new playable vehicles

[frinik]

 Frinik,
You'll actually have to exchange places with the gunner (Ctrl-F2) to escape the commander's fate; you're considered one of the tank crew, so if you've "bought the farm" that's by definition a mission failure 


Kyth I actually play gunner as my default position??I am the gunner and the moment the commander gets killed end of mission.

[Mistwalker]

Mistwalker,
About the bb_round parameter, is it something to set the AI pathfinding (number of moves calculated or something)?

I'm not sure what it is exactly, I just know it has something to do with size of the vehicle for AI pathfinding or something like that. In Achtung Panzer game it is set to 10 for all vehicles, so I've changed bb_round to 10 for all vehicles in SF. It seems like they now make less unnessesary turns when encountering obstacle and a lot less bump in each other.

[Kyth]

I'm not sure what it is exactly, I just know it has something to do with size of the vehicle for AI pathfinding or something like that. In Achtung Panzer game it is set to 10 for all vehicles, so I've changed bb_round to 10 for all vehicles in SF. It seems like they now make less unnessesary turns when encountering obstacle and a lot less bump in each other.

Interesting tip, I'll give it a try,

Kyth I actually play gunner as my default position??I am the gunner and the moment the commander gets killed end of mission.

Frinik, are you using the 'default position' slider in the settings? I suspect there's something buggy with that setting.
Just to be sure, did you get the same problem in any of my missions? They're purpose-built with the gunner as the designated player position,

[frinik]

Mistwalker where exactly do you find those bb_round folders of  yours?

Kyth I cant' t recall having that problem with your missions but I am not sure?

[Kyth]

I'll take the liberty of answering both questions:

- The 'bb_round' settings are in each of the tech_cfg files,
- I'd suggest, in any other missions, select 'F1', then 'Ctrl-F2' to switch your virtual crewman from commander to gunner. Of course, gunners can get killed, too 

[frinik]

Thanks for both tips Kyth!

[frinik]

  Kyth I checked one tech_cfg file but I did nto find the bb-file .perhaps because my tec_cfg files are in mistranslated Russian.Where exactlydo I find it?What's the default value?

[Stig]

Mistwalker wrote:

And the difference between tank cockpit in this game and plane cockpit in some plane simulation is that in plane you can observe your surroundings and view important data on the control panel.
In tank cockpit neither can see the battlefield (you have to switch to periscope/hole/sight view for that) nor there's useful data on the control panel (except rpm and speed for driver maybe).

You're not understanding the difference between elements of the simulation and the more specific nature of the "player interface". What you wrote up above is exactly the reason we should insist upon having tank interiors in our playable tanks. If you are not unbuttoned, and not using a periscope/hole/sight view, then you should see the interior of the tank.... and this should be as accurate as all the rest of the stuff in the sim.

Also, your comparison about aircraft sims vs. tank sims supports my argument as well. It's apples and oranges. Aircraft were built to be able to see out of (and the issues stemmed from also providing pilot protection and support to the airframe, which, at least for WWII served to restrict visibility... up until blown canopies started to become more the norm)... tanks, however were built for protection first, visibility probably not even "second".

So, a tank sim SHOULD be claustrophobic, and challenging to "see" in. Thus, the decision to button or unbutton the hatches starts to take on the importance it did in the real event. And it also sheds light on why the use of external views in these games is such a "cheat"...

Incidentally, there's many a flight sim pilot who will argue these same points... they ascertain that canopy framing wasn't an issue (yeah, right), they'll advocate for playing via external views, etc. In my view (if you'll pardon that pun), they're simply dodging challenges, to make it easier for them to play a GAME (not a sim), and to improve their odds in a completely unrealistic fashion.

[Stig]

The problem:
The modelers use blue prints from magazines like Osprey to make the 3d models. They only need to translate those blue prints to the 3d editor/modeler (and animate the model parts, adding the damage values and things like that)
But there are not blue prints of the cockpits(it's easy to make a blue print of an exterior, not the same for an interior since there are too many parts).. what they can find about cockpits? only pics... so they need to model the cockpit from scratch (an artist work)
That's why only a very very few people make 3dr party cockpits (for any simulator)

Often, for aircraft as well as for tanks, you can find visual resources for interiors. Walkaround series books, photo documentation from visits to tank museums (found on the internet) can usually uncover these. Also, occasionally, you'll find a crew manual for an AFV (on the net as a .pdf or as a collectible item on eBay).

These aren't "blueprints" per se, but they can often give you enough material to have a go at making crew spaces.

Even in the case of aircraft, "blueprints" or "3-views" don't exist for the interiors. You have to extrapolate from angled photos or diagrams in manuals to create the items. The concepts, for a 3D modeler are almost exactly the same as those used to model the exterior. It's a challenge, sure, but it's doable. And, where data is impossible to find, one learns how to make educated guesses that seem plausible... and who's to refute it, when there's no contradicting data to be found?

In the end, the bigger challenge would then be to create animations for the crew to suit a new interior (new loading routines, repositioning radio guys and hull gunners, etc.). I'm not sure at all how this sim makes use of figures (armatures and animation routines) and how these might be accessed from the stock files.

[Kyth]

Another good and readily available information source for AFVs would be 1/35 scale models 

Recent models do a pretty good job of replicating the tanks' exterior and interior dimensions, so this could be a starting point in establishing the cockpit layout. The rest, as they say, can be 'imagineered', 

[Kyth]

  Kyth I checked one tech_cfg file but I did nto find the bb-file .perhaps because my tec_cfg files are in mistranslated Russian.Where exactlydo I find it?What's the default value?

Just spotted this query 

You have got to be kidding me, all the the tech_cfg (vehicle_name.engcfg) files should have a bb_round entry!
Translated or not, all the entry names are in English. By the way, it seems the default value is '5.0'.

[frinik]

  OK I found it! It was under Gear..... So if I set the value at 10 instead of 5.0 this is bound to improve the AI's driving behaviour?

[Kyth]

Hopefully, that will be the result