@SuperSix capacity of 10 missiles would greatly hamper the tank's ability to operate and would need to operate near an ammo carrier/closer to the base. But then, you would need to store them on the hull where there's no escape path for all the pressure when the missiles got cooked inside
.
About the front section it is severly undersized and it will be very uncomfortable for the driver to operate there and it'll reduce the armor effectiveness, and requiring more time to enter or exit the vehicle
.
This tank having missile launcher and posessing some sort of anti air weaponry makes this tank a jack of all trades but a master of none. The limited number of missiles to counter against air threats to be considered as an anti air, having insufficient ATGM/shells to be considered a tank destroyer, not having enough small caliber weapons to be considered an anti infantry platform, and the limited range of the missile to be considered an artillery
.
For the armor, think of ilit like this; you have two very dirty piece of wood and an expensive bottle of glue. Although the glue can hold the two pieces together, preparing the surface before applying the glue would make the two pieces bond stronger with less amount of glue. It means that a better armor layout would give the same result for less cost, and less weight. Try looking at modern MBTs for reference and try to suit them to your doctrine
.
It's even better if you use the same hull and mate different kinds of turret for different kind of purpose for part commonality
For an ATGM to fly that far means the rocket itself would be prettt massive in size, coupled with the rather small turret the tank mounts meaning the tank will store considerably less rockets inside the tank, not to mention the awkward placement of the Commander's hatch, would make the option for a closed compartment for the muntions unavailable, drastically reducing the crew survivability rate.
.
The driver is located really far to the front of the tank would mean the space in the front of the tank would be used to accomodate the driver's leg, assuming they have them, and the rather steep angling on the upper glacis would make an option to mount ERA plates or some sort of a modular armor plates a better option, or to redesign the entire front section.
.
A hull down position wouldn't be the best thing to do with this tank because of the extremely short turret in height the turret has, limiting the ability to successfully having a line of sight on the enemy over a hill, and the lack of MG mounted on the tank makes the vehicle more vulnerable to infantries as it would require the tank to traverse it's turret in order to successfully engage the target.
.
Although it's armor profile on the turret is decent, i don't believe 100-210mm of armor is adequate to stop incoming projectile, and the lack of any sort of hard/soft kill systems installed, and the somewhat clunky armor distribution makes the tank although pretty well armored against some last decade equipments, obsolete in modern combat.
@BRuthless very interesting! is it willl be somewhat mad max related?
.
i still remember the problem you encountered while doing the rally car like years ago but since Andrew added the dragScale and other drag related attributes which i forgot the name was i'm sure it''ll help alot with the drag inbalance though
What you mean by rotators exploding can be fixed by disabling the collisions and 1.8 is coming soon
.
The lack of update is because the devs are super busy finishing SR2
There are no real definition of a mobile friendly creations as there are very wide varieties of mobile device out there
.
But usually a mobile friendly creations are stripped off of all the decoration pieces and all the non critical stuff although certain devices would still lag
@HellRaiser
- the planning was pretty good
.
What your actual plan was to SEND EVERY SINGLE MEN WE GOT TO CAPTURE CITY, REE
.
Now tell me what's the difference between you and both the Soviet and the Japanese lol because i don't see any difference.
@HellRaiser like i said earlier, you dont need an entire army just to capture a city. You can achieve the same eithh much less troops because you are somewhat superior to them
.
It's just dumb to saturate attack any and every target, makes you look like WWII Soviet and Imperial Japan
@HellRaiser why would you send shitload of "superior" equipments just to capture a city? That's called impracticality and it's just a way to waste the taxpayer money.
.
Not to mention added cost for maintenance, ammunition, crew training, etc
.
You dont need to saturate attack every and any target you see. Infact, a move to show how superior your equipments to the enemy would be far more logical if you somehow pulled 73 Easting on them. Because that will clearly show that you don't need as much forces concentrated to capture/destroy the objective, not the way around. Sending massive amounts of your "superior" troops to capture a dying city is not called "superior" at all.
• not accounting the enemy forces outside the city
• not accounting for the enemy's air capabilities
• not accounting for troop density
• not accounting for any means of infantry support elements
• not accounting for this move actually moves your troops so much you'll end up getting various parts underperforming due to lack of manpower
• not accounting that the enemy is actually be able to perform a counter attack based off this
• not accounting that you have just used this much available manpower, equipments, and money just to take over a city
.
Cool story bro
@HellRaiser thats not how things work
.
You cant just saturate attack and everything's going to be according to your plan
.
You can literally have the same result for much less force than that, thats just a dumb way to spread your troops so far away from mainland and getting all of them killed from a single strike
@HellRaiser you know how stupid it will be to send so many tanks into a city, it cramped the streets.
.
What the opposing force would do is to just herd your tanks into practically any road then disable the tanks in the front and the rear of the collumn. Talking about spending excessive amounts of money into a tactic which would not work at all, and a nice way to make scrap metals.
This looks way better than the previous one yo
Is this some sort of discord rp or something
@SuperSix ?
@FuzzyAircraftProductions thanks!@Roswell
@AWESOMENESS360 thank you! I salvaged the turret from my old SPAA project lmao
@SuperSix capacity of 10 missiles would greatly hamper the tank's ability to operate and would need to operate near an ammo carrier/closer to the base. But then, you would need to store them on the hull where there's no escape path for all the pressure when the missiles got cooked inside
.
About the front section it is severly undersized and it will be very uncomfortable for the driver to operate there and it'll reduce the armor effectiveness, and requiring more time to enter or exit the vehicle
.
This tank having missile launcher and posessing some sort of anti air weaponry makes this tank a jack of all trades but a master of none. The limited number of missiles to counter against air threats to be considered as an anti air, having insufficient ATGM/shells to be considered a tank destroyer, not having enough small caliber weapons to be considered an anti infantry platform, and the limited range of the missile to be considered an artillery
.
For the armor, think of ilit like this; you have two very dirty piece of wood and an expensive bottle of glue. Although the glue can hold the two pieces together, preparing the surface before applying the glue would make the two pieces bond stronger with less amount of glue. It means that a better armor layout would give the same result for less cost, and less weight. Try looking at modern MBTs for reference and try to suit them to your doctrine
.
It's even better if you use the same hull and mate different kinds of turret for different kind of purpose for part commonality
For an ATGM to fly that far means the rocket itself would be prettt massive in size, coupled with the rather small turret the tank mounts meaning the tank will store considerably less rockets inside the tank, not to mention the awkward placement of the Commander's hatch, would make the option for a closed compartment for the muntions unavailable, drastically reducing the crew survivability rate.
.
The driver is located really far to the front of the tank would mean the space in the front of the tank would be used to accomodate the driver's leg, assuming they have them, and the rather steep angling on the upper glacis would make an option to mount ERA plates or some sort of a modular armor plates a better option, or to redesign the entire front section.
.
A hull down position wouldn't be the best thing to do with this tank because of the extremely short turret in height the turret has, limiting the ability to successfully having a line of sight on the enemy over a hill, and the lack of MG mounted on the tank makes the vehicle more vulnerable to infantries as it would require the tank to traverse it's turret in order to successfully engage the target.
.
Although it's armor profile on the turret is decent, i don't believe 100-210mm of armor is adequate to stop incoming projectile, and the lack of any sort of hard/soft kill systems installed, and the somewhat clunky armor distribution makes the tank although pretty well armored against some last decade equipments, obsolete in modern combat.
@NsNidPL you actually can by nudging two rotators with it's input set to pitch and yaw
@NsNidPL what do you mean by that?
In 600 years
@NsNidPL just set a piston with hemisphere with alot of friction with input set to yaw, then nudge it inside the main gear
The council will judge your jet xd
Also Syllixian weebjet ftw
You can try only making the rear wheel brake by setting the brakeTorque on the front wheels to 0
Lmao you gotta remaster the old AWWAM helicopter
@CptJacobson ew
@BRuthless very interesting! is it willl be somewhat mad max related?
.
i still remember the problem you encountered while doing the rally car like years ago but since Andrew added the dragScale and other drag related attributes which i forgot the name was i'm sure it''ll help alot with the drag inbalance though
You're back lol
Lol
4 screenshots 🧐
Yee boi you're still active
What you mean by rotators exploding can be fixed by disabling the collisions and 1.8 is coming soon
.
The lack of update is because the devs are super busy finishing SR2
You dont need super detailed creation to make it to the front page
.
Just saying
@ErvenDynamics yes
@NirvashTec give back my (((money)))
There are no real definition of a mobile friendly creations as there are very wide varieties of mobile device out there
.
But usually a mobile friendly creations are stripped off of all the decoration pieces and all the non critical stuff although certain devices would still lag
A form to add texts would be very nice
@lllKenlll flying this while listening to Crni Bombarder feels odd lol
@HellRaiser
- the planning was pretty good
.
What your actual plan was to SEND EVERY SINGLE MEN WE GOT TO CAPTURE CITY, REE
.
Now tell me what's the difference between you and both the Soviet and the Japanese lol because i don't see any difference.
@HellRaiser i don't think you understand anything i said. But, whatever floats your boat i guess.
@Notaleopard oh and Area 88 if you're into old school animation techniques
.
And it has JATO F-5 which i think is amazing
Is this a troll post?
.
.
Because it has to be.
@HellRaiser like i said earlier, you dont need an entire army just to capture a city. You can achieve the same eithh much less troops because you are somewhat superior to them
.
It's just dumb to saturate attack any and every target, makes you look like WWII Soviet and Imperial Japan
Make it humongous so you can also fly
Install the mod and replace the old one, or just delete old version and download the new one
@Spectre2520 i made my own continent)
Hula girl
Panteri
Earth
@HellRaiser why would you send shitload of "superior" equipments just to capture a city? That's called impracticality and it's just a way to waste the taxpayer money.
.
Not to mention added cost for maintenance, ammunition, crew training, etc
.
You dont need to saturate attack every and any target you see. Infact, a move to show how superior your equipments to the enemy would be far more logical if you somehow pulled 73 Easting on them. Because that will clearly show that you don't need as much forces concentrated to capture/destroy the objective, not the way around. Sending massive amounts of your "superior" troops to capture a dying city is not called "superior" at all.
@HellRaiser
• taking pride in your creations
• spamming it to compensate how bad they are
.
Choose one
@HellRaiser
@Sovjetair literally why i said its different
@HellRaiser thats not how things work
.
You cant just saturate attack and everything's going to be according to your plan
.
You can literally have the same result for much less force than that, thats just a dumb way to spread your troops so far away from mainland and getting all of them killed from a single strike
@F104Deathtrap but it feels odd to compare a literal social media platform to more of a game forum
@HellRaiser you know how stupid it will be to send so many tanks into a city, it cramped the streets.
.
What the opposing force would do is to just herd your tanks into practically any road then disable the tanks in the front and the rear of the collumn. Talking about spending excessive amounts of money into a tactic which would not work at all, and a nice way to make scrap metals.
@aplayer the samsung cookie font
@F104Deathtrap what do you mean
@Sovjetair jokes on you its actually different.
either you jailbreak your phone and potentially brick your phone its better to buy an android
unless you make a joke post with it theres no problem with uploading something with swastika