Jump to content

CarlWAW

Members
  • Posts

    247
  • Joined

Posts posted by CarlWAW

  1. we need lot of slot separate for set tanks skins too !! if possible please considered to seperate each model texture file not combining the set :)

     

     

    I find the current system with scenario related mods very confusing and not good.

    The game knows, where the scenarios are stored. A more straighforward and user and scenario designer friendly solution would be, if it would simply check, if there exists a subfolder with the same name in the scenario folder. If such a subfolder exists, the game additionally loads the contained BMPs or BRZs in that folder.

  2. Minimum safety distance (MSD) according to FM 6-141-1 Field Artillery Target Analysis and Weapons Employment: Nonnuclear (15 February 1978):

    @ 1000 m:

    60 mm: 260 m

    81 mm: 330 m

     

    Minimum safe distance (MSD) is defined as the distance in meters from the intended center of impact at which a specific degree of risk and vulnerability will not be exceeded with a 99% (3 σ) assurance.

    99% = 3 σ = 260 m

    1 σ = 87 m diameter (62% of rounds impact inside) - 11 action spots

    2 PErange = 0,6457 σ= 55,96 m

    PErange = ~28 m

    PEdeflection = ~ 0,66 * PErange = 18,6 m

     

    PErange = 28 m

    PEdeflection = 19 m

     

    PE50% = 56 m * 38 m (7 x 5 action spots or 2128 m²!)

     

    Only 50% of all fired rounds should fall in a square of roughly 7x5 action spots.

     

    I have never read that applied WW2 tactics of any side used single mortars to knock out guns. If it would have worked, nobody would have been so stupid to risk tanks or to waste 105s or amass 81s to do so.

    The mathematics support it.

     

    For most players it's probably mire fun that CM allows to do so, but realistic it's not.

  3. I hope the behaviour of mortars will not be changed torwards more accuracy. I think they are already too precise and effective against point targets.

    According to my knowledge, in reality not even singular 81 mm tubes were useful as gun killers. It was the dangerous task of the tankers, often after artillery support, to deal with them. The smaller calibres were even less effective. The 75 mm infantry guns were more effective, because of their much higher precision and the more effective grenades.

    I guess the majority would not like the gun terminator weapon #1 in CM, mortars, be reduced in it's effectivity, but I would like it, if the realsim was increased. The use of a single barreled 81 mm mortar was lying more in the effect of supression of an area and less in the effect of knocking out spot targets. 60 and 50 mm mortars should be even worse and only good for (hopefully) supressing a dozen or so action spots.

  4. At 2:50 THAT's the sound from a smartphone mic:

    youtu.be/POzyfVNuJx0?t=2m50s

    Later in that video one can see the cable that the guitar is not acoustically recorded but recorded on a separate track.

    That's the proove, that it's not a simple smartphone recording.

    He has a powerful voice and sings dynamically. Even untrained ears should be able to hear, that the loudness is compressed. Consumer products use automatic gain control (AGC) in their audio path, to be able to capture all different kinds of amplitudes. The transient sounds of the guitar would simply vanish during the loud parts of a powerful voice, but the guitar not only is not covered, but the midrange is compressed while the transients are kept alive.

    Compression is used on his voice, too.

    Besides the quality of the product itself, which is indicating that standard recording techniques are used: He is a professional musician, why should he not use standard techniques but act like a layman? Musicians usually have ears.

    Since everyone of you probably has a smartphone, I'd suggest you make some recordings with it while you sing and then drop something loud while you keep singing. And then tell me, if the louder signal had an impact on the less loud signal...

    The myth of singing into a consumer product and becoming famous - has been a well crafted lie from the music industry. No good sound without without (semi)professional equipment and techniques. Smartphones are not. :D

  5. Surely it does sound like a toy guitar, but like a professionally recorded one.

    Can you hear how close the voices sound? Although they were recorded from far away (according to the vid) in an awfully sounding room.

    From my experience it's technically not possible to catch the breathing of a voice from one meter away with such bad mics - and if a loud source like a guitar even is playing into the mic even less so. All nuances in the voice are lost, because they are way too silent compared to the sound from the guitar.

  6. I only have heard it on the notebook, but I am quite sure this is fake.

    The transients of the guitar have studio quality. The sound of the left hand fingers were also catched perfectly -> my guess: a setup using 2 condenser mics for the guitar.

    Voices are not distant, but each voice was recorded with a close setup (consonants and breathing).

    -> guitar and voices were recorded with separate mics with close mic setups in a studio.

    And huge Wal Mart stores don't reverberate but sound dry like a studio... ;)

    But a very clever idea. :D

    I guess it's a keyframed video and the keyframe is cleverly moved away, when sync problems with the lips and fingers could become obvious.

    But the real singers and the guitar player nevertheless are very good.

  7. Yup. The rules, as I remember them, introduced a lot of practical problems that only a few people felt like suffering through.

    What practical problems do you think about? The practical problems with the locked view on units could be overcome, if movement within the action square(s) a unit is placed in, would be allowed.

    The real problem with Franko's rules is the enormous self-control which is necessary to stick to the rules, when you are experiencing battlefield chaos which can immediately and always be overcome by moving around freely. Therefore it's simply not possible to play these rules H2H. Even playing them against the AI demands way too much self-discipline. But this mode gives an unprecedented intense experience.

    For players who do not have the patience for PBEM and find the AI boring: this mode makes playing the AI challenging.

    It is suited perfectly for people with not enough time, because even very tiny battles can become intense.

     

    Note that the Player as God problem was also not eliminated by Franco's Rules, though it did hinder a small part of it by reducing the player's ability to willy-nilly examine the map.

    I think this is a huge understatement. The experience of terrain FOW this mode creates is just incredible. How will it look like behind the ridge? Or the impact of bad weather on vision. Or the chaos, when an artillery barrage goes down and you can't escape it. Or the feeling for slopes, the importance of height. All that is missing with free movement and this mode brings it to life.

    I would suggest you to choose a tiny platoon sized attack in thick fog, print the map overview and (and try to) stick to the rules from pre-setup to finish. You will be stunned about the level of realism and chaos your game is already able to model if the god's view is taken away and replaced with unit view. If you like realism, as developer you should give this mode a honest try before judging it.

×
×
  • Create New...