Playable Challenger 2?

[Iceman]

I'm running version 2.654 of SBPro PE. I see that the Challenger 2 can be accessed in Tank Range and Instant Action, but no where else. Question, can it driven and used in a scene?

I noticed there are skins for it in DL/Mods/Skins, but can it be skinned if it's only limited to usage in the Tank Range and Instant Action modules, but not in observer mode?

Any help answering the above regarding the Challenger 2 is much appreciated.

Iceman

[Gibsonm]

I'm running version 2.654 of SBPro PE. I see that the Challenger 2 can be accessed in Tank Range and Instant Action, but no where else. Question, can it driven and used in a scene?

I noticed there are skins for it in DL/Mods/Skins, but can it be skinned if it's only limited to usage in the Tank Range and Instant Action modules, but not in observer mode?

Any help answering the above regarding the Challenger 2 is much appreciated.

Iceman

Welcome!

Yes, Yes and Yes.

When you say "nowhere else" what you are really saying is that there is no tutorial for it.

You can put it in a scenario and "play it" (the positions are there, but lacking the interior detail that some other vehicles have).

If you look in the relevant "SB Mods" thread there are a bunch of screenshots of various Challenger 2 skins.

For example:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=18661

Edited March 14, 2013 by Gibsonm

[Iceman]

Thank you for answering my Challenger 2 questions. =

Are there any good...step by step tutorials on building a scene?

Thanks,

Iceman

[Gibsonm]

Well the Wiki has one and there is a partially completed set of video on YouTube by “Toyguy”.

[Homer]

An alternative would be to edit an existing scenario and swap the existing units with C2s.

[Marko]

I'm running version 2.654 of SBPro PE. I see that the Challenger 2 can be accessed in Tank Range and Instant Action, but no where else. Question, can it driven and used in a scene?

I noticed there are skins for it in DL/Mods/Skins, but can it be skinned if it's only limited to usage in the Tank Range and Instant Action modules, but not in observer mode?

Any help answering the above regarding the Challenger 2 is much appreciated.

Iceman

I have quite a few missions with the CR2 in them.

If you want them just pm me your email address

If you decide to edit some missions and add the CR2 you may need to edit the opfor

Forces as well the Charm rounds struggles to penetrate the T_80 frontal Armour.

And trying to hit a fast moving target with Hesh is not easy

[Tjay]

I'm running version 2.654 of SBPro PE. I see that the Challenger 2 can be accessed in Tank Range and Instant Action, but no where else. Question, can it driven and used in a scene?

I noticed there are skins for it in DL/Mods/Skins, but can it be skinned if it's only limited to usage in the Tank Range and Instant Action modules, but not in observer mode?

Any help answering the above regarding the Challenger 2 is much appreciated.

Iceman

Iceman,

You once expressed interest in joining UK Armour IIRC. We'd be pleased to see you on Sunday or Wednesday evenings at 20:00A when we often run CR2 missions as it's our adopted MBT.

[Iceman]

Thanks for the replies.

Did it!

Went through the SBpro PE manual last night and put my first Challenger mission together. Used an existing map and followed the instructions.

Opens a completely new arena for me with this game.

Thanks for the support.

Iceman

[Marko]

Thanks for the replies.

Did it!

Went through the SBpro PE manual last night and put my first Challenger mission together. Used an existing map and followed the instructions.

Opens a completely new arena for me with this game.

Thanks for the support.

Iceman

Hi Iceman.

It makes a hell of a difference just knowing the basics of the mission editor.

I think a lot of SB players who have not explored the mission editor should give it a try.

Making basic changes could not be easier and can breath new life in to a old mission trying The same mission with different vehicles can make it seem like a new mission or simply Changing the terrain or time. I think there Are some you tube videos showing the basics. if not maybe some of the more experienced Mission designers could hold an on line tutorial At a designated time on team speak.if there was enough interest

Just a thought.

PS. for any body who does not know if you make changes to some body's mission its considered good manners to ask permission from the original designer of the mission if you Are going to share you newly created mission.

[Gibsonm]

Well the Wiki has one and there is a partially completed set of video on YouTube by “Toyguy”.

Just in case you didn’t find it.

Here is the link to the playlist:

[Agiel]

Only just now realised there's no modeled interior for the Challenger 2, which is a huge shame. Hopefully that and its firepower issues are resolved with the upcoming update. Still, it's great fun as a tank that just. won't. die. Make a scenario with a platoon advancing on a bunch of T-72Bs in prepared defenses and you get a sense of what it's like to be a Necron army in 40K.

[Hedgehog]

Only just now realised there's no modeled interior for the Challenger 2, which is a huge shame. Hopefully that and its firepower issues are resolved with the upcoming update. .

Parsed version:

Q: What is involved in adding a tank to SB?

A: This depends very much on what is already there. For example, with already four variants of the Leopard 2, the addition of yet another Leopard 2 variant will involve considerably less work than the addition of a vehicle for which no "sibling" exists. Assuming a full-blown model with 3D interior that is being made from scratch, several areas must be researched and documented to allow the creation of the vehicle model,

1) For the external vehicle model: <snip>

2) For the 3D interior view:

• a minimum three-day access period to the vehicle with permission to take measures, photographs, and videos in order to document sufficient information for the reconstruction of the crew space geometry and texturing.
  
• measure tape, video tape, batteries, battery charger, a clipboard, and a thin pencil. <- essential, other types = unwieldy
  
• 2-3 months of 3D modeling
  
• additional programming time
  

3) For the gunner's and the commander's positions: <snip>

Full version:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/announcement.php?f=6

As far as I am aware, this hasn't happened yet.

Still, it's great fun as a tank that just. won't. die. Make a scenario with a platoon advancing on a bunch of T-72Bs in prepared defenses and you get a sense of what it's like to be a Necron army in 40K

Hmm, that's true if you are hit on the turret facing, not so on the upper Hull Glacis Plate. (Oh and they are called Tank "Troops" not Platoons, this is the Royal Armoured Corps. we are talking about here, don't you know? )

[Ssnake]

Only just now realised there's no modeled interior for the Challenger 2, which is a huge shame. Hopefully that and its firepower issues are resolved with the upcoming update.

No, and no.

A 3D interior may come one day but I'm not convinced yet that we managed to collect enough material for this, let alone official approval. Should the British MoD choose to adopt SB Pro for training purposes, that could quickly change of course.

With respect to "the firepower issue" - we re-examined all the data available and left no stone unturned. Yet nothing has come to light that supports a substantially different parameterization of the terminal ballistic performance of the fin rounds. The L23A1 can be considered as closely modeled to reality as is currently possible in a real-time application. For L26...28 the margin of error is bigger but not as big as one might think. Unfortunately the reasons that prevented a full disclosure of our sources in the past continue to exist, so there isn't much that I can say here.

As sad as it may be, I think that it is the tank itself that has both mobility and firepower issues - not our model of it. Don't shoot the messenger, please: We're just the bearer of bad news, not the source of them.

[Marko]

No, and no.

A 3D interior may come one day but I'm not convinced yet that we managed to collect enough material for this, let alone official approval. Should the British MoD choose to adopt SB Pro for training purposes, that could quickly change of course.

With respect to "the firepower issue" - we re-examined all the data available and left no stone unturned. Yet nothing has come to light that supports a substantially different parameterization of the terminal ballistic performance of the fin rounds. The L23A1 can be considered as closely modeled to reality as is currently possible in a real-time application. For L26...28 the margin of error is bigger but not as big as one might think. Unfortunately the reasons that prevented a full disclosure of our sources in the past continue to exist, so there isn't much that I can say here.

As sad as it may be, I think that it is the tank itself that has both mobility and firepower issues - not our model of it. Don't shoot the messenger, please: We're just the bearer of bad news, not the source of them.

I have spoken with a serving CR2 commander.

Who is also a Member of the SB Community And played the current CR2 model in game.

I Think he would disagree With you. the fire control system is more fluid in its functionality

[Gibsonm]

I have spoken with a serving CR2 commander.

Who is also a Member of the SB Community And played the current CR2 model in game.

I Think he would disagree With you. the fire control system is more fluid in its functionality

But Ssnake didn't talk about the fire control system, just its mobility and the ballistic performance of the rounds.

The FCS may well be under modelled (I can't say one way or the other) but that may be due to limited access to information, etc.

I also suspect it maybe due to the lack of an "X Box" type controller to replicate the gunner's control handle (short of the purpose built UK option which I suspect is beyond most / all personal budgets).

But I guess wait for 3.0 and make a new assessment of its "performance" then?

Edited April 2, 2013 by Gibsonm

[Marko]

But Ssnake didn't talk about the fire control system, just its mobility and the ballistic performance of the rounds.

The FCS may well be under modelled (I can't say one way or the other) but that may be due to limited access to information, etc.

Other comments about the current CR2 model were made in a private conversation.

It would not be fair to divulge the full content of the conversation.

Other then to say the individual in question would not agree with some of Ssnakes comments.

[Ssnake]

As a Leopard 2 officer back then I wouldn't have considered my beloved Leo as anything but the best in the world, not the least because I didn't have all the knowledge that I do now. I always tried to be modest and talk in moderation about the beast, but it certainly took a lot of discipline. Today, I still like the user interface of the Leo 2 better, but the crew protection concept of the Abrams is superior and I have no trouble admitting this. Beyond that I'm past the question which tank is "the best" - it depends on the circumstances, and on the question how comfortable a given crew is with it. It is equally nonsensical to say that technology will always trump over wits as it is to say that no matter what equipment has been issued, the better crew will always win. Anything beyond these basic statements is juvenile Quartet card game nonsense.

The Challenger 2's fire control system implementation in SB Pro is incomplete - we know that, and it will get addressed. I just don't know if we can make it before the 3.0 release. We're more or less on our own here, so we'll do things at our own pace.

As far as the rest of your comments about an undisclosed conversation, there isn't much left to discuss, is there? In a way I guess it's only fair since I won't completely disclose our sources either, so I can hardly criticize such a rhetorical move as unfair. I can but say that our performance estimate of the L26...28 may be wrong, but it's based on the best information at our disposal which is substantially better than just web site statements. I have asked the community to come up with sources that carry enough weight to overcome that of our own, and in all the years whatever was presented to us did not convince me. I think however that I can say that I did my due diligence and took each suggestion seriously. That doesn't mean that I'm right and you are wrong. It just means that I still think that our own estimates' factual basis is better than the plausibility of arguments brought forward in the last 18 months.

I would also question how much a tank crew actually knows about the terminal ballistic performance of issued ammunition. The MoD will typically say "it's good enough for you" and leave it at that. That's not to belittle the experience of your conversation partner. I'm just saying that the Lanz-Odermatt equation is a very good predictor for long rod perforation processes into semi-infinite targets. If you can define the upper and lower end of the range of possible terminal performances there isn't much room left for opinion.

Bending results is politics, not engineering - and I'm no politician.

[Volcano]

I would also question how much a tank crew actually knows about the terminal ballistic performance of issued ammunition...

Well, I just wanted to say:

I know a helluva lot more about armor and ammunition now than when I was on the M1A1. As an M1 crewman, no one ever bothered to explain how the armor worked, how much RHA protection it had, nor how much penetration power the individual KE rounds had either or what they could penetrate; it is not common knowledge and it not something you learn. You simply learn how the kill the enemy, and how to operate and maintain your vehicle. We just assumed we had adequate protection and firepower, and that little amount of knowledge more or less sums up every tank crewman's level as well I think. So yeah, a CR2 commander probably knows about as much about his armor and ammo as an M1 commander knows about his (which isn't much really).

[Assassin 7]

Well, I just wanted to say:

I know a helluva lot more about armor and ammunition now than when I was on the M1A1. As an M1 crewman, no one ever bothered to explain how the armor worked, how much RHA protection it had, nor how much penetration power the individual KE rounds had either or what they could penetrate; it is not common knowledge and it not something you learn. You simply learn how the kill the enemy, and how to operate and maintain your vehicle. We just assumed we had adequate protection and firepower, and that little amount of knowledge more or less sums up every tank crewman's level as well I think. So yeah, a CR2 commander probably knows about as much about his armor and ammo as an M1 commander knows about his (which isn't much really).

This statement is so true.

[Azure Lion]

The more I learn, the less I seem to know.

[Gibsonm]

This statement is so true.

Same here on two vehicle types (Leo 1 and M1A1).

AFV crewmen are taught to engage and destroy targets, not the theoretical physics behind the round they just fired.

Sure you get some "basic" information like use HESH / HEAT on this target type or APFSDS on this type but unless you are very experienced (mainly through trial and error) you are not going to get commanders thinking / saying:

"Well the range is X"

"The frontal armour aspect is Y"

"The penetration of APFSDS at range X is less than Y"

"The penetration of HESH at range X is greater than Y"

Therefore ...

Two four hundred, 11 O'clock, HESH Tank ON!

Usually its:

"The target is a tank"

"My primary tank killing round is APFSDS"

Therefore ...

Two four hundred, 11 O'clock, SABOT Tank ON!

If you hit but don't kill then you move and fire again (no one gets a slide rule out to work out why it didn't work).

[Lt DeFault]

(no one gets a slide rule out to work out why it didn't work).

Heh heh... except me. I just got a slide rule in the mail the other day! :biggrin: Kill them with trig!

Hey, it works for artillery crews...most of the time.

...I know, I'm a total geek.

[Gibsonm]

Hey, it works for artillery crews...most of the time.

If your gunners are using slide rules and plotting boards and the bad guys have ballistic computers - good luck with that.

[Marko]

The more I learn, the less I seem to know.

+1. LoL

A good video for CR2 fans

[Companion]

speaking of CR2 FCS, how does it work in RL and how is it different from one currently modeled in SB?

Does "blind shoot of faith" still apply for HESH gunnery?