a lot out of it though. I must be one of the few people here to buy two full licences in the space of a few months (also bought one for a friend). Yes to barrel strikes - I would like that implemented along with the other minor damage stuff like RWS getting trashed, but with the proviso that some vehicles will have slip clutches or whatever to protect their turret drives. Reverse into a tree at 10mph and incapacitate your driver? Obviously a bug. At the moment you can drive into and demolish reasonably substantial buildings and not take damage which seems disproportionate given the many indestructible trees. Forests that you simply can't move through (i.e. very dense mid growth conifer plantations) would also be a worthwhile addition to the game. I don't want the terrain to become easy - just more realistic. On an even more positive note, I have had a lot of fun coming up with contemporary Finland/Estonia scenarios using the barest minimum of the event processing capability of the scenario builder and have had results that I would consider almost entirely realistic and highly enjoyable. Can we please have an optical sight on the 40mm AGL (the Elcan from the M2HB would be fine) - the British Army at least appear to use one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 31 minutes ago, ChrisWerb said: I don't consider myself a noob or an old hand. I have played single player an awful lot and gotten a lot out of it though. I must be one of the few people here to buy two full licences in the space of a few months (also bought one for a friend). Great you have played the sim. Time on a real AFV in a forest = ? 31 minutes ago, ChrisWerb said: Yes to barrel strikes - I would like that implemented along with the other minor damage stuff like RWS getting trashed, but with the proviso that some vehicles will have slip clutches or whatever to protect their turret drives. Sure you can have slip clutches or shear pins, but in eaither case the vehicle wont really be able to shoot well for the duration of a typical SB mission. You need to get it repaired (not 5 mins, but quite a while) or at least re-zeroed. 31 minutes ago, ChrisWerb said: Reverse into a tree at 10mph and incapacitate your driver? Obviously a bug. "Obviously"???? I've seen crewman rendered unconscious (not dead) from slamming expectantly into something and not being prepared for it. I'm pretty happy about how it is an abstract of the chance of happening in the real world. As Ssnake said match your speed to the terrain, look where you are going (i.e. do your job as the crew commander) and it will be fine. Try to drive like a RWC driver and you are an idiot and deserve what you get. Please, before making grand pronouncements like "obviously" get some turret time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Nike-Ajax said: There always have to be some besserwissers ... Thank you Gentlemen for your input. I can see that you are managing your envy admirably. No you cant be a part of it, but you can certainly have your own party? And Sgt. Maj. Basil Plumley by way of Ssnake is also quite right of course. From a practical standpoint, then there are certain challenges in mounting a contest with Leo 2´s firing live ammunition. From a context standpoint, then we were talking about shooting at the Khomeini poster. If you need a tank to take one man down, then there are something seriously wrong with your sidearm aim. Allthough I concede that a APFSDS, would probably do the job. And from a standpoint of a respectful gentlemanly contest in good spirits, then a handgun will do nicely for the purpose. Particularly so as Grenny seemed to be under the impression, that I could not hit a fullsize poster of a very tall metally disturbed geriatric who fortuitously have been dead for 28 years, with a handgun. Can i come and play. I only have a revolver but I am sure I could hit the target. LoL 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaphod Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Marko said: Can i come and play. I only have a revolver but I am sure I could hit the target. LoL Marko did you model for Nintendo Mario before? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisWerb Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 LOL GibsonM. I have lots of experiences of being in forests and some of crashing vehicles, in one case at relatively high speed into a very unforgiving lamp post, but no experience of being in an AFV in a forest. In SB I have lost three crew members when clipping a tree on the corner of a road on one occasion - that was travelling forwards. I can't honestly remember losing any crew to any other tree impacts. It's more the sheer unyielding nature of them when I bump them when travelling at much slower speeds - typically whilst trying to withdraw under fire - that I find unrealistic and a realism kill - a bit like the driverless 4x4s and pilotless Mi-24s.. It would seem to me, however, that an AFV is designed to protect its driver when travelling over broken ground etc. - turret crew less so. Presumably most would have some kind of head restraint for their driver's head for obvious reasons. When reversing any other kind of vehicle, the consequences of hitting something in reverse are generally less injurious for the driver. This is why, for example, baby seats face backwards and RAF VC-10 transport planes have rearward facing seats, contrary to airline practice. I would take a lot of convincing that a 10 mph rearward impact with a 20cm or thereabouts diameter softwood tree is going to incapacitate the driver of a 67 tonne MBT. I would actually not be surprised if he didn't notice the impact. At least unless the tree buckled and the top part fell on the tank If a barrel swipe takes out a turret for one SB mission or until the scenario deems repair possible so be it. That, as you point out is realism. The vehicle may or may not be repaired for subsequent ones. In a campaign you can simulate that. No problem. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisWerb Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 Speaking of which... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted June 29, 2017 Members Share Posted June 29, 2017 ...there's a lot of assumptions in your statements, I must say. Quote It's more the sheer unyielding nature of them when I bump them Yeah, what can I say. We can't animate the trees with the current engine, so we do the next best approximation. In reality, a large tree might tilt a bit (depending on tree type), get his crown entangled with other trees, and three grown trees usually turn out to be stronger than the one tank pushing. Quote It would seem to me, however, that an AFV is designed to protect its driver when travelling over broken ground etc. - turret crew less so. Presumably most would have some kind of head restraint for their driver's head for obvious reasons. Presumably. But in most AFVs there are no safety belts, because you also need to escape really fast if there is an on-board fire. AFV collisions with non-armored vehicles are largely unproblematic as the AFV's vehicle mass exceeds that of civilian cars usually be more than one magnitude. They simply crush the opposition. But as soon as you crash into an unyielding target - like another tank of similar size, or a tree that won't budge, you have the exact same mechanisms at work as with civilian car crashes: Up to 20 km per hour you're usually fine; at 30km/h expect injuries; 40km/h and over, expect fatalities. For 90% of all fatal car accidents the impact speed was about 40km/h! Therefore, at medium velocity setting there is a small but non-zero likelihood of crew incapacitation, and at high velocity the likelihood is very high. The "reverse into tree with crew fatality" observation, I already categorized as a bug. You don't need to argue that case. For everything else I must say that the effort to implement something more sophisticated will be very high, with ultimately very little difference in results. As we're writing commercial software, it is my duty to look at that ratio when deciding about development priorities. This is not one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nike-Ajax Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 (edited) Hmmmm ... without entering this discussion, then I would simply like to reiterate that the Leo 2 has an inbuilt safety to avoid damage from barrel strikes. A force of more than 40 kg. in the lateral and horizontal plane, applied on the barrel, will disengage the turret lock. Wheter or not this is enough to avoid any damage I do not know however. And the video above allthough pretty silly, does not seem to indicate any damage to the MBT from tree contact. In an unrelated but similar vein, then I know that Norwegian, swedish and finnish have trained using the forest againt the enemy by cutting them arounf 1,5 meters over the ground to be used as a barrier againts enemy armored and mechanized vehicles. Edited June 29, 2017 by Nike-Ajax 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 Just now, Nike-Ajax said: Hmmmm ... without enetring this discussion, then I would simply like to reiterate that the Leo 2 has an inbuilt safety to avoid damage from barrel strikes. A force of more than 40 kg. in the lateral and horizontal plane, applied on the barrel, will disengage the turret lock. Wheter or not this is enough to avoid any damage I do not know however. ...still, the inertia of 20+ tons of turret will hold the gun in place long enough for something to give way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nike-Ajax Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 1 minute ago, Grenny said: ...still, the inertia of 20+ tons of turret will hold the gun in place long enough for something to give way. Maybe or maybe not. I have no data to verify or discredit that statement. Have you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 2 minutes ago, Nike-Ajax said: Maybe or maybe not. I have no data to verify or discredit that statement. Have you? The weight of the turret is within that range...then you have the laws of physics... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nike-Ajax Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 (edited) So no then. I concur with your weight estimate and from a pure common sense standpoint can see what you mean, but neither I nor you have empirical evidence to claim that damage would be incurred and if so at what speed. And if so what damage to vehicle and/or personnel. This of course have nothing to do with the damage the TC and others could and would incur if passing unbuttoned and standing up in hatches through a forest, from branches. As light infantry we started wearing cheap safety glasses at night when doing foot patrols in the forest for just that reason. Edited June 29, 2017 by Nike-Ajax 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.