June 2016 Update

[Lumituisku]

Avenger posted by Roguesnake79


Night sky from Retro


More from RogueSnake79

[Lumituisku]

Ssnake
 

On 5/9/2016 at 10:51 PM, Gibsonm said:
I don't think they have modelled MLC for AVLB.
 
Either that or the Biber is well engineered.

I think we made the decision that as long as we only have one "western" and one "warpac" type of assault bridge we would not model limits to the carrying capacity. Also the question is, are we really after this level of detail (at which point do we lose the non-specialist in each field), or are we after the tactical effect, the ability to perform rapid river crossings. IMO the latter is vastly more important, and the former can become a real problem the more different branches and equipment one introduces to a simulation. If the simulation is super accurate but at the same time rather opaque to the users as to why certain things work (or don't) it's arguably failing as a tool of instruction.
 
IMO we already are close to that limit. I mean no offense, but watching most YouTube videos of people playing Steel Beasts make the instructor in me cringe, and rage at the same time. Heaps and heaps of gunnery mistakes that clearly reveal limited competence with the fire control system, tactical errors like staying too long in an exposed position, NOT switching from narrow to narrow field of view between engagements, a tendency for overreliance on thermal imagers in general, the lack of understanding of route and waypoint behaviors - and that's just the "general stuff". There's also the question about which munition to use at what range and against which target, whether a frontal engagement even has a chance of success rather than just wasting another of the precious few rounds, ... all this suggests not so much that you all suck at playing Steel Beasts, but rather that the overall complexity of the simulation is beginning to exceed comprehension levels for anyone but absolute specialists in the field.
And yet, customers are still asking for more details.
 
Also, make no mistake: Outside of a relatively narrow field of fire control systems I would quickly reveal my incompetence as well.

Ssnake

cpt Colossus
not to hijack this topic (or seem ungrateful on the cusp of a new update), but since it soaked into this topic, but if eSim is willing to confirm, I hope there will be some attention given to the water if that should relate to the new terrain, currently the map tools which dig out water always create a ravine like feature filled partially with water. one cannot really simulate lakes or ocean shorelines; for the same reason rivers are impossible to negotiate with amphibious vehicles because the banks are too steep to climb out of again. the exception to this is the tool which creates the very small, shallow streams, which doesn't matter then. you're so close- you put the work into making the amphibious vehicles ready to go and animate nicely, it's just the terrain engine creates standard features with the water tool which nullifies the amphibious capability if actually attempted.
 
maybe it has been a low priority from the point of view of professional customers not requesting changes here as most of the amphibious vehicles represented are of 'red' origin, but it limits the capability of an opponent which doesn't have the option to use those abilities. simply a legitimate variable in all scenarios (and way, way too much potential fun) that has been ignored.

Initially, there will be no change.
That's not to say that we don't want to change something. But we need to do two things here - finish the new map editor (not before the end of 2016) - and to change the way how we're doing the Z buffering. Unfortunately, while solutions for that exist, they cannot be directly applied to our render engine, so that's a tough nut to crack. Once that we did that however there is no reason why we shouldn't have shallow water.

[Lumituisku]

Daskal posted this picture asking is it TR 85 M1?


Referring to this video
 


that im not sure if i posted already

[Lumituisku]

Rotar noticed following

Shoot at unit command


Where Ssnake replied

Yes. It's similar to the "suppress here" command, except that you can use it to have your own unit fire upon a specific other unit even if it's moving.

More from Ssnake

  On 5/8/2016 at 10:16 PM, Apocalypse 31 said:
Will the new terrain effect how infantry units 'dig in' when set on Defend or Guard?

Yes: Infantry still does a bit of the sink-in.
But we're tinkering with it a bit. The original rationale, that there were no actual bumps in the terrain behind which they could hide, is no longer valid. At the same time we haven't modified the animations so that dismounts could really flex to adapt to the terrain, and use some random bump both for cover and as support in prone aiming. So we're using the approach now that the troops will switch between the highest bump's height in their vicinity for firing, and the lowest local valley to take cover.
We considered the option to let them shoot from the kneeling position if the bumpiness exceeds a certain threshold, but as we want to minimize the risk to introduce new bugs so close to the release date we rejected the idea in the end. Future updates will certainly review the issue.

[Lumituisku]

More pictures. This time from Dejawolf




human T-72M1 vs AI Merkava. not a good day for israel.


poor old merkava didn't do so well in built up areas either. infantry with PG-7VL to the side, and there goes the turret.

[Lumituisku]

Ssnakes reply to question about MRAPs

On 5/7/2016 at 0:32 AM, Splash said:
Will the new mine-protectant vehicles shown (and the ones already in the sim) now provide carried troops with some degree of protection from mines?

I suppose once that we actually find the time to work on a more realistic base model of HE detonations, they will. Until then there isn't really much that can be done on the vehicle model's side. We need to address the way how explosions are handled instead.
 
Unfortunately Fate has a habit to foil my plans and determined intent to have the team work on this for at least five to six years now. I'd go ballistic if that would actually help anything, but the reality is that we put this on hold over and over again for perfectly justifiable reasons. But no matter what, the end result is still the same, we're still stuck with a model of explosions with which I am not satisfied. What's making things difficult is that the underlying model is "sort of adequate", it's not glaringly wrong and works at least so-so in most cases. If it were utterly broken the whole topic would receive top priority.

[Lumituisku]

Dejawolfs reply to me about M1TTB

  On 5/6/2016 at 0:50 AM, Lumituisku said:
man, that seems to be hard tank to kill when its hull down. - Not too difficult to make un-operational.. but hard to kill.  Very nice video! I like new effects of exhaust, dust, and even shots look different

!
 
 
TTB armour design allows for fighting hull-up as well without problem. the whole remote turret idea was about removing armour from an unmanned turret, and putting all of it on protecting the crew, basically rendering it impossible to K-kill, but fairly easy to mission kill. also keep in mind TTB was only a concept tank. it has these side sponsons on either side of the turret with very vulnerable turret components inside. likely on the finished vehicle, these would have been moved inside of the vehicle, and a dual-sight system on the turret similar to the Armata would have been installed.

As addition he posted Merkavas Armor as well. In case if someone is interested

[Lumituisku]

There are high expectations that Spähpanzer Luchs is going to be in release, and that it could be playable
The Spähpanzer Luchs (English: Lynx) is a German 8x8 amphibious reconnaissance armoured fighting vehicle (Spähpanzer) in service since 1975 with the German Army, who used 408 in their armoured reconnaissance battalions. It was developed by Daimler-Benz[1] between 1968 and 1975

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%A4hpanzer_Luchs

[Lumituisku]

To aid the speculation and rumours. Whats that stuff and where does it belong to I wonder??

1#


2#


3#


4#


All four pictures are from different vehicles / systems

Number 3, propeller is suspected to be from Luchs

[Lumituisku]

 

[Lumituisku]

Possibility to add nato targets to scenario








New playable modeled vehicle BMP-2












Complete list of new playable vehicles -  summary by ROTAR.

Tanks:
Leopard 2A6
M60A3(TTS)
Sho't Kal
T-55A m.1970
T-72B1 m.1985
T-72B1 m.2012
 
PCs:
AMV XA-360
BMP-2
BTR-60PB
BTR-70
M113A2G
Marder 1A3
Pandur 1
Pandur 1 (RWS)
RG-31E 4x4 MRAP
VEC-M1
 
Trucks:
Dingo 2A2
Pinzgauer 710M
 
Artillery:
M113G4-DK/FO
Piranha-IIIC TACP
 
Others:
M113 G3/OPMV
M113 G3/Repair
M113 G4-DK/OPMV
SPz 2 Luchs A2
 
Engineer:
Wisent AEV

[Lumituisku]

New video from Grenny, showing playable t55, with partly modeled interior, and new t72b1 with fully modeled interior

Notice as well that as t72b1 gets hit by heat, reactive armor pieces disappear from sides. NICE!

 

[Lumituisku]

More new steelbeast videos. This time from Jartsev - introducing bmp-2

 

[Lumituisku]

 

[Lumituisku]