The most stupid things in SB PRO PE, funny thread.

[macieksoft]

Yep what is your favourite most stupid thing in SB PRO PE?

I started this thread just for fun, so if you found something that in your opinion is funny, abnormal or just stupid post it here :c:

1: Killer tree: Remember everyone, your most dangerous enemies are trees, they can take down your whole M1A2 tank crew without even firing single shoot at you. Looks like everybody here was a bad guy, santa claus instead of placing gifts under XMAS trees used a piano strings and attached them to XMAS trees just like hitler's forces, they will cut heads of your whole crew.

2: Trolololo infantry: YEP man, this kind of trolling don't even happening in BF3 Infantry is trolling your tank, yep man, tose little guys with little machineguns shooting at your primary sight exposing themselves to your gun fire. What kind of trolling will be added in next release? Bunny hoping? C4 with glue?

3: Where are no trees, there are rocks. Yep rocks may kill you (or reather your AI buddies) by making their tanks stuck in the middle of the desert. Not moving tank is a dead tank.

There is nothing to eat (they still not made animals to hunt) and there is a rain. Rain on the desert? Not im not dumb, there is damn steel rain that is falling on everyone who is not moving since 3 minutes.

AI is still dumb and cannot avoid it anyway, and those rocks are not visible on tactical map so you cannot set a proper route for AI to don't guide them on rocks.

4: Suicidie helos: Idea taken directly from BF3, those helicopters hovering few meters from u and trying to shoot down Abrams tank with 12,7mm gatling gun, look at the photo:

5: Would be great if everybody had a gun. Yep, at least for Russian side, but actually BMP-2 do not have a gun! Ok, maybe it have one but not using it against armored targets, while BMD-2 that has exactly same gun using it against armored targets.

6: Smoking allowed and extremally dangerous to your health: AI using smoke wrong way. They never popping smoke while ATGM coming on them but AI M1A2 like popping multispectral smoke while tank gets damaged (but still can fire at enemy) this way letting enemy to safely advance forward and take an objective that stupid M1A2 commander is defending.

[Brun]

Yep what is your favourite most stupid thing in SB PRO PE?

I started this thread just for fun, so if you found something that in your opinion is funny, abnormal or just stupid post it here :c:

1: Killer tree: Remember everyone, your most dangerous enemies are trees, they can take down your whole M1A2 tank crew without even firing single shoot at you. Looks like everybody here was a bad guy, santa claus instead of placing gifts under XMAS trees used a piano strings and attached them to XMAS trees just like hitler's forces, they will cut heads of your whole crew.

2: Trolololo infantry: YEP man, this kind of trolling don't even happening in BF3 Infantry is trolling your tank, yep man, tose little guys with little machineguns shooting at your primary sight exposing themselves to your gun fire. What kind of trolling will be added in next release? Bunny hoping? C4 with glue?

3: Where are no trees, there are rocks. Yep rocks may kill you (or reather your AI buddies) by making their tanks stuck in the middle of the desert. Not moving tank is a dead tank.

There is nothing to eat (they still not made animals to hunt) and there is a rain. Rain on the desert? Not im not dumb, there is damn steel rain that is falling on everyone who is not moving since 3 minutes.

AI is still dumb and cannot avoid it anyway, and those rocks are not visible on tactical map so you cannot set a proper route for AI to don't guide them on rocks.

4: Suicidie helos: Idea taken directly from BF3, those helicopters hovering few meters from u and trying to shoot down Abrams tank with 12,7mm gatling gun, look at the photo:

5: Would be great if everybody had a gun. Yep, at least for Russian side, but actually BMP-2 do not have a gun! Ok, maybe it have one but not using it against armored targets, while BMD-2 that has exactly same gun using it against armored targets.

6: Smoking allowed and extremally dangerous to your health: AI using smoke wrong way. They never popping smoke while ATGM coming on them but AI M1A2 like popping multispectral smoke while tank gets damaged (but still can fire at enemy) this way letting enemy to safely advance forward and take an objective that stupid M1A2 commander is defending.

The Ai is only as dumb as the person controlling them. If your troops are shooting when they should not be "Hold Fire". If your tank comes to a sudden stop after hitting a tree or a rock crew members will get tossed and injured. Ai can and will try to avoid artillery when it falls. If you sit in one place to long it is the fault of the person in charge of the unit, not the ai Getting hammered. The Ai will do nothing in any situation if they are not properly directed.

[Volcano]

...

You can dial back the sarcasm a few notches, please. It would be a far more productive use of time if you, rather than make sarcastic comments under the guise of humor, just instead make a normal post in the Support Forum about issues. This is encouraged.

Anyway, some of these items are valid but for others there is a great deal of details that you are not aware of, it seems. For example:

1) Hitting a tree at top speed in real life is not pleasant, regardless of what you might think from BF3 (which apparently you play?). Smacking into a large tree at full speed can result in broken bones and missing teeth as the crew is not strapped in with seat belts, they can and will fly around in the turret with enough force and speed. The disabling of the crew in this situation represents injury, not death -- this is assumed to be obvious, but apparently it is not. The fact is, you have to be punished from driving like a wreck-less maniac through forests, because that is simply not done in real life. In reality, driving through a forest is tedious and slow. Not to mention, the gun tube/turret could be damaged from impacting trees at high speeds, but we don't model that yet. I can imagine the lamenting if it was. So, the answer here is: slow down in a forest, the fact that you are hitting a tree and suffering casualties from careless driving is, well, a good thing as it should force you to be more cautious. And one last detail: the damage probability does depend on the MASS of the vehicle vs. the MASS of the tree, vs. the SPEED, so it is conditional.

2) This specific behavior was improved in the latest version. Whether or not infantry fires LMG at vehicles depends on their perception of whether or not they can hurt it, which is derived from certain "perceived" armor values. The 7.62 has a penetration of 10mm, so if they are close then they very well may be able to damage lightly armored vehicles in some areas (like lower hull flank). Obviously this is very conditional however, so if you are seeing infantry, who are NOT on suppress tactics, firing on "tanks" then please post a test scenario or provide more specific information (about the target type) in the Support Forum.

3) See #1 for damage. And yes, as for AI pathfinding around rocks, this is my personal pet peeve as well. This should be improved in the future, but people should avoid using large concentrations of rock objects on maps.

4) The image does not prove it is using 50 cal on your tank, if it is then please post it in the Support Forum with a test scenario. Odds are this issue is instead the AI wanting to shoot your tank, but it being too close to do so so it just hovers there instead. This comes down to a scenario design issue partly, if the helicopter ended up that close to an enemy tank (because it is on an overflight) then it should of had ASSAULT tactics which would have caused it to continue forward. The point is: it is an issue with bad scenario design (routing) as much as anything else. Other than that, yes, helicopters do need constant improves on target selection and engagement routines, no argument there. But of course this is not a helicopter simulator either.

5) Yes, valid, it seems like a bug exists with the BMP-2 not using its autocannon on anything really. Noted.

6) Yes, smoke popping behavior could be improved, but it is not so easy to make them "smart". As you say, they primarily pop smoke now if they are damaged, but there are other conditions, such as when a unit embarks on a retreat route. So, if anything the smoke employment is a bit too conservative perhaps, but the AI's popping of smoke is a general indication that you should probably move. Popping smoke if a missile is incoming (and they spot it) is not a bad idea, BUT, they would have to turn to the turret or vehicle towards the threat first otherwise it would be a waste to employ smoke in the first place, and of course there would be complaints that the AI is taking the gun off a target to do this. So the point is, it is not so easy to improve this because you end up in potential situations of the AI burning though (wasting) all your smoke, or pulling human gunners off targets. The conservative approach plays it safe.

-------------

Edited November 12, 2013 by Volcano
typos

[Tacbat]

Can we add people to this list? :diable:

[Ssnake]

I think that the idea for this thread has some merit, actually.

It can be used as a hint for us to see which parts of the simulation aren't well explained (occasionally also where there's an actual bug or an exploit). Keep it coming.

[Apocalypse 31]

people should avoid using large concentrations of rock objects on maps.

Like the NTC map that is mostly covered small impassable pebbles.

[Sean]

The guy from NTC that made the map wanted it that way for some reason.

Like the NTC map that is mostly covered small impassable pebbles.

[12Alfa]

Can we add people to this list? :diable:

I second that:men_ani:

[Volcano]

I think that the idea for this thread has some merit, actually.

It can be used as a hint for us to see which parts of the simulation aren't well explained (occasionally also where there's an actual bug or an exploit). Keep it coming.

Well sure, keep feedback coming but I won't be wading through sarcasm and "humor" to look for bug reports (hence the suggestion to file actual reports if it really bothers people so much). Other than that, knock yourselves out.

[Maj.Hans]

Well, I wouldn't call these things stupid, but just something that I disagree with or find odd.

I notice that when multiple artillery or mortar teams are told to execute a fire mission, the crews operate with incredible precision. In fact, they seem to fire at pretty much exactly the same time, and continue to do so for the whole fire mission.

I wonder if this is intentional, to simulate some ideal of synchronized fire, or just accidental. In any case, I think it would be nice to see a little randomness in the way crews fire, even if it was only a random delay for their first shots, so that they didn't appear to be a bunch of robots. Just so that all six mortars don't fire every shot simultaneously. This doesn't really effect anything other than looks so I guess it's no big deal.

Second, I noticed that if you order the infantry of the BMP-3 to open their hatches, the crew opens the front hatches and the gunner has to center the turret and cease all engagements.

I wonder if it might be better to have the infantry only open and fight from the rear two hatches, and leave the front ones closed. It seems to me like the front two hatches would be most likely left closed unless the turret was busted. I always thought that infantry hatches were provided to allow the troops to cover the sides, rear, and top, and I habitually order them to get off their butts and fight if I'm in a CV90, M113, etc. As the BMP3 is an AI vehicle currently I guess that it's no big deal again, just kinda odd.

[Ssnake]

That the first salvo is fired synchonously is intentional, although there probably isn't enough random variation for subsequent volleys.

Roger on the BMP-3 thing. I suspect however that SB's code has just a single routine for hatches open or closed (with the driver always remaining buttoned up), and I can't say how easy it is to get that changed.

[macieksoft]

Ai can and will try to avoid artillery when it falls.

While stucked it will try, but only try...

When AI stuck it will not be able to avoid artillery. And even for player it takes some time to move out from "stucked position".

And regarding trees in SB PRO PE it do not require a very high speed to kill a crew. 50KPH is enough, even some car driver (in reality) can survive this. Why the tank crew is more vunerable than a car driver?

4) The image does not prove it is using 50 cal on your tank, if it is then please post it in the Support Forum with a test scenario.

Can't you see smoke coming out of hes .50 cal? Hes using it, the gun is smoking.

Yes, valid, it seems like a bug exists with the BMP-2 not using its autocannon on anything really. Noted.

Please read carefully bro Not on anything, but on some armored vehicles (mostly more advanced IFVs) that can be defeated with 30mm from BMD-2 whitch uses same gun correctly.

And look here:

Its even more funny than before.

You can tow a flying helicopter by tank recovery vehicles.

Tractor train, yep a train made from towing vehicles, IS IT A GTA-SA OR WHAT? Reminds me those little tractors.

There will be new quinness record category, for the longest SB PRO PE tractor train.

And those infantry guys are still funny.

[Maj.Hans]

Roger on the BMP-3 thing. I suspect however that SB's code has just a single routine for hatches open or closed (with the driver always remaining buttoned up), and I can't say how easy it is to get that changed.

If that were the case, and we had to select only a single routine for opening and closing hatches and we can't make the opening of the front hatches conditional, then I think it would be best if they were simply never opened, and more accurately portray the way the infantry might fight from open hatches.

For example, the BMP-2 has a single infantryman sitting on the left side in front of the turret, but in SB his hatch never opens.

Personally, when I'm in an IFV/APC, I like having the troops unbutton when I'm heading into a built up area, dense woods, etc. It gives me a little more firepower and some more eyes to watch my back, and in the CV90 and 113 it doesn't really effect where I can engage with the main guns. The trade off for the BMP-3 (if the troops use the front hatches) seems a little extreme though.

[Froggy]

I hit a tree with the rear bustle of my tank at ~50km/h (my gunner did'nt observe the advise of the driver to align gun tube to front) the result was a 90° spin of the tank, 180° of the turret, heavy dommage to the tools bins, lost of stab (a restart and alignement of the gyro was needed), and a fucking headache for the whole crew. we weren't able to perform anything during at lest 15mn

[Tjay]

The Ai is only as dumb as the person controlling them. I

Can't really agree with that. I would say AI behaviour is still somewhat inconsistent and unpredictable. But I also accept that as inevitable when there a so many variables that go into the final AI decision as to what action to take in a particular circumstance. Overall, it seems to be much improved. That said, I have no idea why, in a recent session, none of my units would embark on the routes they were given and had to be driven manually. And even then, the AIFVs wouldn't move off unless I gave them a little wiggle with the steering first. (Thinks: Could that be a terrain thing?)

[Tjay]

Can we add people to this list? :diable:

Not enough room!

[12Alfa]

Why the tank crew is more vunerable than a car driver?

Well the tank crew most likely is not wearing the seat belts, even though they should.

Second the car has airbags, anti locking breaks, and a lot of soft spots to collide into for said crew members.

A tank has no airbag, and everything inside is of metal, and most likely very dangerous to impact upon. I was in a "Leave the road" issue years ago and we went end over end a number of times, the only thing that was soft inside of the AFV was the gunner being throw about with me. A tank is a very dangerous vehicle to have a collision in, they are not made to collide with other objects, while cars and trucks are.

I would recommend you do some reading of real AFV's to get a grip on what your posting on here.

Asking why a car and tank have different results shows you need to further your back ground on the use and deployment of such AFV's. Google and some good reading will bring you up to the basic standard we have here on the forum, of course being in the army and work on such AFV's is also another good way, but may be a bit to dangerous, tress and all.:cool3:

[Ssnake]

While stucked it will try, but only try...

When AI stuck it will not be able to avoid artillery. And even for player it takes some time to move out from "stucked position".

And regarding trees in SB PRO PE it do not require a very high speed to kill a crew. 50KPH is enough, even some car driver (in reality) can survive this. Why the tank crew is more vunerable than a car driver?

No airbags, no seat belts, no crush zones to absorb impact energy, no nothing. Automobile engineers literally spend billions to make cars safer in case of crashes. Next to nothing of what they know and do can be used in tank design. Without a seatbelt and without airbag a 35km/h impact in a normal car can already kill you, above 40kmh it's more likely than not, and beyond 50km/h death is almost certain - and that's with all the other protective measures aside from belt and airbag in place.

With tanks, it's just not comparable.

Tanks do have a very large mass, so in a normal traffic accident the inertia and the hard outer shell will protect the crew enough that a seatbelt isn't necessary (the accident partner however will get squashed even more thoroughly).

Hit something of similar or higher mass with a tank, and you need to tell a very different story. In that case you WILL have rapid deceleration, and few if any elements in the tank design to hold back the crew, so they WILL smash into the tank's walls and instrument panels with plenty of hard and angled surfaces. A tank on tank accident at 40km/h is almost guaranteed to be lethal for both crews. Against trees - well, the tree will certainly deform, that does absorb some energy. If the tree is less than 30cm in diameter, chances are that the hull bow will simply chop it (the tree will then fall over the length of the vehicle and poke splintered branches deep into open hatches, so you better button up before doing so). Beyond that diameter, especially if it is hardwood like oak or beech if you can't uproot the tree, it will stop you cold and hard. If you manage to uproot the tree, it might actually work like a lever-type car jack. The root ball will push out of the ground and could high-center the vehicle so that the tracks lose contact with the ground - so you're immobilized.

Steel Beasts doesn't visualize all that, but this is what's going on when you drive through a forest (plus banging your gun against trees, banging the heads of commander and loader against low-hanging tree branches, thereby scratching faces, gouging eyes, smashing teeth, dealing concussions, denting skulls, breaking necks, or decapitating torsos (in order of increasing severity)). Since we can't visualize it, we introduced a substituting game mechanism, an abstraction if you will, that rewards behavior which helps to prevent these actions in real life too - avoiding forests where possible, sticking to service roads where you can, and driving rather carefully and slow where you have to go right across the forest. Driving through forests is a messy business.

You can tow a flying helicopter by tank recovery vehicles.

No longer.

Tractor train

Well, if you want to abuse the recovery option, I suppose you can. But such nonsensical behavior will hurt you in a tactical combat situation, so why should we stop you from doing it? It's not as if computer-controlled units do that on their own, it requires active human intervention to do it.

[macieksoft]

Against trees - well, the tree will certainly deform, that does absorb some energy.

Yep, thats exactly what i mean, in reality some trees will deform and some will just break. Abrams weights 70t so it should have enough inertia to break some of trees in SB PRO PE.

And i wondering why trees can damage VHF antennas? Antennas should be flexible, but in SB PRO PE even while driving not too fast i can damage them.

And if im driving trought a forest in SB 15 kph im safe? It would not break anything? Even antennas?

Well, if you want to abuse the recovery option, I suppose you can. But such nonsensical behavior will hurt you in a tactical combat situation, so why should we stop you from doing it? It's not as if computer-controlled units do that on their own, it requires active human intervention to do it.

Also notice that weight of towed vehicle do not affects towing speed. Tractor that towing Abrams tank will do it as fast as tractor that towing HMMWV. Notice that in this movie only the first tractor had engine turned on.

[Homer]

Regarding trees... Just learn to hate them as I did; I'm much happier now.

[Froggy]

Yep, thats exactly what i mean, in reality some trees will deform and some will just break. Abrams weights 70t so it should have enough inertia to break some of trees in SB PRO PE.

And i wondering why trees can damage VHF antennas? Antennas should be flexible, but in SB PRO PE even while driving not too fast i can damage them.

And if im driving trought a forest in SB 15 kph im safe? It would not break anything? Even antennas?

I have lost antenna with low branch hit, just cutting the antenna at base. At the same moment, an unbuttoned driver of an IFV had been injured by a low branch that perforated its helmet and skull, bending the coax MG tube

[daskal]

Can't do copy + paste objects in the map editor.

[macieksoft]

I have lost antenna with low branch hit, just cutting the antenna at base. At the same moment, an unbuttoned driver of an IFV had been injured by a low branch that perforated its helmet and skull, bending the coax MG tube

He should check hes helmet and make sure that it was not made in China :bigsmile:

So does those helmets providing any protection if a weak branch can perforate it?

Can't do copy + paste objects in the map editor.

Yep, +1 its quite annoying if you need to set all options for all units individually...

[Grenny]

Yep, +1 its quite annoying if you need to set all options for all units individually...

Don't get that one.

Can you explain?

[macieksoft]

Don't get that one.

Can you explain?

When you need to make multiple units with same parameters (same ammo, same optional weapons etc.) the easiest way to do it would be copy and paste.

I hoping to see copy and paste feature in editor.