ww2steel

Patboy: thanks, I'll check out GIMP2 ... whenever I'm not running the house on a generator (lst power here in VA again last night from big storms). Yes, screeny with unit info still showing so I can make a unit manual (like I do for all CM games) without the base disc looking goofy. Thanks, Mike

Thank you anyway. Paint Shop Pro 8 (have) can do them, but I can't figure it out. The software is about as user friendly as a nuclear reactor. I've spent two days trying to get it without luck. Maybe someone will read this that can do it for me?

Hello guys, I've spent several days now trying to make a alhpa channel for the bmps in Paint Shop Pro 8 without luck. What I'm trying to do is be able to take screenshots without the stupid nuclear flourescent unit base marker and the ability to remove it was deleted with CMx2. To have the unit data showing, the unit needs to be selected and then the screeny looks dumb. Should be a <1min mods for the guys with the know-how and proper software. (I also need it for CMSF, but the markers are the same size so should be usable.) Please help?

I've been looking for a while now because I was sure someone had done this, but no luck. For screenshot purposes while still having a unit's selected and data showing but without the giant flourescent green disc... I was hoping that someone could make me a "base green.bmp" that is entirely a transparent/ alpha layer. SHOULD be simple, but I can't seem to get it done with any software I have. I guess I can then rename it the the other three markers and also use it in CMBN. I figured it was a simple pink like in CMx1... but it appears not. Can anyone help me? Thanks!

@ Childres: I cropped them and saved them as .gifs to save bandwidth. Is there something else I am missing?

Okay, so the 'puter gened enemies are a Canadian light tank troop, etc. I have three Tigers, etc. going around the right flank. The AI counterattacks and a flurry of wee panzers sprint down a road. POW. I instantly pause with the escape button out of confusion. Only one tank fired (I checked each one) and TWO Stuarts (a III and a V) were out of action. I watched both drive into view, BAM, initial hits on the side of the hull as pictured, one was burning, both out of action. Not only realistic... but AWESOME. (I play as US 99% of the time so also... SCARY.) A few minutes later another Tiger lit up another Stuart and sure enough, 50 yd behind it in the grass there was a puff of smoke. Two thumbs up Battlefront! The game has its problems, and issues I have griped about repeatedly, but right now I am thoroughly impressed!

Womble- thank you! Delete does the trick. At least that part's fixed for me. unfortunately that was an afterthought to my primary three points. Do we know if there are any patches/ modules coming out any time soon?

Light AT gun somewhere at 12 o'clock, mortar shelling your boys at 9 o'clock, 200 yards. A couple of well placed HE rounds could fix the mortar... the problem, your driver is RETARDED. Every time I give a fire order he turns the hull, even with a paused movement order. To make it worse as the hull sits there and slowly turns the fast turret keeps cycling through rotating aiming rotating aiming rotating aiming until the hull is done. ...and now the 5cm gun that was in front of you has a penetrable surface to aim at. There is no way I have found to leave the turret waiting to fire at something to the side and the hull a different way... and there are MANY reasons to do this: ambush, a quick reaction without changing intended movement direction, and the fact that a tank's armor is NOT strongest from the direct front. (A Tiger's armor is actually strongest about 35° from front.) PLEASE: even as a quick work around, make the hull stay put when there is a paused movement order. BUG REPORTS: I doubt I'm the first one to report this, but just in case (and just in case I'm doing something wrong)... I can't get on screen mortars to STOP firing sometimes. I cancel the target, tell them to hide, give them a target arc with nothing in it... ploomp, ploomp, ploomp, until I tell them to pack up. It's the only way I've seen to stop them. It doesn't happen every time, but does happen often enough to be irritating. It happens in both direct and indirect (on map) fire missions. Also, I keep having occasional issues with smoke. Mortars, tanks carrying or with access to smoke of some type will not fire additional missions. Example- mortar fires two smoke and then I cancel target. Smoke clears but smoke is now greyed out and wont fire additional even though there are four more smoke rounds with the team (or in the magazine for vehicles). OH- can we have a quick hot key for cancel target? I see where there is a slot for it but when I put something into the text file for cancel target it still doesn't work. That's a good hotkey to have. (Thinking about it since both of these have something to do with cancel target.) See ya, Mike

Okay, I just tried to take a Tiger Platoon and trim it to a single tank. Nothing else on there. 338 points by itself, I'm being charged 388 at the top. I screw around and finally get it to only give me the BN HQ tank, sure enough, 392 but being charged. 442. ???? it's the only thing on there. Rarity is zeroed. Deleted all. Tried an inf Co. Total plus 50 points. Add a 434 point Tiget to the Inf Co you only get charged 434 points. Add a 319 Tiger (Zug HQ) from a separate formation and you get charged 369 for the non-existant remaining BN. THE SHORT VERSION: You get charged +50pts for each formation. Bug? Probably not. It is annoying regardless. CHEAPER TO BUY TWO FORMATIONS OR ADD A TANK? Pzgrn Plt (armored, dismounted, simply 4 squads) + a Tiger mid, All reg, norm, etc Two formations: 144+348+50+50 = 592 Add on Tiger: 144+363+50 = 557 It is as I (we) guessed, it's cheaper to do add-ons. Hope this helps everyone at least a little.

I guess that makes sense... kind of. I'll look into it more. Maybe instead of a platoon of armor & inf I should take inf and add armor to it. I'll check on what is cheaper. The process seems really tedious & complicated compared to the way it used to be, but that topic's been worn out and I don't want to get everyone riled up again! I'm glad we can pick our troops at all.

I really don't know what it is. The platoon as selected was 156 (no bazookas, etc) in the right panel, already bought, but the BN cost was 206 even though everything else was deleted and zeroed. The 'typical' points conversion had already been given to it because it had already been bought, but I was still being 'charged' for 50 extra points. I have been just kind of keeping a mental note of it trying to figure out if it was a bug or not and since I've been unable to figure it out I decided to finally post. I had the 'suggested' tank platoon. I deleted the rockets and FO (map too small) and took instead this inf plt, only to find (as I had seen before) that the platoon costs more than the platoon says it costs. Again, I am not talking about how points change after you buy 'em. I am talking about how the sum of the unit doesn't equal, well, the sum of the unit. Anybody else seeing this?

I did a quick search of the forum and didn't see an explanation in the manual. Sorry if I missed it. When I want to take JUST a platoon and I trim it out of a battalion of troops the platoon costs 156, everything else is gone, triple checked, but the battalion costs 206… why? Is it like tax or something, some C&C fee for attaching it to another unit (the tank platoon already purchased)? Is there a way to JUST buy the platoon out of the BN that I have missed or is the trimming down the only way? Thanks!

ME - last night I played one that had 3 PAK40s sitting at the end of a road in one big pile (inside each other). I sometimes see them placed okay, about 50/50 I have seen. I play the small maps. Maybe the AI just runs out of places to look and just dumps them.

LM thanks. We never had kids (yet?). (It takes too long to teach 'em to weld.) Also pilots are home for longer blocks of time, so even though you are gone a lot, when you're home every day is like a Saturday so lots of time for projects. It is BFC's DUTY to do pacific so I have more of a reason to study it! That would be really cool, but. (Why again don't they do it? I forget.) Well, finding another player at the moment I have a whim to play is the issue. And after trying to MP easily cheatable games like PG2 and being shot in the back of the head 50 times by a 13 year old that wants the helo in BFV but never took the time offline to learn to fly it and crashes after tying up the team's asset for five minutes without firing a shot but still cussing at everyone on the server in tween pseudo English... oh crap, here I go again.... I have had fun online but it's finding another player that's the issue. Oh hey, Leadmeister - I see you recently went to the 45th museum (yer site). I was just out in OKC myself for a few months. It was neat and unexpected to see that Tredegar cannon inside, made right here in my home town. I've been to the foundry where it was cast. Just fought another inf vs inf battle, I lost 9 (three to my own arty...) and eliminated 84. Not quite as good as last night but last night I had tanks. Last game was over 100 enemy to 1 of mine lost. I usually get ~1:10 lost/enemy with CMBN. That's not crediting me, but I don't need to keep complaining about the same SP limitations. The AI, yeah, CM1 was just the banzai charge for an AI attack but at least they were usually pretty good combined arms attacks. AI defenses usually weren't too bad I didn't think. The only problem was that you could just (real tactic of course) make your schwerpunkt on one flag, take it, and again, most of the remaining defenders would counter attack to allow you to easily defeat them since you had 1.4-1.72x their points allocated to begin with and now they are attacking you. Regardless, it worked but was very predictable. I gotta get some sleep.

tFS- actually the link was kinda funny after the fact. To all - Movable waypoints, I agree, but I never set too many at a time anyway. I had forgotten about the three man icon, yes, the newer is better as far as more immersive, while practically it makes no difference if the soldats are abstracted or not, I do like the newer feel. I do feel that the game is much more immersive in many ways. I absolutely love the realtime since I play SP. I will never choose to go back to wego if I have the choice, realtime is absolutely my favorite upgrade. Practically in actual gameplay I don't see many changes, but I will have to go back and play CMBB now that I'm getting used to CMBN and see what I miss. Why do I get emotional? Because I have spent thousands and thousand of hours and don't think I'll ever find a game / simulation so enjoyable so if they don't get it right I'm far more disappointed than just losing $55 and going and buying a new game. I'd pay $500, more? (literally, I am absolutely serious) for this game built exactly as I want. Several times I offered hundreds of dollars to BFC (speaking directly to management) to make minor equipment patches for me to improve the old game while CMSF was in development and was completely declined. I think I offered a couple of hundred just to add in a Maus. (I might still pay this!) I've written about 800 pages of data for the CM1 series but unfortunately I can't release it because I didn't keep a bibliography of what came from where in a pretty big library on armor that I have. During ballistics tests alone I have run 109,824 tanks in head to head engagements recording detailed results. In mobility tests I logged speed and immobilizations over different conditions and terrains for different vehicles over 27 MILLION MILES (43,000,000+ km). This quite obviously just scratches the surface of my tests and research into this sim. I've tried and tried and tried to crack parts of the game, especially savegames (to make a better battle to battle link by inserting your carries over troops/ maps different from how the game allowed), bit by bit by bit and I did make some decent progress but I guess I'm just not smart enough to crack it... Am I am fanboy??? Um, yes. That's WHY my tone is what it is. I wish I could personally hire these guys to build the game I want, but that's just not in the cards and I just don't have the cash to pay a team to start from scratch. Regards to everyone... I still want my cactus. Mike

SB - i never used any terms or labels that you list, just to be clear. I know it's from my tone that I mostly get attacked, I'm not faulting anyone for being annoyed about my tone (though nearly everyone is faulting me for mine) and if that gets my complaint more noticed than cool, I win (which means we all do)... in the form of a better game I hope! abt JB, I know. I didn't think anyone attacked him, I thought it was all at me, but maybe I missed something. I wish we could get over the back and forth insults which i guess I'm too old to understand half of (this is not directed at anyone, just to be clear). To anyone that says that my complaint is flat wrong: Good news, you wont have to download or install any patches since you already think it's perfect! I have no interest in trying to win an agruement, because what's the other side of the arguement, that the QBs work? I don't think anyone really believes that, they just take that position because it's fun to argue and I have a crappy tone originally.

YD- the demo didn't have the quick battle feature that I always used in CMx1, IIRC. Also, as I said, the money's not the issue. It's the "I didn't get what I wanted for Christmas" that another poster brought up, to be blunt and honest. yes, I know, constructive. I will still buy whatever they turn out unfortunately... but I really hope that some of the previous usefulness is reinstalled. xian - I hope so sfhand - dude, I don't sell anything having to do with CM. The little bit of stuff that is sold on my site is for gas guns... and it's not sold by me. The stuff on the CM webpage actually used CM data and credits CM. though you didn't directly accuse me... it's an old sigy link from the days of GOOD CM rambler - where's my friggin cactus, 'cause I'm gonna start? (editorial: doesn't that HURT the hands?!) tFS - "because CMBN is more complex in almost every single way. Something tells me you just don't understand what you're looking at." That's my point. Why? To perform worse? All I personally use are the Quick Battles. Yeah, when they occasionally get rolling well they are fun. On the hardest or second hardest difficulty level I always get 10:1+ kill ratios. It's clearly not an understanding point though I have not finished the manual read completely. I went to the site thinking you were being serious... um, okay. I guess I'm sorry I insulted your baby. So... what do you think is better in CM2? Clearly the graphics, what else? akd - just the simple charts of CM1 were fine, though admittedly gamey. a real soldier either knows or doesn't. I can't imagine trying to learn this game and all of those details with this interface. i know that it can’t go into the shatter gaps, differences of different armor packages vs different ammo, etc, that I have spoken with the designers about and studied for years. I have books of all of the data from CM1. I am very impressed by all of that, so why now go with the stupid icon graphics. it's a minor issue and I just wonder why they took out the 'press enter for info' feature. I know for CMSF, but why's it not back for CMBN. Totally agree about CM1 maps not deing very good, especially urban maps. If the AI was better on these many included maps and it didn't take hours to make one of your own (including telling the non-existent, so called 'AI' what to do) I would be happy(er). JB – I know. As for the ‘stick’ I am guilty of that with CM products. But seriously, it’s worth $55 just to see where it has gone even if I only screw around with it for a few weeks. I have fully patched CMSF and the demo, and my issues are the same, or similar. I know, search, but I knew that my rant wouldn’t be in the search because I hadn’t posted it yet. 7th – spectacles: maybe, sure. Not so much buggy, just not finished either. Didn’t like Civ 5 after being fully involved in the franchise since the start, neat, but just too slow on relatively new machines 4 was slow enough, especially once modded. WC – I thought I was specific in my self admitted rant. I also know that I probably have nothing original to rant about. I only see patch 1.001 (Mac) out so far. I keep checking but haven’t seen and release yet beyond that. Canyon, no problem. Everyone (inc me) is anonymous so they say how they really feel. Even if they’re wrong. MD – I’m fully or at least nearly ‘competent’. If you re-read I didn’t say 20 mins to pick the map I said 20 mins to get to the map. That’s because I have to set up forces for both sides starting at the battalion level and delete all but a platoon or add ad-hoc units to an existing command structure for BOTH sides since the AI ‘suggested’ units never make any sense. And picking the enemy equipment is kind of ridiculous in itself. YD #2 – yup, you get my viewpoint even if you don’t agree I guess. I was (am) trying to be constructive, and that was the most constructive non-ranty post I could muster at the time. When you post mad it’s going to come through in tone. Steam blown off. To be concise, though I thought I was in the details, I feel that single player quick battles are a non-functional feature of the game and would like them improved for the aforementioned reasons. (AHH, this is growing faster than I can respond individually!) Jb – yes, I hope to help even if my tone is annoyed. Yes, a complaint always gets attacked, especially when it’s an angry complaint. Honestly, if people don’t understand my frustration, then they just don’t. The point of the forum IS to affect the game. If so many people have no issue with the game why are they even reading the complaint post? It doesn’t apply to their gaming style apparently or they will just defend it blindly. Others – thanks for posting regardless of what was said I knew I was going to get roasted for posting because the people that have just set it aside aren't on the forum because they just don't care or gave up. I’m made complaints, even minor ones before, and someone always wants to tell you you’re an idiot. For my actual reason complaint, SP QBs, does anyone actually think I’m wrong??? Or are the 99% negative posts due to my negative attitude attacking people’s feeling of personal stake in the game (the very reason I felt like making the post)? (It’s a rhetorical question also.) I also wasn't going to post until I gave it a real try. My guess is that the likers are usually MP or prepared SP battlers and the dislikers are usually SP QB types. I am a SP QB type person and find that it is an grossly unfinished project ***IMO***. If you guys like it, I'm glad.

Okay, having played this series since CMBO was a brand new game... how did it manage to get stupid? (...trying to stay constructive...) Okay, the GRAPHICS are improved, but at what cost. This armor package for the entire front gets a red x against a medium sized bullet icon thingy???? What is this, Atari? I liked the first simulation because it was a SIMULATION, not a game. This is a game. I did research and wrote hundreds of pages testing what was actually a very good armor engine and mixed it in with real life facts to make some really nice manuals for myself. You could actually use CM1 series for limited research, forget it now. This is the most cumbersome UI I think I have ever encountered in a game. Ever. I want to get in and either test something or just entertain myself by blowing stuff up for a half hour (not set crap up for a half hour to find that… it didn’t work anyway). I want a random map with random troops for a quick battle. A 'quick battle' takes like 20 mins to even get to the friggin map now! Then you set up all of your carefully, tediously, annoyingly picked troops (damn it I just want a platoon of infantry and a tank!) to find that after spending 30 more minutes to get across the map you are either facing 4 AT guns piled up within 3 meters of each other, or four Stugs all facing the wrong way and unresponsive (at least until one of your dumb ass infantrymen takes a shot at the commander’s head from two hundred yards away an gets the entire squad slaughtered, yes, another AI fault), or a company of armored cars that a single Sherman could take out because there is no supporting anything with them. You should be able to go in, and either have the PC autopick (intelligently!!!) or you pick the way you always used to, have the AI gen up a functional map, and have the AI either attack or defend as appropriate. WHAT HAPPENED TO AI?????????? SERIOUSLY?! WHAT HAPPENED TO RANDOM MAPS????!?! We even lost the ability (as I have found so far) of loading the last battle’s troops for some kind of continuity. Why has this 'game' lost everything that made it good at the cost of... an exhaust plume and jiggly wheels, crews that bail out right in front of the enemy because you pressed the wrong key and haven’t modded the file yet? Seriously, what’s better about the new engine??? Why do I even bother to post? It has nothing to do with the money wasted on CMSF or CMBN, it’s because this (was) my all-time favorite game for roughly ten years. And now it sucks.

Matilda gets HE in Apr'43 (at least in AK, haven't rechecked BB), causing a sharp rise in points. Many units change pre-rarity point values regularly in the game due to things like changes in command times, ammo type introductions or changes. That's actually all I can think of right off. Looking at my CMBB Panther info: DE - 239 DL - 235 AE - 233 AL - 241-238 (change in Mar'44, I forget why) GE - 234 GL - 238 RP - 201-210 (Jan'44 command lag from 21 to 12 secs, I think) Differences are hull quality, optics, skirts, trap, higher chance for some types to immobilize (Ds and Gs), etc. I have done extensive tests on things like the trap and immobilization. The German Panthers are much lower rarity, averaging around 40 or so, the Russian is always 150. Taking that into account, in a QB the Russian Panther is usually 315 points, always more than some type of German Panther. Hope this helps, Mike

Everyone is talking about backward and forward compatibility and seems to be completely missing my point. If it is a single executable file for ALL of the titles, there is NO backward/forward compatibility issue. It also, a few years down the road when Bagration (etc) comes out, could allow some very interesting editor possibilities potentially allowing even US vs Soviet scenarios and more, if the editor is designed thoughfully. My point is that instead of coming out with 19,000 different games, it should be 19,000 different mods/ mega patches to the SAME game. I know it's more programming work, but what are we going to have, a different game for each and every battle on every different theater? That seems really dumb (and very restrictive) to me! (Not to mention the 19,000 gigs that would be required on your hard disk...) Quick question: I will need a new PC for CM2, so never got beyond the SF demos. The add-ons for SF- Brit and Marines- are they stand alone, or do you access them through a main SF game? Mike

I am very happy to be having this new version coming out. By reading this there is one thing I am very afraid of, that we are going to have like 900 stand alone type 'Titles'. I really liked CMBB, for instance, because you could skip from 1941 to the fall of Berlin on a whim, no problem, in one game. Now, I read all to coding issues and completely understand the desire to get the product out without years of building a giant game, and other motivations for multiple releases ($). No problem, because I want it as soon as possible and would pay quite a bit for an improved CM1. I read all of the text and keep seeing all of these things that seem to be many seperate titles, Normandy, Winter '44, Final days of the war, Bagration for the east, etc, plus all of the modules. It seems that the new version of CMBO alone might take three more years and cost like $200 in total at $45*3 plus X modules. If the 11+ months we spent fighting across northern France to southern/western Germany are going to be that many titles and modules how many is the east front going to be? Is there actually going to be a complete east front or just the major battles? What if I just feel like picking a random date that doesn't happen to be Kursk, Stalingrad, or the fall or Berlin - are the east front available dates going to be all inclusive even after you buy seven Titles and sixteen Modules (or however many)? I am wondering, when these new Titles and Modules come out, will they be all accessible as one game, or if I decide to switch a scenario I'm building from a battle in August '44 to Sep'44, am I going to have to exit the editor, start an entirely new program, and begin from scratch -OR- are all of the Titles and Modules going to be accessible through a single executable (like Battlefield 1942 add on packs). I am REALLY hoping for a single executable. Thanks, Mike

That show was REALLY gay. Why did they spend half the show talking about the friggin M109 (modern US artillery)- just because it LOOKS similar??? Really stupid. The 109 is cool and all, but serves a COMPLETELY different role than the Elefant, as everyone here knows. I would rather have seen them spraying paint on the Elefant for ten minutes straight than watch something completely irrelevant to the show. (end complaining mode) It looks cool, seen it in person before and after the paint, glad they did it! Mike

Gotta work early tomorrow, so being brief. I almost gave up when I finally refound this forum post with a lot of info from Robert Livingston (if I understand right the CM armor engine came from him and Lorrin Bird (Rexford), based on the De Marre equation). We all know it's soft, but as to where it came from... The partial quote: A captured Ferdinand in Russia was measured at 212-223 BHN on its 86, 110, and 200mm plates (Brit intell, 16 Feb '44). Spielberger tells us that the plates for the Ferdinands were taken from Naval stocks, which could mean it was made to different specs. German 85-200mm specs at the end of the war called for 220-266 BHN. 55-80 was 250-290, and 35-50mm was 300-350 BHN. Much armor in that range was face hardened, with a 450-600 BHN face. The German specs point out the general relation between optimum hardness related to plate thickness with respect to attack by late war KE weapons capable of having a chance of defeating the armor. The USA developed similar specs by the end. From this (very cool) forum thread: http://yarchive.net/mil/ww2_tank_armor.html Armor grogs will enjoy! Livingston lists his sources there, but I cannot find this report anywhere, all I managed to download is the table of contents. Well, I just searched my bookshelf for "Heavy Jagdpanzer" by Spielberger, Doyle, and Jentz. Thought I had it but can't find it. http://www.amazon.com/Heavy-Jagdpanzer-Development-Production-Operations/dp/0764326252 If I remember right the normal armaments industry was not capable of producing plates over 100mm thickness to tank specs (nicely face hardened RHP). If anyone knows more or has that book it will probably say more. Thanks for the links, I'll enjoy looking through them tomorrow! Mike

This test started out as part of a series of tests pertaining to how CMBB applies appliqué armor (no pun intended). First I tested the Pz38(t)E and G models (25+25 vs. 50mm frontal armor) against the AP from the 76.2 L/23 Mountain gun and found that, at least against that weapon that the G model is protected equally to a little over 300m out. Two different ways of calculating it put the E model at 47mm +- .5mm of equivalent armor thickness relative to the G model. This is significantly different from what the BF staff told me about how appliqué is generally calculated (base + .5*appliqué) which should yield only 37.5mm armor thickness. These results were based on the findings are the results of 1300 frontal impacts out to 1100m. Enough base info. This test I wanted to measure the difference in performance between the Ferdinand's hull and superstructure- the hull is 100+100, the superstructure a single 200mm plate (converted for normalized angles). I have not had time to crunch the numbers on that yet, but I was surprised how crappy the 100mm BS3 (and presumably SU100) ammo quality is modeled! I am not arguing penetration values but rather the ammunition failure rate. Now I know, these vehicles could never have met in combat, that's not the point, I was simply testing this with May'45 ammo and it's the only thing that should reliably penetrate the front of this vehicle. I think I remember the gun being tested against an Elefant though. Now, CM seems to be using (correctly) the early ammo, BR-412, which was a sharp point, uncapped AP shell. This should be perfect against the lightly sloped, soft naval armor of the Ferdinand. It's not. I tested 985 impacts, 917 of which struck the armor package (the others were gun/ track). These tests were from 0 to 1000m in 100m intervals and at 1500 and 2000m. Out to 700m ALL non-penetrating hits caused the shell to break up. At 1000m 82% broke up, 1500m was 42%, 2km was 16%. I was just surprised at this, but I guess even against this soft armor the uncapped round will tend to disintegrate. I had similar break up results against the Panthers in a separate test (another forum post). I only had four full penetrations, at 200m or less. There was even an additional FP at a weak point at 700m! Partial penetrations totaled 46, plus one more weak point. Ferdinand Impact breakdowns: Superstructure: 33% Upper Hull: 49% Lower Hull: 12% Gun: 3% Track: 4% I'll post more when I have time, hopefully tonight. Anyone with info on the wartime BR-412 round, please post. I have looked over Battlefield.ru and many searches, but found little on ammo quality (other than that the -412B was unsatisfactory). Gotta go to work! Happy New Years! Mike

Got bored today and tested it on a cliff. The barrel seems to go at or near realistic max values, but it seems that there are no limits to how far up or down the projectile can go. Mike