Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Forum Nobility
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Toxn

  1. Someone has a few points and a generalized hatred of EE and Pierre Sprey. https://www.youtube.com/c/LazerPig/videos I wonder who this guy is? Edit: a bit of digging shows that he's a dude who goes by ricewynd on (ugh) reddit and has been banging around their history/tank forums there for a while.
  2. Normally we leave at least a few months between contests to allow everyone to cool off. So yeah, in the new year at the earliest
  3. Tank cock-ups: an ancient British tradition.
  4. It is said that the man with no name wanders the desert wastes to this day, searching for his fistful of dollars.
  5. Since I'm thinking about it, here's my suggested format for a Sprocket-themed mini-comp (to be considered seriously when interest picks up again): Filling in the background: 2239 In this competition, entries would be asked to fill in a background detail from our ongoing series of competitions centred around a post-apocalyptic post-USA: Contestants are asked to submit a design for the DPRC's heavy tank, subject to the following constraints*: The vehicle should be designed in Sprocket using the "early war" era setting. The mass of the vehicle should be less than 42.5mt (to account for Sprocket under-estimating vehicle masses). The vehicle width (including tracks and fenders) should be less than 3.6m. The vehicle should have at least 76mm LoS armour across the frontal arc. The vehicle should be capable of going at least 25km/h across rough ground, and should top out (without blowing up the engine) at at least 30km/h on a level road. The vehicle should have a gun capable of penetrating at least 120mm of RHA. The gun should also ideally conform to the following sanity-check requirements: at least half-calibre base thickness, base length at least equal to nominal case length (note: not the same as "shell length" in-game, as this supposedly measures cartridge AOL), the rest of the gun tube at least a quarter calibre in thickness. Argued exceptions vis-a-vis working pressure, barrel tech etc can be made. The vehicle should be capable of climbing a 25 degree slope on the sandbox test course, and should be able to navigate the obstacles there. The vehicle should have a fuel load sufficient to give it a nominal range of 200km. The vehicle should have the vision ports and components needed to make it a working, usable vehicle for the purposes of playtesting. The vehicle should look suitable for a society with hindsight, a late-1930s to early-1940s industrial base, and an affectation for the aesthetic of totalitarian hypermodernism. The official base colour of the DPRC is haze grey, which should be worked into the paint and/or camo scheme. Submissions should be in the form of a short write-up on the competition entry thread (including a picture or two), as well as a link to the blueprint file for the vehicle. Submissions will be judged on the following three categories: Function: does the vehicle meet or exceed all of the listed requirements? How well does it work? Does it have any interesting extras that would improve performance in the real world? This may include playtesting in scenarios against AI opponents. Cost: how expensive would the vehicle be to produce when compared to the other entries? This would be graded on a curve, and would look at weight, engine power, transmission design, suspension design, and other major components. Aesthetics: how well does the vehicle capture the aesthetic of the DPRC? How pretty is it? These would be weighted to favour function, then cost, then aesthetics. The competition would run for a full calendar month, and would feature a small cash prize (distributed via paypal) for the winner. * Constraints may be added to or modified a bit as updates and new features get added.
  6. Some new changes have improved how guns work, but we're not at the level of a full cartridge designer yet. Sprocket also habitually under-estimates vehicle mass by 10-15%, which I put down to more or less the same issues that we've encountered in our competitions. I think it's functional enough to build a mini-competition around, though.
  7. Ja, Stumpy is more or less an armoured brick with a fairly anemic main gun and a very silly meme-missile. It's pretty on brand with how the DPRC was portrayed though - wonky, dysfunctional and grasping for gee-whiz solutions to problems caused by their own dogma. Its configuration is also a pretty predictable outcome given the very stringent restrictions placed on the competitors (most especially the width limitation, ground pressure requirements, side protection requirements against HEAT charges, and gun restrictions).
  8. Stupidity is its own reward I think it would depend heavily on the terrain. Something I only realised about the Stumpy after the competition is that its MMP is ass, so any kind of swampy terrain would be a nightmare for it. On firm, rolling ground, however, I think it could just sling giant HEAT missiles at the Monolith until something gives out.
  9. Thanks to the judges for their brutally fair/fairly brutal assessments I should note from my end that the turrets of both models of Derebus are actually very well balanced (at least, according to the CAD models) because of how aggressively sloped the front is and how far back the trunnions are. Derebus is about 10.8" 27.4cm ahead of the centrepoint of the ring, while Derebus-M is dead-on. Other than that it's a fair cop.
  10. Picture the stupidest, most counter-productive way that this could play out and bet on that.
  11. Lots of us want to do a planes competition more or less exactly like you described, but judging is an issue.
  12. Long arrow adequate arrow...
  13. Also: the next minicomp is definitely scheduled for whenever Sprocket unfucks its gun designer. I just made a 9mt tank (think an unholy amalgam of PzIII and T-34) that rolled all of the team challenges, and I'm keen to see what people with actual skills can do.
  14. Someone finally built a pedrail. I've always wondered how these things worked in the real world...
  15. Why do you think I keep responding to this inanity? I've been trying to praise what I see as good in you, in the idealistic hope that you'll become a better poster. Slavic pessimism would have saved me some trouble on this front...
  16. In general? Dude I don't know, I'm too busy raising my own kid to have any fatherly advice to spare. In this specific instance? Read the rules carefully, double-check your work, be your own clear-eyed critic. Which, come to think of it, is pretty fatherly advice... Plus side: your entry is going to go through the judging wringer, same as mine and everyone else's. This is a learning opportunity
  17. Because I'm not Slavic. My psycho-social gestalt is firmly on the praise good/romantic idealist end of the spectrum. My patience is also a finite resource, especially when getting lip from someone I'm in the process of trying to gently correct instead of chastise.
  18. From an outside perspective? That teutonic tendency towards criticism as a substitute for praise, without the equally teutonic tendency towards romantic idealism.
  19. Cool your jets with the conspiratorial stuff. LoooSeR is one of our most experienced and valuable posters, and provides something that every project needs in his role as a judge: terminal slavic pessimism. And he does so without fear, favour or bias. This is a man who could look upon the face of God himself and then provide detailed commentary on elements in need of improvement. And we're damn thankful for it.
  20. Having played a bit now, I had fun but found some of the abstractions even more bizarre than I feared. Gun design is a particular culprit - you can't move the gun forward and backward on the trunnions to balance it, nor can you adjust the breech mass. Instead, you balance by changing the tube length and the "shell length" (which I assume actually refers to case length). Recoil length and force is not modelled at all as far as I can tell, and I haven't seen anything yet that points to shell quality being modelled. The final annoying thing is that barrel length mainly affects accuracy, which is an old saw that I thought had been put to bed. The engine design is also a bit screwy, although here I'm not familiar enough with the mechanics of engines to elucidate exactly how bad it is. Engine displacement seems to govern torque all on its own, with no reference to cylinder number or configuration. Radiator size and heating seems not to be modelled at all. @N-L-M, anyone else currently playing: do you think it would be possible to put together a list of issues and suggested fixes that we could all forward to Hamish - he's more likely to listen to a block of players rather than isolated complaints from one or two? I see that a "shell designer" is listed as a roadmap goal, so perhaps we can suggest that it includes cartridge dimensions, pressure (which should also affect what thickness of barrel can be used and what tube length is optimal), shell L:D and shell quality? For the gun design itself, I'd suggest allowing more options to play with recoil type, length, and gun position on the trunnions. This would allow recoil impulse to be modelled properly - with too much recoil breaking mounts and turret rings.
  21. Yeah, from the conversations I had with the developer I was worried about that. Crews as abstract volumes rather than, you know, actual human shapes and so on. It's getting good press right now, though, so perhaps Hamish can hire a few appy developers and a proper sound guy...
  22. There are no features planned beyond the standard sling seats, although as noted the 25mm/1" floor and the external suspension units (steel torsion bars and swing-arm axles housed in aluminium boxes) should make the vehicle very survivable against mine blasts by giving the blast energy a lot of things to deform and wreck before it hits the hull floor itself. The wrecked suspension units can then be scraped off and replaced with new ones. I'll have to look at my CAD models again, but from memory the front fuel tank sits in front of the driver and then wraps around and meets with the ammunition storage boxes on either side of him. Edit: I've had a look at the CAD models. The fuel tanks don't quite meet in the front, but angle in along with the hull. The driver's position is a capsule that terminates in a ~32cm wide front portion - just wide enough to fit pedals (throttle, brake) and the feet behind them (where it's slightly wider). Drivers with particularly wide feet may have to take their boots off. The blow out panels for the hull racks can be seen in the pictures accompanying Appendix 2. They vent out to the left and right of the upper hull at an angle (forwards and upwards). The crew hatches have the same protection scheme as the surrounding armour, with the driver's hatch being covered up to the line of sight of the driver's periscope by the surrounding ERA panels. They would include an internal strut/spring arrangement to counterbalance the weight and make them easy to open and close. Two small ERA panels could be used to cover up the remaining weakspot on either side of the driver's periscope, but my understanding is that small ERA panels don't provide as much effectiveness as larger ones so I'd expect them to be left off unless urban fighting is expected. The tall optic on Derebus is a vertical coincidence rangefinder - instead of slicing the image horizontally it slices it vertically. The base length isn't amazing (about 1m IIRC) but the acquisition should be relatively fast and the errors small enough for the high-velocity rounds that Derebus is intended to use. As a bonus, it can still function as a gunsight in the event that one of the optics gets shot out - you simply remove the component blocking half the image from one or the other of the lenses.
  • Create New...