@RC1138Boss while I would encourage you to make it clear how much you think ED has contributed to the community as a mod, I’m not sure your anger directed at Andrew is productive. We don’t have the whole picture, it’s unwise to start going on a crusade in the comments.
Regardless of the merits of the decision either way, the outcome is very saddening, even disappointing. I’m glad to hear you are not going to be leaving the community entirely in light of this.
I don’t see why these features couldn’t just be added to the current game? I’d rather not have to pay for SP twice if it’s avoidable.
With that aside, I do like the idea of adding a Boolean tool, and I would also suggest a wireframe editor which would simplify making objects with complex geometry a lot (Wireframe editor would/could give players the ability to move/edit individual faces lines and vertices).
I am very opposed to unlock-able parts, I do not want to have to earn the ability to build like anyone else. The learning curve is already steep enough, we don’t need to add artificial barriers to people’s progress. Then again, maybe that’s just me, I build mostly for my own enjoyment and don’t spend much time on the site.
I’m not opposed to an in-game campaign, but I wouldn’t use it at all. It would not enhance my experience with SP. I’d just like more/better building tools.
@AuroraPolaris The T-62 has all of the advantages, the M50 lacks an optical rangefinder and long rod ammunition, and, the point stabilization was a bit of an accident and realistically shouldn't be included. In most respects M50 is a generation behind T-62, M50 is a better analog for M46 or T-54. But of course you wouldn't be able to tell that by just looking at it.
Design work on the M50 began in 1944 and serial production began in 1950. It was designed as a replacement for the M40; the M40 was a quickly thrown together stopgap made in response to advancements in enemy armor. The M50 was initially designed on a 35t budget due to strategic transport and river crossing limitations. However improvements to existing tank transporters and bridge layers allowed for 2t to be added to the design. The weight constraints necessitated a relatively compact design. Firepower and fire control became the strongpoints of the tank in leu of armor protection. The M50’s power plant consists of a 700hp V12 engine and 4 + 1 automatic transmission, both of which are clean sheet designs made specifically for use in tanks. M50’s main gun is also a clean sheet design rather than being derived from an AA gun or field howitzer like it’s predecessors. The tank’s 100mm L/50 rifled cannon fires a 15kg APDS round, a 27kg HEAT shell, and 25kg HEF shell, along with a few special ammunition types like CAN and WP that aren’t normally carried. The M50 typically carries between 50 and 60 rounds of ammunition. The M50 is notable for its chemical protection overpressure unit which protects the crew from chemical attacks and circulates cool air throughout the tank in combat. Other unique features include the status indicators and TC’s “hunter killer” system which allowed for smooth communication between the crew and coordination for the TC. Panels at each crew station would indicate azimuth of the turret and TC’s cupola as well as the status of the gun (ready and reloading). The TC’s cupola featured an inbuilt override which automatically slewed the turret to its position when activated. This system was crude and would still require direction from the TC to find the target after the turret jerked to a halt, but it was a significant improvement over the manual system in the M40.
@K2K yes it is larger than T-62, there are not in fact any significant shot traps. The chin armor is close enough to flat to be negligible. The mobility of the tank in SP was not meant to be realistic, the weight in SP is 24t partially for this reason.
@K2K Absolutely, but there is only so much built in upgrade potential. The power plant and suspension were designed around a 37t tank and won't be able to handle the weight of brining protection up to T-62 levels.
@AuroraPolaris It is currently fitted with a high velocity 100mm gun roughly equivalent in chamber pressure to the 90mm M3 you would find on M46 Patton. So a low pressure 90mm is well within the realm of possibility. To answer your question, design work began in late 1944 and serial production began in 1950. The largest barrier for potential upgrades is the limited volume in the engine bay. Early models use a 700hp engine and 4+1 speed automatic transmission, there isn't a whole lot of room for improvement barring a complete overhaul for a more power dense engine and more capable transmission. With that said, I am excited to see what you have done if you want to upload it as unlisted or make significant enough changes so as not to upset the mods.
However, M50 could feasibly be upgraded in all respects but armor protection to bridge the technology gap. The tank in its base form weighs in at roughly 37 tons with pretty pathetic armor, there is only so much room for upgrading the engine & transmission.
@MrVaultech yeah, I’m not sure there is a practical way to keep the case mate gun and the ability to carry dismounts in the current configuration. If you ever have another go at the concept, you could put the gun in a low profile/unmanned turret so there is room for the transmission up front.
@Typhoon_ So you realize the dilemma. you can have a sprocket wheel at the back of the track, or at the front, but not anywhere in the middle, so then you can't have the transmission in the middle of the vehicle
so, you have the gun at the front, and dismounts at the back, withe the engine between the two. Am I missing something? Where does the transmission go?
I'm getting complaints from one user that the aircraft exploded while they were maneuvering it. They made other edits to the wings which may be the issue. Anyways, if anyone is experiencing this problem without making any changes to the aircraft please let me know. It is possible it is an issue that only effects mobile users.
@RC1138Boss while I would encourage you to make it clear how much you think ED has contributed to the community as a mod, I’m not sure your anger directed at Andrew is productive. We don’t have the whole picture, it’s unwise to start going on a crusade in the comments.
+8Regardless of the merits of the decision either way, the outcome is very saddening, even disappointing. I’m glad to hear you are not going to be leaving the community entirely in light of this.
+4It would be really cool to see these features added. Maybe a catapult part would be a good addition as well.
+4I don’t see why these features couldn’t just be added to the current game? I’d rather not have to pay for SP twice if it’s avoidable.
+3With that aside, I do like the idea of adding a Boolean tool, and I would also suggest a wireframe editor which would simplify making objects with complex geometry a lot (Wireframe editor would/could give players the ability to move/edit individual faces lines and vertices).
I am very opposed to unlock-able parts, I do not want to have to earn the ability to build like anyone else. The learning curve is already steep enough, we don’t need to add artificial barriers to people’s progress. Then again, maybe that’s just me, I build mostly for my own enjoyment and don’t spend much time on the site.
I’m not opposed to an in-game campaign, but I wouldn’t use it at all. It would not enhance my experience with SP. I’d just like more/better building tools.
@AuroraPolaris The T-62 has all of the advantages, the M50 lacks an optical rangefinder and long rod ammunition, and, the point stabilization was a bit of an accident and realistically shouldn't be included. In most respects M50 is a generation behind T-62, M50 is a better analog for M46 or T-54. But of course you wouldn't be able to tell that by just looking at it.
+1@MrGreen I think it’s Sum(Yaw)*2 or something along those lines. If that doesn’t work you can always dissect the tank to find the gyros.
+1yes @FatEgg
+1Reducing the speed wouldn't be a bad idea, on the upside, I got to appreciate the undercarriage detail.
+1Congratulations Vincent, I’m sure you’ll make an excellent mod!
Design work on the M50 began in 1944 and serial production began in 1950. It was designed as a replacement for the M40; the M40 was a quickly thrown together stopgap made in response to advancements in enemy armor. The M50 was initially designed on a 35t budget due to strategic transport and river crossing limitations. However improvements to existing tank transporters and bridge layers allowed for 2t to be added to the design. The weight constraints necessitated a relatively compact design. Firepower and fire control became the strongpoints of the tank in leu of armor protection. The M50’s power plant consists of a 700hp V12 engine and 4 + 1 automatic transmission, both of which are clean sheet designs made specifically for use in tanks. M50’s main gun is also a clean sheet design rather than being derived from an AA gun or field howitzer like it’s predecessors. The tank’s 100mm L/50 rifled cannon fires a 15kg APDS round, a 27kg HEAT shell, and 25kg HEF shell, along with a few special ammunition types like CAN and WP that aren’t normally carried. The M50 typically carries between 50 and 60 rounds of ammunition. The M50 is notable for its chemical protection overpressure unit which protects the crew from chemical attacks and circulates cool air throughout the tank in combat. Other unique features include the status indicators and TC’s “hunter killer” system which allowed for smooth communication between the crew and coordination for the TC. Panels at each crew station would indicate azimuth of the turret and TC’s cupola as well as the status of the gun (ready and reloading). The TC’s cupola featured an inbuilt override which automatically slewed the turret to its position when activated. This system was crude and would still require direction from the TC to find the target after the turret jerked to a halt, but it was a significant improvement over the manual system in the M40.
Like I said earlier, the actual weight is 37t
@K2K yes it is larger than T-62, there are not in fact any significant shot traps. The chin armor is close enough to flat to be negligible. The mobility of the tank in SP was not meant to be realistic, the weight in SP is 24t partially for this reason.
@K2K Absolutely, but there is only so much built in upgrade potential. The power plant and suspension were designed around a 37t tank and won't be able to handle the weight of brining protection up to T-62 levels.
@AuroraPolaris It is currently fitted with a high velocity 100mm gun roughly equivalent in chamber pressure to the 90mm M3 you would find on M46 Patton. So a low pressure 90mm is well within the realm of possibility. To answer your question, design work began in late 1944 and serial production began in 1950. The largest barrier for potential upgrades is the limited volume in the engine bay. Early models use a 700hp engine and 4+1 speed automatic transmission, there isn't a whole lot of room for improvement barring a complete overhaul for a more power dense engine and more capable transmission. With that said, I am excited to see what you have done if you want to upload it as unlisted or make significant enough changes so as not to upset the mods.
However, M50 could feasibly be upgraded in all respects but armor protection to bridge the technology gap. The tank in its base form weighs in at roughly 37 tons with pretty pathetic armor, there is only so much room for upgrading the engine & transmission.
@K2K mhm, like my brain
@TheVexedVortex Thank you very much
@X4JB thank you! it took several attempts to get it right.
@X4JB oh, it indicates sarcasm
@X4JB I didn't choose to be superior, I just am /s
@MrVaultech yeah, I’m not sure there is a practical way to keep the case mate gun and the ability to carry dismounts in the current configuration. If you ever have another go at the concept, you could put the gun in a low profile/unmanned turret so there is room for the transmission up front.
@Typhoon_ So you realize the dilemma. you can have a sprocket wheel at the back of the track, or at the front, but not anywhere in the middle, so then you can't have the transmission in the middle of the vehicle
You are aware the transmission has to be connected to the drive sprockets to transmit power from the engine to the drive sprockets, right?
so, you have the gun at the front, and dismounts at the back, withe the engine between the two. Am I missing something? Where does the transmission go?
If you guys really want a version w/out tracks mod, feel free to make a successor
@Hellfire3627 I'm aware mods don't work on mobile, I'm not in the habit of building mobile friendly vehicles
@LucasNicky @Kaim109 @teodor99 @PoyuToyu Thanks!
@Kreep2knight because, you don't want to mess with Blue0Bull
Free simple rockets? sounds good to me.
Okay, thanks
@teodor99 i'm not following?
Thanks!
You could always increase the depth of the wheel wells instead of having the wheels stick out beyond the hull.
I'm getting complaints from one user that the aircraft exploded while they were maneuvering it. They made other edits to the wings which may be the issue. Anyways, if anyone is experiencing this problem without making any changes to the aircraft please let me know. It is possible it is an issue that only effects mobile users.
@Lavi I'll keep that in ind for my next build
haha, helicopter go brrrrrr
@PolarG2478 it identifies as a Leopard 2 knock off