SB Pro PE 4.377

[dejawolf]

On 3/1/2023 at 9:20 AM, Willykurtz said:

just need around 6 months, and it'll be done

[DK-DDAM]

no... you dont

[Splash]

4 hours ago, dejawolf said:

just need around 6 months, and it'll be done

 

Ok, color me naïve, but is that legit or just your version of Oleg Maddox's "two weeks, be sure"? 🤔 

[Gibsonm]

And the hijacking begins ....

[UKRaider]

24 minutes ago, Splash said:

 

Ok, color me naïve, but is that legit or just your version of Oleg Maddox's "two weeks, be sure"? 🤔 

Soon™

[dejawolf]

2 hours ago, Splash said:

 

Ok, color me naïve, but is that legit or just your version of Oleg Maddox's "two weeks, be sure"? 🤔 

alright, let me rephrase then: Just need 6 months of not working on all sorts of other shit, and it'll be done.  

T-72 interior was 600 hours by the by.  in that same time period i can make 3-4 exterior models. 

Edited March 3, 2023 by dejawolf

[Captain_Colossus]

outstanding graphics enhancement for daysight optics / reticles

 

👍

[Willykurtz]

5 hours ago, dejawolf said:

alright, let me rephrase then: Just need 6 months of not working on all sorts of other shit, and it'll be done.  

T-72 interior was 600 hours by the by.  in that same time period i can make 3-4 exterior models. 

Katie Byrne has already done it. Just call her. 

[dejawolf]

On 3/2/2023 at 8:58 PM, DK-DDAM said:

no... you dont

well, i could half-ass it, just add in the panels and call it a day. that'd probably take 2 weeks or less. 

[Raven434th]

hmmm...as an intermediate solution...that might not be a bad idea if it will only take a week or so, ....until a better build is completed of course

[dejawolf]

Just now, Raven434th said:

hmmm...as an intermediate solution...that might not be a bad idea if it will only take a week or so, ....until a better build is completed of course

it's what was done for the T-62 and T-55 basically. 

[DK-DDAM]

but it also requires that you have the "time" deja

 

[Captain_Colossus]

esim has my adulation for the new sound effects. combined with the visual improvements in this update - what a difference in user experience.

[Kingtiger]

 

Dismounted enginners breaching lane markings really got itself a face lift in this patch, I love it. looks more realistic now! Nice touch!

[Ssnake]

wasn't sure if it made it into this release yet, so I didn't mention it in the RNs. But, yay us!

[MikeKiloPapa]

Wrt the revision of the armor protection of Challenger 2 and Leopard 2A4 in this update , what sources where used ? ....im assuming Esim didnt just use the various documents and drawings found online ? ( most of which are probably of very dubious credibility) .....Also do the armor downgrade also affect the later versions of the Leopard 2  (A5, A6 etc )?...the release notes werent completely clear on that ...at least to me.

[Ssnake]

First of all, everything that we do is putting our estimations into our models. Estimations are always subject to revision. We never base estimations on a single source, but weigh the various and often contradicting data against each other. Some of our methodology is documented in the user's manual, in the appendix on armor technology.

 

It seems like the final production batch of the Leopard 2A4 received a significant upgrade to armor arrays contained in the frontal turret and hull cavities respectively. Our previous model in Steel Beasts used that as the basis to set the protection value for all Leopard 2A4. Even then it overestimated the protection level. That overestimation has been reduced for the entire Leopard 2 fleet.

The 2A4 got further downgraded, because the final production batch was a mere 70 tanks out of nearly 2100 produced, so the new estimate is more representative of the whole Leopard 2A4 fleet as it was ca. 1985 rather than the "overoptimistic best case assumption" that it was before.

 

All Leopard 2A5 and later use a Leopard 2A4 with the new armor package as a baseline since the upgrade process reeplaced those packages along with the addition of the distinctive add-on armor (and further changes, like the new gun mantlet, the electric turret drive, ...)

[delta6]

Codemeter warning pops up when starting my computer..Should i ignore or do i need a new codemeter stick??

[Gibsonm]

9 minutes ago, delta6 said:

Codemeter warning pops up when starting my computer..Should i ignore or do i need a new codemeter stick??

 

This is probably in the wrong area of the forum (this part of the thread may be relocated), but it may help everyone to know what the "codemeter warning" is?

 

Edited March 8, 2023 by Gibsonm

[Ssnake]

Most likely, you'll need to upgrade your SB Pro PE license to 4.3, rather than a new CM stick.

[Hedgehog]

5 hours ago, Ssnake said:

First of all, everything that we do is putting our estimations into our models. Estimations are always subject to revision. We never base estimations on a single source, but weigh the various and often contradicting data against each other. Some of our methodology is documented in the user's manual, in the appendix on armor technology.

 

It seems like the final production batch of the Leopard 2A4 received a significant upgrade to armor arrays contained in the frontal turret and hull cavities respectively. Our previous model in Steel Beasts used that as the basis to set the protection value for all Leopard 2A4. Even then it overestimated the protection level. That overestimation has been reduced for the entire Leopard 2 fleet.

The 2A4 got further downgraded, because the final production batch was a mere 70 tanks out of nearly 2100 produced, so the new estimate is more representative of the whole Leopard 2A4 fleet as it was ca. 1985 rather than the "overoptimistic best case assumption" that it was before.

 

All Leopard 2A5 and later use a Leopard 2A4 with the new armor package as a baseline since the upgrade process reeplaced those packages along with the addition of the distinctive add-on armor (and further changes, like the new gun mantlet, the electric turret drive, ...)

I hope Rheinmetall is going to fix the CR2 protection levels on the CR3 upgrade.

[Gibsonm]

16 minutes ago, Hedgehog said:

I hope Rheinmetall is going to fix the CR2 protection levels on the CR3 upgrade.

 

I'm pretty sure they have nothing to do with the hull?

 

or do you mean the revamped turret?

 

Edited March 8, 2023 by Gibsonm

[Hedgehog]

1 hour ago, Gibsonm said:

 

I'm pretty sure they have nothing to do with the hull?

 

or do you mean the revamped turret?

 

Turret

[Volcano]

On 3/8/2023 at 10:35 AM, Ssnake said:

All Leopard 2A5 and later use a Leopard 2A4 with the new armor package as a baseline since the upgrade process reeplaced those packages along with the addition of the distinctive add-on armor (and further changes, like the new gun mantlet, the electric turret drive, ...)

 

In other words, no, the later Leo tanks have not been changed (yet).

 

There is a plan to go back at some point and revise the later Leos, based on new estimates, but they probably won't change drastically - just more of a sanity check.  (Edit: This might happen sooner than we think.)

 

As for the Challenger 2, the fact is, those estimates from before can be looked back on as fantasy, made at a time when we did the best we could based on what little was publicly known.

 

Very generally speaking here, now with the new estimates it is a bit more based in reality, based on what we feel are better assumptions (for those variables where assumptions are required). Nothing is ever claimed to be perfect, but here we are talking about turret frontal protection being reduced from absurd to extremely capable. For a tank turret *designed* (not produced) from late 1980s to early-mid 1990s, it is a much more plausible estimation given its physical thickness, turret weight, and design period, than assuming that it was designed to protect against point blank penetration of every KE round up to rail gun ammunition of the 2050s. 

 

(With the revision it puts it in line as being comparable but still the best protected turret design for its era, from all angles. The revised front turret is protected from all threat KE ammo up until 2010s at point blank range (at the "normal" LOS angle of attack) and at typical engagement ranges (2500m+) it is still well protected against even today's threat KE ammo as well, with any penetration being marginal at those ranges. It is a reasonable assumption that, without any significant upgrades to its armor like the M1s and Leo 2s throughout the years, that the CR2 is now reaching the limits of its design capabilities, hence the push for a CR3.)

 

Anyway, when they do finally introduce a CR3, the armor would not be the same. Even if they kept the same exact turret shape (for some strange reason) then inserts can/would be changed with different composition of modern lighter materials, etc. For example, one thing the Brits have historically always liked to do is to do is put a lot of protection on the sides, more than everyone else does, and this adds a great deal to the weight. One question would be if whether they continue to do that, or just move more protection to the front, or go lighter for more speed, etc. with the improved 1500+ hp engine. Who knows, maybe they will do what they tend to do, and add even more armor and make it slower. All we can do is make estimates and revise periodically. 

[dejawolf]

10 hours ago, Hedgehog said:

Turret

well, the previous estimate for the challenger 2 turret was basically done by taking our estimate of the abrams armour closest to the challenger 2, estimating the thickness of the challenger 2 front turret, and the result was our previous estimate. all of it publicly sourced. 

if we used a bunch of top secret military material for our work, there's not a lot of military customers who would allow pro PE to be released.