benpark

I'll log that to see about getting it fixed with any upcoming patches (as it will be the same for the model texture across every map it is used in). If a month or so goes by, I'll mod one up and post it here. I don't check here daily, but I'll catch it. For now, that was the warmest house in town before everyone scrambled.

As of this morning (apparently) Twitter links will no longer open for those of us that will not be signing up for it, so please add a synopsis if the only information linked is their truncated format.

That did seem very low, so maybe the audio route isn't viable, unless there is some resonant frequency/vibration method possible from directly above. What would be the pressure amount most of the mines would need for activation for most anti-personal mines?

I'm now fixated on the mine issue, so thank you for the detailed assessment strac-sap. The lack of systems to deal with the densities we are seeing the Russians use is an impetus for some quick changes. That, or clear the other side of the mine-fields completely. The Soviet army certainly understood their stopping power, so these mined areas are doing the work of entire battalions of missing Russian troops. The majority of the mines we are seeing used in Ukraine seem to be fused to pressure-activated from above, exploding when something around 3-5lbs. (an insanely low number) presses upon it. If this weren't directly-applied pressure (which seems the most desirable method to demine) - How much (if any) pulsed air pressure from above a mine/mines would need to be exerted to fire off anything under a cone of something like an intense audio burst? Traditional demining vehicles seem to slow in the new world of human mayhem. My cocktail-napkin demining rig would be 3 (or more) drones, each with some type of audio emitter, moving in tandem across a mined area to clear it. Something of this sort could solve the issue of most clearer mechanical damage, and would not really need any on-board armaments (aside from the audio emitter). Remote detonation from above also removes the need for terrain-conforming rollers. Drones have proven to be tough to knock out, and could be swarmed for big fields or areas that are under observed fire. It could also be ominous sounding as all get out. Or ridiculous, depending on soundtrack.

Even if there was some back-room dealings prior to what we know about, things do seem to have spun out of any intended plan or control. The illusion of control is an ominous thing to project, until the wheels come off. These seems like very risky bets, all-around to declare such an end to the festivities. Mortals, overestimating their abilities- everywhere I look lately.

"Reports there will be major changes in Russian Ministry of Defense leadership in exchange for Wagner halting its advance on Moscow" Time for an old school Soviet purge? Is this real?

Right. July 1st.

What is the carrot for Prigozhin if this is true, since he has the stick (for the time being, when he has the complete initiative)?

"Night at the Opera" changes (both sides) involve giving extra to the carry-over percentage for the AI side. If you wiped them out previously, you wiped them out. The new one should offer a more active fight now in the second half (from either side, as is the concept). Axis AI plans adapted accordingly, with a few extra tweaks in the AI plans here and there that I'll leave for you all to uncover while you are storming the castle in Berlin. You could always back up your current versions if you liked the strict carry-over "short-term, single area of front-line campaign" STSAFLC (pronounced "STSALFC") concept for this battle, or want a slightly easier variant if you find it tough from either side.

Of course! The original. Over-engineered, for engineering.

This remote deminer is the only thing I've found that looks beyond a prototype, which could be in some form of production beyond what is seen in the attached press images: https://www.military.com/equipment/m160-remote-controlled-mine-clearance-system

Just like that episode of Black Mirror - We have the now standard drones that drop explosives like harpies from Hades, remote explosive filled powerboats, and now robotic dogpigs that will no doubt unleash some sort of furiously awful droppings. What's the deal with mine-clearance not being done with expendable, remotely controlled vehicles in 2023?

Two other things that may help, from looking at the image- -You have a lot of "ditch lock" usage. That cuts down on the engine's ability to make smooth transitions. Useful, but overkill in many situations. -The water has various heights. It's always at the lowest elevation set, so that may be confusing extra numbers in what can start to look like The Matrix scroll after a while. The types of tiles you place alongside the riverbanks will impact how gradual a slope you may get going into the water. IIRC, mud is the most gradual. Look at real terrain as a guide on how to do it, and whatever images you can find of the actual areas. That helps the most, and gets evaluated in the 3D view, rather than just placing it and hoping for the best. It looks like you have rocky terrain set. That may also be bumping that terrain a bit.

You also have rivers at right angles to the bridges. You could try to offset that by moving the river tile at the right angle over one tile. That can "pinch" the terrain. If this map is from a historical source, check that the right angle river-course, as it could be better served by using a stream tile. Those look most realistic (generally) by placing the stream tiles, then pushing the stream tiles down one level from the surrounding terrain. You could also add a mix of mud/marsh/tall grass for the denser areas under the stream tile, which also provides cover. The secondary thing to think about when making maps is how the AI will use them. Bridges challenge the path-finding if they are surrounded by other choices, or explicit blockages. If the terrain gets to where you have it now, I may place a vehicle on the map, and run a pathing test for the bridges and waterways. That's part of the design challenge, to get the tools to all work together. That takes testing the thing fairly often if it gets complex.

I would use the same height ("15") as the road/rail alongside it in the three squares alongside the riverbank, on each side. The two alongside are a "14" height, currently. That may level the rail a little better, as that looks like the terrain is getting pinched by having the two adjoining tiles at a lower level (auto-set, as there isn't a tile height indicated by you).

I would- -Place defensive positions in sensible terrain, with a retreat position situated behind, with some cover between the two positions. The fall-back position should have a few HMGs and mortars set up, if this is an existing position and not hastily put together. -Split your forces into two basic forces: "Cover, then Retreat" (AI 1) and "Retreat First" (AI 2). Both are in the initial defensive position. These forces have Ambush to a set distance, dictated by the terrain, and the following factor... -Place a Trigger at the distance (generally a line the length of the map to punish edge dodgers) at which things will be impossible to retreat out of if the enemy is getting the upper hand. Your defensive fire should kick in at around double this for the AI to have any chance of retreat. -Connect your Trigger to AI 2, and make an order to move (I generally use Assault) to the fall-back positions. Use a Withdraw Facing (it's used by holding down CNTL or ALT, I forget - but it should be pink) with the end-point of this order. The Assault will have the AI group use bounding movement. To simulate a break-down of cohesion, you could have them all tumble out of their positions at Fast or Quick. Less chance of survival that way. The Withdraw order will allow the use of smoke in the direction placed, and will also dictate that the retreated units will face the enemy on arrival. The remaining force can be ordered to do the same with a closer trigger to the defensive lines. Or they could both be placed further out. Fine tuning is done in Scenario Author Mode, Turn-Based. Just blast through, and watch for issues. Tweak. repeat, until the result is looking good.

An on-line Photoshop clone that should export correctly - I only use Photoshop, but have recommended this in the past, and people seemed to find it useful: https://www.photopea.com/

Where it gets really into the depths of true insanity is when you think it may be useful to trigger other units' triggers. I've probably seen Time fold in on itself in Scenario Author mode doing this, but it might just be because I'm on the Steve Sleep Plan.

Feel free to ask questions about any areas you get stuck on. A few of us tend to live overlong in the thing, so we can jump in on information for people learning the ropes. It may not be the most intuitive of systems, but it has a lot of adaptability once you get the hang of it. Most of the confusing bits (2D to 3D/timings/triggers) initially are the most open to creativity, so it can be worth the work if the end goal is something pre-conceived, or historically based.

I generally switch from 2D to 3D when I finish with a "zone" that I have completed in the 2D view. There's no demarcation of this, it's based on what I can remember doing - complex areas get lots of 2D/3D switching. When I get to the point where I'm going to forget if I placed a church or a building, I switch over. Or when I complete part of a town or any complex terrain area, where the textures need to be considered for any realism reason, but also for visual patterns that aren't looking correct, or are distracting to the viewer. It takes switching fairly often to get slight dips in terrain that may be present in period photographs, etc. There's only so much anyone can stand clicking all of those windows, textures, and balconies in 3D view (cities, in particular), so that limits my time there. It's set by what the one's capacity is in memory between the two views of reality. I try to flip between the two fairly often to check the 3D, even with longer load times. Yes, often times they do. An example is when we added "Germany" to RTFR - that also covers things like Flavor Objects. This is done by a "Mod Tag", which may be used to swap in an alternate model or texture when that Mod Tag is active. That's done by the game (like adding Germany, which is a Mod Tag in itself, but coded in), or by a modder. These can be added using new or existing Mod Tags. Cracking the BRZ's open is the best way to see how this operates in the filenames.

I did try upping these a long while ago, as the distant view is the thing that is the most lacking in the graphics for me. Same result, which was odd as you noted. This does seem where a mod could provide some improvement, but the expected changes don't do it. Somehow. This is one of the weird ones. The engine must be loading them in based upon the file-name. If it passes that check, then the file gets loaded. It doesn't trigger a crash or graphic oddity in the configurations you listed, which is also odd. There is something else at play. I think you are good using the default, or slightly higher PPI if it loads. I think I do the big texture, then just re-scale down from that with a resampler that doesn't sharpen or blur too much.

Yeah, I think that's right!

I recall that if you use the "Face" AI command for both sandbag and AT gun, they largely retain the desired angle.

CANDYGRAM FOR MONGO

I just watched this, and was thinking about how this drone war had evolved over the past year. Footage like this will have a chilling normalcy as miniaturization and mass come into play.