u/X3Melange

https://preview.redd.it/m9c6186u3kth1.png?width=1024&format=png&auto=webp&s=85e0916eb3a33404fd6fbdc4cb2b6140a63ca6c6

I upgraded to pro after experimenting for weeks with making a game using the work environment and decided it was working well enough to buy more usage. I started developing the game as 3d game in a browser for rapid prototyping.

The problem I am having now is getting the GPT to create proper 3d models. It keeps creating these very jank looking things that dont really look quite like the real object I am trying to model. I have even given it tons of reference images and such.

Does anyone know how to get gpt to make good models?

This game always spawns you virtually inside active sonar range. So all the enemy ships have to do ostensibly is ping away and it doesnt matter how quiet I am no? I get that the thermal layer can attrit the range but im not sure what to do when there is no layer

By which I mean through maneaver, kinematicly. Not due to the use of descoys or other deception.

I ask because occasionally in this game is especially in cold waters I see torpedoes just not be able to follow a submarines dive or turn.

Why does this game treat sea skimmers as immune to SM1? Even the enormous fairly high flying P-15 is virtually impossible to shoot down.

So I have read military history all my life but for the last 5 years or so I started really wanting to understand the meat and potatoes. I kept reflecting that something was missing from all the accounts of battles and wars and my understanding.

For instance, I never really understood why Napoleonic Armies split their forces in the first place and marched down several different roads at once. In every account of these wars, it is always discussed how splitting forces often resulted in defeat in detail, which is how Napoleon won alot of his battles.

As it turns out, the main reason for doing this was that marching in parallel was necessary for supply reasons as well as getting everyone to the same general area at the same time. Otherwise, you would end up with too many people in one spot and have the leading elements of your armies days in front of the trailing elements.

There were many other things that stood out to me over the years that just felt like I didnt really get them because they felt detached from the ground in some fashion. I understood them in a broad fashion but not in a functional way.

1. Books noted that Generals in history always said you needed to study the roads to understand a campaign. (I always wondered why this was beyond the obvious need to move supplies and navigate. Couldnt one just take any route one desired or even move cross country?)

2. Infiltration tactics in ww1. How can one infiltrate if the front line is contiguous?

3. The issues with the Schlieffen plan. Such as discussing that it wasn't possible to move the number of men needed fast enough because the road network didnt support it. what exactly does it mean to say that a road cant support it?

Essentially, I have been trying for a while now to understand in a organic fashion the middle bit of military strategy I almost never see discussed. The gap between describing battlefield tactics and the overall strategic or operation situation. And how the logistics of it all works beyond generalization. What exactly are the mechanics of how armies in real life move and deploy.

Here is what I have come up with:

Armies are essentially welded to roads unless the terrain is especially pool table like. This is partly for navigation and organization reasons. It would be a total mess to line everyone up 100 miles wide and tell them just to move parallel to each other. Everyone would end up moving at different paces due to terrain obstacles and the lack of line of sight would make it impossible to actually do this.

Even more importantly, the armies can only move so far from the roads before they are too far from their lines of communication. Both in terms of supply and literally communication. How far an army can spread itself from a particular road (IE a frontline) depends on several factors:

1. How long it literally takes to march the men out from the road or rail line etc.

2. How good your ability to move supply cross country is (like how many trucks and how good are they) and what the terrain is like.

3. How far you can stretch your communications.

So basically what happens is armies move down roads and then attempt to spread out when they expect contact with the enemy.

Front lines are not even close to being contiguous. They represent the broad situation. In reality, units are clustered in various locations broadly in a front line, but tethered to the lines of communication.

So for instance, lets say you have 1 single road in an entire theatre with farmland to either side for 250 miles. The armies of both sides are not going to spread out 500 miles wide and then start moving towards the point of battle. They are both going to march in column down the road until close to contact, then attempt to spread out.

The more roughly parallel road lines you have, the more broad your "front" can be and more effectively you can fill in the gaps.

Anyhow sorry if this seems very obvious, but I have been trying to piece it all together because I want to understand how it all works in the same way one might understand how the rules of a board game work. And I haven't found any dedicated literature on this subject, and most history books seem to barely discuss it.

My TRD off road sticker says payload is 1200 lbs. The way this has been explained to me is that the 16-1700lb number is only for low trim stripped down vehicles and 1200 is because things have been added to my truck to make it heavier.

However Toyotas spec sheet however seems to contradict this?

My trucks gvwr is 6175. The curb weight is 4630. So obviously 1545 payload.

Moreover, the lower trims have worse payload ratings according to Toyota spec sheets.

So something is clearly off here.

The reason is because the zoom is necessary to more closely capture human visual acuity.

A major issue in video games is that they do poor justice to human vision. No computer screen that exists on the market today comes anywhere even remotely close to modeling human vision in any graphics engine. Human visual acuity is significantly higher than even gaming on the best 4k display. But that being said, the monitors most people are using are going to be even worse. Human vision is superior in terms of the scale of objects, contrast sensitivity, etc.

Many in sim communities balk at any kind of mechanism in a game that they perceive irrationally to be unrealistic because they automatically view it as artificial. What everyone in these discussion forgets is that the game environment is on every level artificial out of the gate. Attempting to mimic real life on a one to one basis while always and inevitably lead to a less realistic final product. In order to correct for the essentially artificial substrate that every game exists on, additional artificial aides are a requirement.

I propose that something like the ARMA zoom being put into the game, allowing the player to zoom to about 50 degrees or so FoV. This will result in a less acuity than one will get with magnified optics such as binoculars, so this does not invalidate their use by making them redundant. The zoom function would serve to provide a instant intermediate zoom that better represents to the player what human vision would tactically be able to see.

At the very least this should be a optional feature.

My doctor told me I have plenty of tear but the evaporate in left eye in 2 seconds and in 5 in right eye. Got meibo prescription.

did it consistently for 30 days 4 times a day but then it ran out. It didnt seem to do anything but make my eyes feel sticky. I did not detect any improvement at all. Because of the cost I waited another month before refilling the prescription.

I am now on my second bottle and 2 weeks in I feel nothing has improved

When does this start to work?

So as of this moment I do not have a bunch of data on this and really just want to start a conversation about this because I suspect that the in game behavior is wrong, any perhaps getting a discussion going might increase the chances of changes being made if they are warranted.

The performance of AAA guns vs cruise missiles in this game seems excessively pessimistic. When I say AAA for the purposes of this conversation, I am excluding stuff like CIWS. I mean stuff like 40mm to 130mm guns such as the 5 inch guns on most US destroyers etc.

I have almost never seen flak in this game down a missile. You can have a dozen ships pouring fire on the same group of missiles or even a single missile starting at very long ranges and never hit anything. Most of the time AAA is so ineffective against missiles that it might as well be not there at all.

I do not except 127 guns to the ideal weapons for shooting down anti ship missiles, but I suspect that their current uselessness is not realistic.

1. Most of these guns in this game are still radar directed and have proximity fused ammunition.

2. The targets of are the size of airplanes. Many Soviet anti ship missiles for instance, are enormous. These types of guns were entirely capable of providing decent air defense against aircraft, so why not missiles that are almost the same size?

3. Many of the in game missiles are flying in a straight line and do not have jammers or countermeasures of any sort.

Basically, I find it more than a little hard to believe that something like a P-15 or a Shaddock are virtually invincible against AAA. The P-15 isn't all that fast. And speed doesn't really matter much to intercepts when you are flying more or less straight, especially for a radar directed gun.