SB Pro PE 2.5x - News

[3Star]

The M1A2 has tons of differences over the M1 and M1A1. A dual axis mirror for the gun sight, a FLIR for the gunner with something like 50x power zoom (or something close to that), a flexible mounted cal .50 on the roof as opposed to a remote fired weapon, an commanders independent thermal viewer, more armor, and so on.

The FLIR is a SEP enhancement, and the x50 is actually a digital enhancement, not a zoom. It's not on the regular M1A2. I'm unsure about the dual-axis mirror, that may be on a regular A2 but it's effectively another FCS to model.

NTM

[Volcano]

The FLIR is a SEP enhancement, and the x50 is actually a digital enhancement, not a zoom. It's not on the regular M1A2. I'm unsure about the dual-axis mirror, that may be on a regular A2 but it's effectively another FCS to model.

NTM

Well, I was referring to the (SEP), the one being shown in the video in SB - I guess I should of clarified that.

Everything except the modeling of the interior (and the C4 equipment) is a -relatively- simple change over from the standpoint of a sim.

Well, it is always nice to read how "simple" something is, something that other people are working on day in and day out. Anyway, if it was as simple as you say, then the vehicle would be playable right now. Obviously there is more to the matter than duplicating view screens and we aren't even talking about 3D interior issues. There isn't much else that needs to be said about it other than the fact that some people want a playable M1A2(SEP) just as much as some people want a playable T-72, both are implied. No one said that either would not happen "one day".

[Michael F]

I said it was simple, not quick. It's a simple matter of triage, they have better things to work on.

The engine, the code, and the visual resources are in the game (shy the 3d models, but the exterior one is apparently finished) so it's a matter of doing the work and hunting the bugs.

As someone who's done ballistic modeling and 3d terrain, those are some of the hardest parts. The fire control system would probably give me nightmares to make. Considering, as I said, every single part of the equation is in-game (except the interior) it's not starting from scratch, it's a matter of re-purposing.

This is a ten year old project and a piece of art in functionality. Everything is smooth and slick. That doesn't happen my accident. Well organized code, which is obviously in place, saves a huge amount of work.

Then again, this is an awful lot of conversation about someone asking if there was a 3d interior of the A2.

[Gibsonm]

I guess we’ll all find out in about 3 weeks or so.

[Koen]

Seriously the knobs and lights work, I can't expect that to be anything but a high-end commission or a labor of love.

That is my impression as well, but I would rather put it like this:

primarily a labor of love and also a high-end commission.

Best rgds, K

[Ssnake]

The M1A2SEP model was added along with many other 3D models over the course of the last three months. Even if it may be relatively simple to do, there simply wasn't enough time to do it before we have to freeze the code. You can't introduce a new vehicle at the last minute. For the last four to six weeks before code freeze you only address bugs and major problems, and don't introduce new playable vehicles. There was one exception that we made because it required virtually no changes whatsoever in other places. More about that later.

[oscar19681]

The M1A2SEP model was added along with many other 3D models over the course of the last three months. Even if it may be relatively simple to do, there simply wasn't enough time to do it before we have to freeze the code. You can't introduce a new vehicle at the last minute. For the last four to six weeks before code freeze you only address bugs and major problems, and don't introduce new playable vehicles. There was one exception that we made because it required virtually no changes whatsoever in other places. More about that later.

So that definitly means no playable M1A2SEP . I kind of had hopes we would see it anyways. Dont get me wrong but what was the motivation to add it as unplayable. Esim doesnt have the U.S army/usmc as client but still they add a M1A2SEP . Sure its cool to have in the update but it hardly serves a purpuse if its unplayable. Its basicly the same story with the chally 2 . But at least the M1A2SEP would have been much easyer to add as playable. If it was the only new playable MBT in the update i would have been happy with it. Now i,m crossing my fingers that we will have any new playable MBT,s at all. Its just a real shame stuff like the M1A2SEP does not make it in simply because there is a lack of time and manpower. I know esim works hard to try to give us want we want. But i cant help thinking that because of this lack of time work is only half done.

[Stratos]

Need to wait and see what more adds the upgrade in terms of crewable. But I can't imagine right now any MBT that could make it. I supose more IFV or APC will be.

[oscar19681]

Need to wait and see what more adds the upgrade in terms of crewable. But I can't imagine right now any MBT that could make it. I supose more IFV or APC will be.

Well the viking seems to be crewable. But i dont hope it counts as one of the crewable,s

[Ssnake]

Of course it counts as a crewable vehicle. It has a driver's place, a commander/gunner position, and a team that can be dismounted. It may have similar functionality like other vehicles that existed before, but the same can be said for every MBT and IFV that was added after the first.

Where else would you draw the line?

WRT to a "totally useless" M1A2 SEP - I guess that means that any vehicle that doesn't have crew positions is just as useless. You could of course just as well look at the perspective that its addition offers ... but it seems that that is asking for too much.

[mpow66m]

Will the Marder be crewable?

[Koen]

Will the Marder be crewable?

I would be highly surprised if that would be the case

(but not at all displeased: a German crewable IFV to go with the Leo's will be wow).

My best guess for the 3rd crewable is ... the Centauro.

Also, Nils mentioned a possible 4th crewable veh, no (but still some fixes to be done, hence doubts about releasing or not)

-> Any (good) decision there already, Nils ?

On a side note: my knees start to hurt,

from praying that a non-crewable M109 would be in the update,

but I keep hoping & believing :-)

Rgds, K

[Steel_Hamster]

I belive the Centauro is one of the crewables too.

As for the future I'm thinking Puma IFV. Something with a little more "omph" then the Marders.

[Ssnake]

Here's today's gallery update #1

[Zipuli]

Already waiting for #2

[Retro]

I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to display some blinking text "this is not a bug; it's a feature" whenever a tank located within a deep-snow area is in the focus.. just to cut down on false bug reports

Did I read correctly that this works just like the infantry camouflage feature, so that the vehicles "sink" into the ground? Or does the ground height get increased? If the former, how would this work with bridges (or at roadsides)? Wouldn't vehicles "jump" to the height of the road/bridge when crossing a boundary?

[Edit: nevermind, I should have searched

Sharp eye. In the terrain theme you can now set a checkmark "is Snow" and then set its extruded hight to up to 1.20m, IIRC. For LOS calculations the elevated surface will be used, but for collision detection the snow is not being taken into account. Furthermore, you can define whether all roads, or just minor roads, or no roads will be snow covered.

[fidelthefallguy]

Question about the CH-2, did you guys model the auxiliary power plant? I remember reading some place that the Chally-2 has a 2nd power plant in case the primary is taken out. The 2nd one provides just enough hp and electrical for the unit to limp off the field for repairs reducing the need for recovery vehicles being placed in the line of fire.

[IrishHussar]

Question about the CH-2, did you guys model the auxiliary power plant? I remember reading some place that the Chally-2 has a 2nd power plant in case the primary is taken out. The 2nd one provides just enough hp and electrical for the unit to limp off the field for repairs reducing the need for recovery vehicles being placed in the line of fire.

This is not true. As in Cheiftan and CR1 the CR2 has an auxilliary generating engine which gave power only to the electrical generators allowing full turret services to be powered when the main engine is switched off. It has absolutley no physical connections or gearing to provide mobility.

Irish

[fidelthefallguy]

Ah, thanks for the correction there, I read wrong then.

[Koen]

Another question if I may:

With the new airportbuildings (and tarmac ?!), can helo's land now

- and not just hover in the air some 2 m above the ground ?

THX, K

[sabot_ready]

Dont get me wrong but what was the motivation to add it as unplayable.

Because I asked for it !

[Ssnake]

Another question if I may:

With the new airportbuildings (and tarmac ?!), can helo's land now

- and not just hover in the air some 2 m above the ground ?

You can land them manually, but not script it.

[Ssnake]

Here's today's gallery update #1

...and #2.

[Gibsonm]

Have you extended the dismounted FO party functionality to the FIST-V wagon too?

Maybe this was overlooked in the M1A2 SEP chat?

[pongo]

love it!

#12 is my favourite.

With the gaps in the buildings, is it possible to fire through them, or are they transparencies of the building model's frame (if you see what I mean)?