Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

Lets wait and see what it really looks like in a year or two.....or three

Don

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

I've said it before and I'll say it again...We need to slow things (And Mark I'm not saying this applies to your last.) down. I'm again sensing a certain rush or urgency to get equipment into this game. We've got until 2026 (Or longer?) for final submissions and personally I don't wish to spend that time like a few of us did about 4-5 years ago almost wasting a "patch season" on deleting equipment that "never was" for whatever reason you can think of. It was just an exercise in frustration and wonderment as to how some of what got in quite frankly did get in. So with the last two posts in mind and for TRACKING purposes only I give you the following with a related story (Somewhat) to follow at least in the "platform area". I must say I do like the concept...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem..._12612162.html

Again platform related but, more for the APC Thread...
The Dutch looking to protect theirs and again for TRACKING only...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem..._12612161.html

Breathe in Breathe out-I feel better already! :p

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

I'll second that.

The USMC rebuild got rid of a LOT of stuff that the original OOB builder assumed the USMC had because the US Army did, thought they had a lot more of then they actually did, and had a mish-mash of USAF, USN, and USMC aircraft. And that's ignoring the assumption that USMC administrative formations are also their combat formations like the US Army.

Don put in god knows how many hours cleaning out "what if" and no one wants to put in anything that's not solidly verified and have to do it again.

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

I don't mind putting it in once we can actually see one rumbling along a road. I got ahead of myself ( again ) with the USMC ACV......that's why it's right beside the ill-fated EFVP and yes pulling all the things the US Army eventually stopped development on but we had in the OOB's was a major PITA I don't want to repeat anytime soon. I do appreciate heads up info on new equipment but I really do try to contain my enthusiasm adding things that are still artist concepts but there will always be exceptions

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

I very much doubt that even anywhere close to 50% of military 'concepts' ever actually enter service in a recognisable form.

Add to that the huge factor of budget constraints, operational changes (ie, you start, or stop, fighting an actual conflict)etc, and you are looking at really very few 'concepts' actually reaching service.

Case in point one: The Russian Armata, how many will actually be in service in one year? How many in five years? How many in ten years? And that does not even begin to look at if they will actually work as it says on the tin...

Case in point two: The whole, hugely expensive, in both time and money, British Army FRES debacle, that has resulted in nothing more than Ajax, that is a very large, and heavy, recce vehicle that lacks the means to fight and defeat anything as well, or better, armoured than it is...

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

BUG REPORT: Ukrainian Rocket Artillery Vierba has no icon.

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

First.... a "bug" is a code problem NOT an icon issue
Second.......it's showing an Icon in my game and the virgin copy I keep for testing patch installations ( shown here ) so the "bug" is at your end

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1483042652

The file the Icons used for that vehicle is Icon0105.shp....check you have one in your graphics folder and it's full and has been since version 5.5 so if you are missing the ones for the Vierba you are missing many more as well but I can assure you those Icons were issued and are in everyone else's game

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

Thank you I'm sorry

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

Did you find that file missing ?

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

Maybe patching error. My fault