Simutrans Forum Archive

I have an idea for Simutrans vehicle
The main theme is about World War II

We can use battleship to be the passage or goods ships ,use the tank to be the trucks and use the Fighting planes to be the passage and goods planes

I have some examples:
For battleships : Yamato(Japan)  Prince Of Wales(UK)  Bismarck(Germany)  Iowa(USA) etc...
I can provide the image to any makers who interesed in it

It will be some fun for Simutrans

This will never be added to pak64 or pak128, and you will find that military, as well as nuclear technology, is a sensitive subject to many players.

Thus, it is generally discouraged - but not forbidden, as there is available a nuclear chain as an add-on.

It is very important to have this here at the start of such a thread - both to set expectations of those who might want to play with such things (I wouldn't mind personally, for example); as well as to keep the conversation all friendly, with expectations set right up front.

I am personally of the opinion that it would be fun to play with some military things; I just wanted to make sure the parameters were known up front.

Certainly others may come in and express support or dismay at the topic and ideas; I would hope, though, that the topic would be allowed, within reason.

Which is to say - I don't think we need to try and kill of this topic unnecessarily -- on the other hand, ideas are many, and painters few.

You didn't see the Battleship USS Alabama in my avatar did you? I also saw an Aircraft Carrier in Corpus Christi (If I remeber correctly it was the USS Coral Sea).

I do see where your going with this though. I know what types of vehicles the military uses to transport stuff. I might be able to help though.

I personally ain't uncomforatble with the idea, even though one of my uncles died in Vietnam. (Need saluting or US flag Smily)

Yes, Raven and I discussed about that topic and in that thread ,you have a list of military vehicles that took part in UN missions. We did not propose any tank or offensive vehicle, but I am with KR4350 . we could do it just to see how Simutrans looks. Perhaps we get a Humanitarian Aid version of the game, since Simutrans does not have a battle mode implemented, yet.

You might not, but many people might, including people who contributed code...

Hard to tell from plain text, though... 

Like I said earlier I'm anything but a game-pacifist. But for war & violence I prefer other games, made for it. That's all. 

I think that using the Simutrans engine to create such a game would be very much against the wishes of Hajo, as well as many other previous and current dev team members, so that's probably not going to happen... Besides, I doubt that the Simutrans engine could be easily adapted to an RTS format, probably better to start from scratch.

As for military industry chains, I'd personally not have a problem with them (would be kind of interesting, military logistics are a complex field...). When I was developing the pak64 nuclear industry chain I considered a further add-on which would go on to produce atomic bombs... But then decided against it =P So long as you accept that it will remain an add-on, there's no reason why you shouldn't make it - if you don't like something and don't want it in your game, don't use the add-on. Simple as that.

I posted this on the spanish forum, but!

Fear the might of the simupanzer III! (And a UN vehicle that sneaked into the render too).

I'd like to make some military chains, but also check out a pziii a a scale 1.15m=1 lenght unit for pak64. (This makes me feel if I did spent too much time on that tank).

Of course, as addons,
Of course, not involving military tactics, just transport.

I am not angry at all. 

And I have already said this earlier:


So, by all means go ahead! 

I was just (and actually still am) questioning the sense of it all (which is still sort of hidden to me, personally, but that's my problem, not yours) - certainly not anyone's right to do it (and have fun with it)!

On a side note, I think there would be more important things to add (even as eye candy) than that - but I guess it all depends. In some countries the military is probably more around and visible than I'm used to and then it might make more sense than I currently see in it.

LEt's not be 15yo, like

"My father is a policeman"
"Really, my father is Chief Engineer of Ableitung III, Imperial German Army Tank Force!
"REALLY?, MY FATHER IS IOSEF STALIN!" "MUAHAHHAHAHAH"

So if I made a supply truck what would you say, I could destroy it with a grenade? a mine would get rid of it with ease? Let's not display manhood problems this way please, coz makes me a bit sick. And BTW; I doubt the UN would use PzIII tanks anyway... 

Also, what's the problem with flower power! Grrr! Why do we have to discriminate??

End of rant, now a M60A3, UN clad, and as I didn't make a new texture, also in german grey (sort of)

Cool! PAT and RvG, BMW versus Mercedes! (This case more like GMC).
Do you know which vehicle does the UN use with photos? I didn't really find any good UN tank photo, only tankettes and the like.

Common, let's tie Dirk forever into quoting posting!

There was an extension request for helicopters, Right now they could be thrown in as low-cost low-speed aircraft. A V-22 Osprey fall under both.


That seaplane could land next to one and be hoisted up to it. Helicopters and STOL or VTOL planes could take off and land on them. But that would fall under a denied extension request.


The Pullman troop cars looked like taller boxcars, exept were olive green, and had windows. Military flatcars are usually bigger, and are pulled by different engines than normal.


I didn't see it as quarreling, more of trying to learn more.

Hence the phrase "QFT"... Well, that's a TLA, obviously - the phrase is "quoted for truth".... heh.

I would not discourage quoting - it gives context.

Obviously, there's a balance. Only quoting what is relevant is better than no quotes or too much quotes.

[/threadjack]


Could have a new end-factory be military bases. One "navy base" could be forced to build on shoreline. Could have army bases and airforce bases.

Could have automobile-like factory set that produces military vehicles.

Could have similar set for aircraft; similar for ships.

Could also have ammunition chain that goes to any of the bases. The bases could also take fuel as a big thing...

I think the only major thing we can't do that I'd like is to have some way of producing "troops" and "equipment" and various things to transport between bases. (Each base would create small amounts of troops, tanks, vehicles, ammo, equipment that would need transporting to other bases. The producton would depend on resources received, but wouldn't "produce" anything in the received bases -- but the engine wouldn't allow for this... Oh well, minor fun for the huge work)

Thank you, I forgot to add that - I'd considered that as well..

Well, and heck -- we could even make postal vehicles to carry tanks and jeeps and whatnot to pretend it was "equipment"..

Okay guys, I think we could create a war game based on the Simutrans pak files! Prepare for SimuWar!

Troop cars:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troop_sleeper

After the war they were sold to various companies. These compaies turned them into lots of different things.

Those could be the military passenger & mail cars.

As for military frieght cars, depressed center flat cars with different loads, all with military color paint.

The military tends to use old rail equipment.

As for road transport
Passengers: Dark Blue or green busses.
Frieght: Duece and a halfs or those really big tractor trailers

What about the Air Force or the Navy?

Come to think of it, (Whatever the name of the counrty of Simutrans is) wouldn't need a large army, more of a Defense Force (like Japan, and Isreal). I guess my evil little brother would be the only enemy (Him and the other people who hate Simutrans) because he tried to bug up the game.

Int he Navy, lalalalalal  In the Navy ,lalalalala .... That airplane is great raven!!!.... with it, We will in this WAAAAAAR!!!!

Then I suggest you bring some fighters or AA guns, coz ATM the skies are hers!

:-)

I was waiting for some request but none come, so when you're not doing peace, it's natural to start doing war.

I may have to enlist your help with some sprites if and when I get the RTS engine I'm working on to a playable state... Any chance of a Spitfire so we can get a good dogfight going?

The most beautiful plane of all time:

Chance Vought F4 Corsair

Ahh... it does my heart good everytime I see one.

The most beautiful plane of all the time is F-117 Night Hawk

I could use the C-130 already in the game as a gunship. (say hello to 20, 30, and 75 mm guns [to bad they are all on the left side])
So it's mostly WWII stuff? If that's the case get me a P-51D Mustang, F8F Bearcat, or P-38 Lightning. All great US fighter in WWII
What about SAMs, SSAMs, and unguided rockets?


I've actually seen one in the same museum as the USS alabama (they also had a B-17, and a P-51D)

You get to be in charge of the Navy, vilvoh
I guess Raven's in charge of the Army
May as well be in charge of the Airforce (Raven did say he wanted me for the Luftwaffe, which is the German AF)
If that's the case, who do the CAP planes belong to?
(What would Isaac, Napik, and Prissi be? generals, presidents, or leaders of the houses of government)

It's peoples opinions on what the most beautiful plane is, for me it's the F-22A Raptor (I made a thread on the Russians making something that looks like it.)

BTW, I'm kind of lost on what this thread is. Don't ask, don't tell (military policy)

You're probably thinking of the F6F Hellcat. The F8F was too late and actually never saw combat in WWII. And the P-47 Thunderbolt is missing...


SAMs? In WWII???  There were unguided rockets, an early kind of cruise missile (V1) and ballistic missiles (V2) - but no guided surface-to-air missiles in these days. There was only AAA/Flak.

The Axis (Germany, Japan, and Italy) had expiremental air-to-air guided missles. They could have made these as SAMs if they made it's range longer. Those guided missles worked like TOW missles today. They were supposed to be the standard equipment on the Me-262.If you have ever seen pictures of some German aircraft, you might have seen one
It worked really well on bombers, but Germany couln't produce that many.
The downsides were:
1. The missle had to be controled, while having enemy planes shooting at the pilot
2. It was next to impossible to hit a fighter with them
3. They were expensive


That was funny, but what is with the "sweeeeet revenge, DirrrtyDirk....MWAHAHAHHAHA!!" part?

Some experimental thing that "could have been modified to be used as..." doesn't really count for me.   

And yes, I have seen quite a lot of pictures of German (and other WWII aircraft). Those I have seen were unguided rockets only. I've read several books on them as well.  There was a time when I was really into this (my grandfather used to fly a Me-109 back then). I'm still generally quite interested in aviation (in private and jobwise), though not as much as I used to be if it comes to the WWII era.


But that "sweet revenge" thing is a puzzle to me as well...

Now I am completely lost... 

No entiendo. (I don't understand)

You don't by chance have any sources for these? I've never heard anything like that, and as I said, I used to read quite a bit about the airwar over Europe (and a little less on the Pacific).

It did what it was suppsoed to do. No more no less. It was never planned as a dogfighter. It took off, climbed up to the allied bombers, used its relatively heavy weaponry on them and then headed home. And all that so fast that no escort fighter could catch it. (Well until they came up with the idea of just following them to their bases and shoot them down while landing...)

The real weakness were the engines. They were not very reliable, had frequent high temperature problems (or even fires) and were really slow and touchy when power settings were changed. Nevertheless, it was the first jetplane in actual operation (in significant numbers) in the world - and successful in its role... apart from the fact that there were never enough of them to make any difference and the lack of qualified pilots towards the end of the war... which was basically fated to be lost by Germany long before the Me262 even arrived on theatre.)

And by the way: yes, it was fast. Even fast enough to be almost uncatchable by prop-driven planes. But it was not that much faster, that the increase of aerodynamic pressure on the rudders alone would grow so much as to make that the reason for the "worse" maneuverability. After all it was a completely new aerodynamic design (sweepback wings, etc - the first US and British jet fightes still had straight ones...) And actually you don't need to be that much faster than your opponent to make it hard/impossible for him to attack you...

The Luftwaffe bomber above is Junkers Ju-88 I think, I know a lot of WWII planes, from Junkers Ju-87 until P-51 Mustang. I ride the P-51 sometimes...

I saw it on the History channel. there weren't that many because it was cheaper to load Me-262 with a cannon that 2 guided missles. (that left the pilot vunerable). It probably was ahead of it's time, like the B-47, HO-IX, and some other designs.

My Grandpa was a B-29 pilot in the Korean war. He operated in the Berlin airlift though. I had an uncle who was in WWII though.

We could use the military cargo vehicles as transport things. As a seperate addon. The actual "Fighting vehicles" could be used for buildings.

What are the Navy's and Marine's hovercrafts called? A V-22 Osprey would be pretty cool.

I wanted a designation (like A-10, M1A1, Nimitz Class, CH47) but I suppose that might help enough.

Could this be it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhrstahl_X-4

It wasn't operational during the war...

Shouldn't that be "might have had"? Please try to speak more of possibilities and less of certainties in such matters. It's entirely speculative after all!

About the wire guided missiles:
Interesting. So apparently they were having some ideas in that direction and also did some testing as well. But they were never close to have it ready for actual use on the battlefield (like so many other projects and ideas they had) - and you reallyask for that kind of stuff to be done for simutrans ? And I'd really like to see someone try to wire-guide a missile into a (fast) flying aircraft from the ground with 1940's technology (= no video cam mounted in the missile or such) - tanks are one thing, but aircraft... different ballpark... no, not even the same league or game!

  But aren't there enough things that really existed/were in use that you could ask for? On the other hand (I don't know if I hit the right tone with the following - after all English is not my native tongue - but there's no personal offense intended), I slowly get the impression that you are kind of less than thorough (is that the right word?) in either your research or your postings. There are so many (small) errors, half-facts and imprecisions in most of the postings I've read so far, that I really started to wonder why that is... at least it doesn't really fit with your "Do I know too much? Possibly" signature...

So please could you try to verify more of the things (that  you think you remember) before you write them from time to time? Or at least write them in a way that indicates that it is based on your memory or understanding or such and not as if it were actual, indisputable facts (that's at least the tone I read out of most of your postings so far...)?

Also a bit less "USA-hooray!" style would be appreciated. It's certainly ok to love your country and be proud of it. (I have no problem with America and/or Americans - actually two of my best friends are Americans, and in fact all the people I've met over there so far, were extremely friendly and nice. I always had a great time when visiting your country, so don't get me wrong on that!) But sometimes I get the impression that for you everything done or made by the US is automatically and per definition the best there was, is and ever will be in the whole wide world - not really bothering about actual facts (or knowledge about other countries' achievements in these areas.)

Like I said: no offense intended (hope my English is good enough not be too far off the tone I meant to achieve) - try to see it as constructive criticism, please!

This baby eh?



I tought it was a legend, but here it is! wow

Do you know what defense we've got against a freak planting a dirty bomb in one of our cities?

BTW; I'll keep posting some military vehicles from time to time, if I ever make a flat wagon or some industry, perhaps they could be released.

REgards

The B2 is subsonic (or transsonic at most, but not supersonic) to my knowledge.

And actually most fighting planes of today are aerodynamically unstable (= not controllable by a pilot without help of computers - which is also why Horton(?) and Northrop had so many problems they weren't able to solve in the 40's and 50's). A good thing for military aircraft - to a certain extent - as it improves maneuverability - at the potential cost of saftey. Civilian aircraft must be aerodynamically stable (static and dynamic stability).

And for nuclear bombs to work (=a critical mass one can use and move) you need U235 and not U238 (well both, but the important part is U235 - and that's much harder to obtain in the required quantities because natural uranium only contains tiny percentages of U235.), if my memory serves me right...

No, probably not. 

Although it is mentioned in more than enough movies and novels... so it's not really a scientific secret 

Oh, really? You mean, after Hitler helped Franco win the civil war?

But as any other pro-axis neutral country, if a german plane crashlanded on this territory, the plane was kept, studied and reconstructed. And the pilot was sent back home.

I believe Boeing is planning a merged-wing design for its next super-jumbo...

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/design/q0108.shtml

Uh, where is this topic going anyways?


They have super-jumbos for carring 787 fuselages.
http://www.answers.com/topic/boeing-747-400lcf-2-jpg

_______________________________________ _______________
(November 10, 2006, 20:37:19) UPDATE:[/size]

Heh, 800 posts

As of now, it seems to be mostly WWII stuff.

Hmmm...

I think that's pretty much (if not exactly) the same gun as on the German Leopard 2. And when I was in the army, I served my time in a tank batallion using that tank. At least I don't rememeber ever being told such a thing then...

There is some margin between 'can kill' and 'will kill'. A bee sting "can kill".

Just like in the Fast and the Furious!

(Now I deserve a punishment for that, lol- GO AND MAKE MORE FACTORIES SMEAGOL!)

Been thinking about the gun story a little more...

And no, I don't believe it. 200 meters in a 90 deg arc is just way too big IMO. Once the propellant leaves the barrel it can spread in all directions. After all it's just one gas (propellant) in another gas (air) - and it would quickly lose its pressure/power once outside the barrel.

We could talk about 200 feet instead, with a "can" kill not a "will" kill like stomoog pointed out... I could buy that.

--------

And Packer, although they surely used it against the Me262 as well, it was invented and used for short term extra power in any dogfight/dangerous situation - even before the Me262 came up. Both sides had various systems for such short term extra power, most not really good for the stability/"health" of the already quite maxed out engines...

Ok no i was right. I posted in the right spot

---

Im a little late but I think your all mistaken 

This is the most increditable birdd in the air and in this case on the  ground! 

Cheers Joker

IIRC; the Alabama was an Iowa class battleship. I think it was around 3000.

I personally, am not in favour of using military vehicle in Simutrans. If I wanted to play military games I would play Sid Meir's Civilization. Having said that, I have a vague, very vague, recollection of a little Yellow Tank that used to run around with the street cars. In a very early version of PAK128, I think.

I'd rather have you spend your time making a XIX century shoe factory than a weapons facility. 

I have at least 4 uncoded factories, does somebody feel like?

I am interested

Please read posts #2 and #3 in this thread, at the very least.

Live and learn, all is good.

same fotos of trains

experience of C.C.C.P. old russia they try to put a train with plane motor  

 Скоростной вагон-лаборатория СВЛ "тридцать лет спустя" { High-speed lab coach SVL }, г. Тверь, ТВЗ { Tver, TVZ } , Tver region , 2005, Михаил Старостин , publ.Speed car SVL "30 years later" (speed lab SVL coach), the city of Tver, TVES (Tver, TVZ) Tver region, in 2005

Provided it doesn't crash or have issuses (usually does)

this train has use for same years has experician of russian and has use by people,so has not only a project it has working there is yet lote of things that only now we are found,like they try to use tatra like monorail

sorry but no it is a foto for report of E.U. i the only one i have  i ll try to have more but i cant promisse  nothing the russia is yet veary close to talk abaut project or secret trains

nice foto

oh now i see that point , and i agreed that ,they are not transport vehicles   only same are to transport military and bombs ,ll not be so nice to have in game  bombs and destrucion , and lote ll need to change to have they in game and the game ll not be the same .  No objection ,but now i understand why is better not have.

APC's are technically light tanks, and are used to transport troops.

That might be a fun idea though. That way we could use all of the stuff raven made at the beginning of this topic.

Well, the way I would do it:

1. Cargo planes and cargo trucks could carry goods and/or mail
2. Military personnel transports could carry people
3. Some factory chains could be military-oriented
4. Could code some fighters/tanks/jeeps that carry zero people for zero cost - set them to drive around for eye candy
5. Could use things like fences and roads to create cities that are actually military bases
6. Could make some attractions that were military related - use public service to create them in your "bases" - delete non-military ones until you get military ones; delete military ones from cities when they appear

So it's doable, IMHO.

(oh,and for example - a "private roadsign" that was meant to visually "hook into" the fencing - that looks like a military checkpoint - for base entrances... In fact, could have a tiny building in the middle of the road (graphically), with open gates (because cars wouldn't really stop there...)

Could build these bases around military factories to pretend that bases were there - so traffic would really be going in and out.........

It could be done.........

As for now, welcome to the community, Huey!