looking to get into this game but i don't know if you need vr or joystick and if it is still played in multiplayer
@TR_PАй бұрын
For tanks- I actually prefer flat screen for tanks. Mouse and keyboard all that are necessary. This was in multiplayer, the Finnish Virtual Pilots MultiPlayer server. For planes- VR is not a necessity, nor is joystick, technically. I would at a minimum get a 30 dollar Logitech Extreme 3d Pro joystick from Amazon, as anything less will be suffering, things are much better with a full HOTAS and pedals setup (T16000M + Pedals, around 270$), and VR is also very nice to have (I love VR and have not flown without it since I got it, but some players have gone back to flatscreen. I personally enjoy the immersion and sense of depth for shooting and landing, etc, but some people find their flatscreen more competitive for spotting etc) , but the least important of the three. A budget stick, throttle, pedals, and VR headset are what I would recommend, but to test the waters with planes, just the basic joystick I mentioned.
@radustefan8945Ай бұрын
@@TR_P yeah i'm mostly looking for tank crew, war thunder is not enough and dcs works in bad frames for me
@TR_PАй бұрын
@@radustefan8945 They're a bit old, and single player, but for a good armor sim I would recommend Steel Armor Blaze of War and Steel Fury: Kharkov 1942. Both of these are fantastic sims for their era, about their era. Singleplayer, too, no need to find or worry about a lack of human opponents. If you can look past the graphics (I don't think they are bad, but I think some will), they are great.
@TR_P Жыл бұрын
I would like to point out this is my 69th video
@daviniusb6798 Жыл бұрын
But how do I get into the new battle mode?
@TR_P Жыл бұрын
I accessed it from the custom battle menu
@daviniusb6798 Жыл бұрын
@@TR_P Thank you! I had to reinstall the game to get the patch
@TR_P Жыл бұрын
@@daviniusb6798 It seems launching a standard battle gives you the options as well, I just made a custom to try it out yesterday.
@daviniusb6798 Жыл бұрын
@@TR_P How cool! Thx!
@faydulaksono Жыл бұрын
is this game have training course?
@TR_P Жыл бұрын
There are a series of basic training missions accessible from the main menu of the game.
@faydulaksono Жыл бұрын
@@TR_P thanks
@l.farmer1268 Жыл бұрын
Who?
@TR_P Жыл бұрын
Ah son, pull up! pull up!
@palontir8834 Жыл бұрын
Ok so its not just me then
@krylatich2 жыл бұрын
Смажені вареники moment
@sterron932 жыл бұрын
Ah yes, the characteristic fan of all Soviet technology.
@TR_P2 жыл бұрын
Yep, I forget the voltage (24?) but this is the same fan and DC motor on the MI-8, 24, practically every post war Antonov, etc. Anything that isn't a fast jet.
@sterron932 жыл бұрын
@@TR_P It is basically a seal of authenticity. If you do not have one on your BTR-60 then you may have a counterfeit... Or you are western imperialist spy.
@user-iz3wn4fq1m2 жыл бұрын
Меня одного смешит тот вентилятор в танке?
@kylesprenkel6802 жыл бұрын
ah i see why the Living legends people are making their sequel in mw5......damn i wanna hop around as an elemental now brb
@christopher97272 жыл бұрын
John 3:16-21 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
@karnukabiyu29092 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the cultist ramblings
@TR_P2 жыл бұрын
Very cool thanks for sharing.
@robertsikora27552 жыл бұрын
😂🤣😅😆
@kustk32 жыл бұрын
What game is this?
@dck183_Ай бұрын
steel beasts
@JKDVIPER2 жыл бұрын
Now that’s a cool game looks like tribes
@TR_P2 жыл бұрын
Now I'm gonna have to go play tribes haven't done that in a hot minute
@JKDVIPER2 жыл бұрын
@@TR_P what game is that one in the video..🧠
@TR_P2 жыл бұрын
@@JKDVIPER MechWarrior 5, came out a year or two ago. If you want to try out something similar without putting down coin on it, MechWarrior Online can give you a taste of the franchise for free
@user-en5cy8gc7k2 жыл бұрын
Русский танк разбитый в дребезги... результат работы NLAW kzread.info/dash/bejne/f62a162Qks6-ZcY.html
@TR_P2 жыл бұрын
Not sure if you actually watched the video, not sure where the NLAW context comes in here. Honestly have half a guess you are a bot or Ukrainian spamposter.
Most important switch of the T-72 is the *get the hell out Ukrainian tractor incoming* warning switch
@nyanuar1232 жыл бұрын
what game is it
@TR_P2 жыл бұрын
Steel Beasts
@rokzd82472 жыл бұрын
жаль что оптика и пуша плохая на т72
@TR_P2 жыл бұрын
I have written my comment in english, and then google translated it. Both english and russian are written below. Я написал свой комментарий на английском языке, а затем Google перевел его. И английский, и русский написаны ниже. RU: СУО на моделях Т-72Б ниже Б3 абсолютно неадекватна для ночного боя, но днем и на дистанциях, вынужденных европейским рельефом, прицел позволяет Т-72 выполнять свою доктринную роль. Хотя и дневной, и ночной режимы уступают своим западным аналогам, даже на момент внедрения они, безусловно, достаточны для поражения статичных оборонительных позиций в дневное время и обеспечивают все необходимое для быстрого обнаружения и поражения другой бронетехники, когда Т72 движется внутри своей зоны поражения. пределы стабилизатора. Учтите, что на относительно открытых Голанских высотах, где рельеф местности несколько приближается к европейскому, танковые бои часто велись на дистанции около 1500 метров. 1А40, перископы командира и ТКН-3М достаточны для этих расстояний, и эта адекватность увеличивается, если учесть, что доктринальное применение этих машин часто осуществляется как минимум взводным элементом - всегда есть группы из трех или более действующих вместе. Это значительно увеличивает шансы обнаружить угрозу. 1А40 идеален или хорош по западным меркам? Точно нет. Адекватно ли это, если рассматривать его как часть, которая должна соответствовать минимуму, позволяющему танку выполнять свою доктринальную роль в военной машине в целом во время холодной войны? Абсолютно. Для получения дополнительной информации о СУО 72-го и многого другого я рекомендую прочитать сообщения в блоге танкограда на 72- thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/t-72-soviet-progeny.html и https:/ /thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2.html. Я не знаю более всестороннего исследования из 72 доступных где-либо на Западе, по крайней мере. Это может показаться не совсем таким, как я хотел сказать, но оно выполняется через Google Translate, поэтому мы получаем то, что получаем от него. ENG: The FCS on the T-72B models lower than B3 is absolutely inadequate for night combat, but during the day and at distances forced by european terrain, the sight allows the T-72 to perform its doctrinal role. While both day and night modes are inferior to their western counterparts, even at the time of introduction, they are certainly adequate for engaging static defensive positions during daytime, and provide everything necessary to quickly identify and engage other armor when the T72 is moving inside its stabilizer's limits. Consider that in the relatively open Golan heights, where terrain contour somewhat comes close to european, armored engagements often took place at a distance of around 1500 meters. The 1A40 and the commander's periscopes and TKN-3M are adequate for these distances, and this adequacy is magnified when you consider the doctrinal employment of these vehicles is often by the platoon sized element at a minimum- there are always groups of three or more operating together. Chances of spotting a threat are significantly increased by this. Is the 1A40 ideal, or good by western standards? Absolutely not. Is it adequate when you consider it just a part that must meet a minimum to allow the tank to do its role doctrinally in the war machine as a whole during the cold war? Absolutely. For more info on the 72's FCS and much, much more I recommend reading the tankograd blog posts on the 72- thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/t-72-soviet-progeny.html and thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2.html. I do not know of a more comprehensive study of the 72 available anywhere in the West, at least. This may not come across exactly as I meant to say it, but it is run through google translate so we get what we get out of it.
@TR_P2 жыл бұрын
Here's some interesting additional food for thought- The western designs MUST have better sights, guns, and armor at their weight, or else they are engineering failures that have wasted 12 tons (they are not engineering failures). Weight of T-72B- 44.5 tons Weight of 105mm armed Abrams (superior fire control, much inferior gun)- 54 tons Weight of M1A1 (now armed with a 120mm gun, generally considered completely superior to T-72B)- 57 tons. So, what are you getting in a T-72 that weighs about 25,000 pounds (11,300 kg) less than its opponent? Fire control- Inadequate at night, adequate but inferior during the day Main gun- Equivalent Mobility- Equivalent, with the 72 being below the weight limits of soviet era Eastern European bridge design, and the Abrams being heavier than many bridges were deliberately designed to allow) Armor- Inferior, but adequate, the 72B without ERA is frontally immune to all early 105mm ammuniton and the earliest ATGMs. Now consider that people have a tendency to compare tank vs tank, in a vacuum. You hear things all the time like "Abrams has better fire control. So it is better than T-72." This is factual, but ignores that combat is a multi system endeavor. Tank combat is not like world of tanks or war thunder, where tanks face each other directly in a sanitized environment where little things like "can this tank cross this bridge due to its weight or does it need to ford the river" are not considered. Consider that in actual warfare, it often matters much less if one design can see the other a few seconds earlier in a testing environment, and a lot more if the tanks the battalion commander wants at point X or Y are actually able to get there in a timely matter- having a small gun when you need it is more useful than a big gun you don't have in your hands. The 72 is a much cheaper, lighter design, that has a gun that allows it to confront other tanks- there is great utility in this. I often think it is more useful to compare the T-72 to a self propelled gun than a main battle tank. It is a somewhat well armored, decently maneuverable 125mm gun- and if you are the battlefield commander, this is more than adequate. Often it matters not so much that a tank is "good", but rather that it is a tank (look at the american Sherman tank during WW2 for example). Not so much for the west, but for the soviets, what mattered much more was having the superiority of fires that their artillery brought to the table. If you rain a storm of shells from artillery on a treeline where even the most modern M1s are, you are going to likely cut radio antennae, bust tracks, throw frag into optics, and so on. Crews will be shaken, and ATGM positions will be suppressed or worse. You will not be fighting a fully capable enemy. The tank vs tank comparison does not apply here, the artillery is more of a factor. Likewise, if an A-10 catches a column of T-72s on its way to the front, it does not matter if its fire control system is psychic or something, in the face of external air or artillery support, the only thing that matters is the armor of the tank- everything else is relatively fragile and liable to be broken by autocannons, blast, or fragments. Doctrinally, it should be much more common for these scenarios to occur than a tank bumping into another tank unsupported by chance. Therefore, the little design factors of tanks only truly matter if they do or do not add up to be the whole piece that you need doctrinally. Don't take this as to say the Abrams is a bad design- for western doctrine, it is a phenomenal design. And if you put an Abrams and a T-72 alone in a field, my money is on the Abrams being the winner almost every time. But the thing is, people always look to designs elsewhere, like these soviet tanks, and say they are inadequate because their numbers are worse in some spots on paper. This is a major falsehood. The designs of most militarily competent nations, including the USSR, usually do meet their doctrinal requirements. In the case of the T-72, I think it could be argued it is MORE than the soviet leadership really needed in its role. For the cost and weight, it is a phenomenal design. The tank matters more as a part of a system than as a tank. Consider that doctrinally, for soviet reconnaissance, movement should be in a column until met with "significant resistance"- you do not deploy into a combat formation until a vehicle in your column goes up in flames, keep hauling ass until someone blows up. Western recon vehicles were designed to have phenomenal optics, be somewhat stealthy, etc. They were good individual recon assets. Look at the BRDM-2, the main recon vehicle that motorized infantry and tank formations would have with them. The optics are garbage, the armor is poor, etc. But doctrinally, the individual vehicle does not matter. You have many columns across a front moving to objectives, like tentacles reaching out. If a few get hit hard, then have to slow down to fight, that is ok. The other tentacles keep flowing forwards, and you get a dynamic where a recon vehicle doesn't mean having good eyes- it means having something that can take enough fire to tell the commander there is a considerable force in one area, and having another one that goes around the combat to pressure an objective directly. Context is always important.
@TR_P2 жыл бұрын
Вот интересная дополнительная пища для размышлений- Западные разработки ДОЛЖНЫ иметь лучшие прицелы, пушки и броню при их весе, иначе они инженерные неудачи, которые потратили 12 тонн впустую (они не инженерные неудачи). Масса Т-72Б- 44,5 т. Вес 105-мм вооруженного Абрамса (превосходное управление огнем, значительно уступающее орудие) - 54 тонны. Масса М1А1 (теперь вооруженного 120-мм пушкой, по общему мнению, полностью превосходящей Т-72Б) - 57 тонн. Итак, что вы получаете от Т-72, который весит примерно на 25 000 фунтов (11 300 кг) меньше, чем его противник? Управление огнем: неадекватное ночью, адекватное, но плохое днем. Основное орудие - Эквивалент Мобильность - Эквивалент, при этом вес 72 ниже пределов веса восточноевропейской конструкции мостов советской эпохи, а Abrams тяжелее, чем многие мосты, которые были преднамеренно разработаны) Броня - Плохая, но адекватная, 72B без ERA фронтально невосприимчива ко всем ранним 105-мм боеприпасам и самым ранним ПТРК. Теперь учтите, что у людей есть тенденция сравнивать танк с танком в вакууме. Постоянно слышишь что-то вроде "У Абрамса лучше управляемость огнем. Так что он лучше Т-72". Это факт, но игнорирует тот факт, что бой - это многосистемное усилие. Танковый бой не похож на World of Tanks или War Thunder, где танки сталкиваются друг с другом прямо в дезинфицированной среде, где такие мелочи, как «может ли этот танк пересечь этот мост из-за своего веса или ему нужно перейти реку вброд», не учитываются. Учтите, что в реальных боевых действиях часто имеет гораздо меньшее значение, если одна конструкция увидит другую на несколько секунд раньше в условиях испытаний, и гораздо важнее, если танки, которые хочет командир батальона в точке X или Y, действительно могут добраться туда за своевременное дело - иметь маленькое ружье, когда оно вам нужно, полезнее, чем большое ружье, которого у вас нет в руках. 72 - гораздо более дешевая и легкая конструкция, у нее есть пушка, которая позволяет ему противостоять другим танкам - в этом есть большая польза. Я часто думаю, что полезнее сравнивать Т-72 с самоходкой, чем с основным боевым танком. Это довольно хорошо бронированная, прилично маневренная 125-мм пушка - и если вы командир на поле боя, этого более чем достаточно. Часто важно не столько то, что танк "хороший", сколько то, что это танк (взгляните, например, на американский танк "Шерман" времен Второй мировой войны). Не столько для Запада, сколько для советов, гораздо большее значение имело огневое превосходство, которое приносила их артиллерия. Если вы обрушите град артиллерийских снарядов на опушку деревьев, где стоят даже самые современные M1, вы, скорее всего, перережете радиоантенны, сломаете гусеницы, бросите осколки в оптику и так далее. Экипажи будут расшатаны, а позиции ПТРК будут подавлены или того хуже. Вы не будете сражаться с полностью боеспособным противником. Сравнение танка с танком здесь неуместно, тут больше играет роль артиллерия. Точно так же, если А-10 зацепит колонну Т-72 на пути к фронту, неважно, психическая у него система управления огнем или что-то в этом роде, перед лицом внешней авиационной или артиллерийской поддержки, единственное, что имеет значение это броня танка - все остальное относительно хрупкое и может быть сломано автопушками, взрывом или осколками. С точки зрения доктрины, такие сценарии должны происходить гораздо чаще, чем случайный столкновение танка с другим танком без опоры. Таким образом, небольшие конструктивные особенности танков действительно имеют значение только в том случае, если они составляют или не составляют цельную часть, которая вам нужна с доктринальной точки зрения. Не принимайте это как утверждение, что «Абрамс» - плохая конструкция - для западной доктрины это феноменальная конструкция. И если вы поставите «Абрамс» и Т-72 в одиночку на поле боя, я уверен, что «Абрамс» почти каждый раз будет побеждать. Но дело в том, что люди всегда смотрят на конструкции в других местах, например, на эти советские танки, и говорят, что они неадекватны, потому что в некоторых местах на бумаге их число хуже. Это большая ложь. Проекты наиболее компетентных в военном отношении стран, включая СССР, обычно соответствуют их доктринальным требованиям. В случае с Т-72, я думаю, можно утверждать, что это БОЛЬШЕ, чем действительно требовалось советскому руководству в этой роли. Учитывая стоимость и вес, это феноменальный дизайн. Танк важнее как часть системы, чем как танк. Учтите, что доктринально для советской разведки движение должно быть в колонне до тех пор, пока не встретите "значительное сопротивление" - вы не разворачиваетесь в боевой порядок, пока машина в вашей колонне не сгорит, продолжайте таскать задницу, пока кто-нибудь не взорвется. Западные разведывательные машины были спроектированы таким образом, чтобы иметь феноменальную оптику, быть несколько малозаметными и т. д. Они были хорошими индивидуальными разведывательными средствами. Посмотрите на БРДМ-2, основную разведывательную машину, которую должны иметь при себе мотопехотные и танковые соединения. Оптика фигня, броня плохая и т.д. Но доктринально отдельная машина не имеет значения. У вас есть много колонн по всему фронту, движущихся к целям, как щупальца. Если некоторые получают сильные удары, то им приходится замедляться, чтобы сражаться, это нормально. Другие щупальца продолжают течь вперед
@slimj0912 жыл бұрын
Where is the switch that blows the turret off?
@TR_P2 жыл бұрын
I believe the switch takes many forms, activated externally. Requires special equipment. :)
@FuckTheState2 жыл бұрын
It’s on the same location as the leopards 1 & 2, and all other tanks besides abrams.
@denniskrenz20802 жыл бұрын
@@FuckTheState Thats not quite correct - only few western tanks provide such a huge target cross section for the hull ammo, that is also so weakly armoured. Especially on the T-72, its hard to miss. Thats why hull down positions are prefered by all sides.
@markcorrigan3930Ай бұрын
😴😴😴
@gameshock38972 жыл бұрын
Is it hard to learn the Su-33?
@TR_P2 жыл бұрын
The 33 is one of the FC3 modules, meaning it has no clickable switches. It is much simpler to learn than most of the other modules. Once you have the bindings down for the systems, it is relatively fast and easy to learn.
@Agusgaming-fr6cb2 жыл бұрын
Apa nama permainannya seru juga ya 😁😁😎👍
@abrarwt56592 жыл бұрын
Steel beast
@theman32822 жыл бұрын
agus gaming, the nazi
@JPkerVideo2 жыл бұрын
flips switch* Crew morale: 120% boost
@9k1112 жыл бұрын
Finally a tutorial that is useful in my day to day life
@CANAL_FY2 жыл бұрын
i bet some ukrain guy found this useful
@9k1112 жыл бұрын
@@CANAL_FY *russian lol
@jameszhou15442 жыл бұрын
Plot twist: playing war thunder is day to day life
@9k1112 жыл бұрын
@@jameszhou1544 eww War Thunder 🤮
@osmanaslan75222 жыл бұрын
FGM-148 Like this lol
@FuckTheState2 жыл бұрын
Ah yes, because western tanks are totally immune to javelin.
@hecunotmakingalogisquad57852 жыл бұрын
Javelin=Overrated Trash
@66mmpow2 жыл бұрын
Steel Beasts its awesome
@paullakowski25092 жыл бұрын
YEAH BUT ITS NOT REALISTIC IN LOADING TIME. kzread.info/dash/bejne/X3x9r8qCd9KsgJc.html THIS TAKES 16 SECONDS 1ST 31 SECONDS 2ND 47 SECONDS 3RD 70 SECONDS 4TH SHOT.
@l.farmer12682 жыл бұрын
0:11 great kill
@TR_P2 жыл бұрын
thanks bro
@l.farmer12682 жыл бұрын
Back at it
@Crumbaa2 жыл бұрын
bop
@dane-xxx-87132 жыл бұрын
What game is this?
@TR_P2 жыл бұрын
Steel Beasts 4.0
@dane-xxx-87132 жыл бұрын
@@TR_P thanks
@monknchickschicks97292 жыл бұрын
😂😂😂
@TenczereECar2 жыл бұрын
what is the game's name?
@danlen11182 жыл бұрын
steel beasts
@66mmpow2 жыл бұрын
Steel Beasts Pro Personal Edition.
@daveshen08802 жыл бұрын
The game's name is "Self propelled coffin for 3 crews".
@exploit52322 жыл бұрын
how can u turn on the helmet mounted sight ?
@TR_P2 жыл бұрын
The sight is selected as a mode, just like BVR and NAV modes.
@macusb86862 жыл бұрын
what the game?
@danlen11182 жыл бұрын
It's called Steel Beasts
@cokelp58312 жыл бұрын
@@danlen1118 isnt it GHPC tho?
@tac-cobserver37882 жыл бұрын
The way you establish WVR, That's great fight 👍 what gear do you use anyway ?
@TR_P2 жыл бұрын
My current system spec is Ryzen 5 3600x 16 gb DDR4 RAM Vega 56 GPU Driving a Samsung Odyssey 2 VR headset Controls are Thrustmaster T16000M pedals, throttle, stick. I am replacing the GPU shortly, as the current one I suspect after much testing is causing my computer to crash more than a dozen times a day on average.
@tac-cobserver37882 жыл бұрын
Cool... classic 🤙 Have you tried GKS MiG-21 ?
@TR_P2 жыл бұрын
I have considered getting it, but I have the DCS MiG-21bis from Leatherneck Simulations, it is one of the absolute best aircraft modeled in a FS bar none. As far as combat aircraft go, if they can be obtained in DCS (especially from a dev like LN), I usually find no need to get the same model of aircraft elsewhere unless there are significant differences. If you are interested, I do have some videos of it under the playlist "DCS MiG-21bis"
@tac-cobserver37882 жыл бұрын
Yo, Buddy. Still Alive ?
@TR_P2 жыл бұрын
I see you have found my MiG stash. I apologize ahead of time for the quality of some of these videos, some lunatic from A World With No Framerate is responsible.
@angrydorito32522 жыл бұрын
i have been summoned
@tmwk__2 жыл бұрын
What is this game called and how do I play it?
@TR_P2 жыл бұрын
The game is DCS. You can find the download on Steam or on their website.
@globertdiazdasas46452 жыл бұрын
Yo lets wait till this. Video get reccommended to everyone
@Gkhub.7772 жыл бұрын
Which bomb was that
@TR_P2 жыл бұрын
RN-28
@poppii61752 жыл бұрын
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍facebook Keith elite
@txgtofan2 жыл бұрын
In Syria, the ZSU-23-4 has proven incredibly effective against unarmed women and children. Against Israelites in jets and helicopters.....not so much.
@TR_P2 жыл бұрын
Syrian and Egyptian shilkas were the low altitude cornerstone of the air defense forces during Yom Kippur of 73, and it proved extremely effective at the time. The current battlefield doesn't have much of a place for the classic, non-modernized shilkas in it except in fire support, but never underestimate old hardware- it was an "outdated and ineffective" SA-3 that blew an F-117 out of the skies over Serbia.
@AlexanderSashkin2 жыл бұрын
Syria uses the shulka agenst near fluing helis and its proven to be incredibly efektive
@prathameshwagh55033 жыл бұрын
F-35 helmet is better than this offcourse
@tschingta3 жыл бұрын
Hilarious! 🤣
@WolfpackOne3 жыл бұрын
That looks real! Except for the clouds tho, but that's not your fault, well done!
Пікірлер
looking to get into this game but i don't know if you need vr or joystick and if it is still played in multiplayer
For tanks- I actually prefer flat screen for tanks. Mouse and keyboard all that are necessary. This was in multiplayer, the Finnish Virtual Pilots MultiPlayer server. For planes- VR is not a necessity, nor is joystick, technically. I would at a minimum get a 30 dollar Logitech Extreme 3d Pro joystick from Amazon, as anything less will be suffering, things are much better with a full HOTAS and pedals setup (T16000M + Pedals, around 270$), and VR is also very nice to have (I love VR and have not flown without it since I got it, but some players have gone back to flatscreen. I personally enjoy the immersion and sense of depth for shooting and landing, etc, but some people find their flatscreen more competitive for spotting etc) , but the least important of the three. A budget stick, throttle, pedals, and VR headset are what I would recommend, but to test the waters with planes, just the basic joystick I mentioned.
@@TR_P yeah i'm mostly looking for tank crew, war thunder is not enough and dcs works in bad frames for me
@@radustefan8945 They're a bit old, and single player, but for a good armor sim I would recommend Steel Armor Blaze of War and Steel Fury: Kharkov 1942. Both of these are fantastic sims for their era, about their era. Singleplayer, too, no need to find or worry about a lack of human opponents. If you can look past the graphics (I don't think they are bad, but I think some will), they are great.
I would like to point out this is my 69th video
But how do I get into the new battle mode?
I accessed it from the custom battle menu
@@TR_P Thank you! I had to reinstall the game to get the patch
@@daviniusb6798 It seems launching a standard battle gives you the options as well, I just made a custom to try it out yesterday.
@@TR_P How cool! Thx!
is this game have training course?
There are a series of basic training missions accessible from the main menu of the game.
@@TR_P thanks
Who?
Ah son, pull up! pull up!
Ok so its not just me then
Смажені вареники moment
Ah yes, the characteristic fan of all Soviet technology.
Yep, I forget the voltage (24?) but this is the same fan and DC motor on the MI-8, 24, practically every post war Antonov, etc. Anything that isn't a fast jet.
@@TR_P It is basically a seal of authenticity. If you do not have one on your BTR-60 then you may have a counterfeit... Or you are western imperialist spy.
Меня одного смешит тот вентилятор в танке?
ah i see why the Living legends people are making their sequel in mw5......damn i wanna hop around as an elemental now brb
John 3:16-21 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Thanks for the cultist ramblings
Very cool thanks for sharing.
😂🤣😅😆
What game is this?
steel beasts
Now that’s a cool game looks like tribes
Now I'm gonna have to go play tribes haven't done that in a hot minute
@@TR_P what game is that one in the video..🧠
@@JKDVIPER MechWarrior 5, came out a year or two ago. If you want to try out something similar without putting down coin on it, MechWarrior Online can give you a taste of the franchise for free
Русский танк разбитый в дребезги... результат работы NLAW kzread.info/dash/bejne/f62a162Qks6-ZcY.html
Not sure if you actually watched the video, not sure where the NLAW context comes in here. Honestly have half a guess you are a bot or Ukrainian spamposter.
Разбор Орлан 10 kzread.info/dash/bejne/gqmXvLFmk8_OlbQ.html
Very neat, thanks for sharing.
what is this game??
Chunk Schiiiiip Whiir Chunk Kachunk
1ST🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑
is this.. steel beast??
It just might be
Some men never grow up ....
We just get bigger. :)
Most important switch of the T-72 is the *get the hell out Ukrainian tractor incoming* warning switch
what game is it
Steel Beasts
жаль что оптика и пуша плохая на т72
I have written my comment in english, and then google translated it. Both english and russian are written below. Я написал свой комментарий на английском языке, а затем Google перевел его. И английский, и русский написаны ниже. RU: СУО на моделях Т-72Б ниже Б3 абсолютно неадекватна для ночного боя, но днем и на дистанциях, вынужденных европейским рельефом, прицел позволяет Т-72 выполнять свою доктринную роль. Хотя и дневной, и ночной режимы уступают своим западным аналогам, даже на момент внедрения они, безусловно, достаточны для поражения статичных оборонительных позиций в дневное время и обеспечивают все необходимое для быстрого обнаружения и поражения другой бронетехники, когда Т72 движется внутри своей зоны поражения. пределы стабилизатора. Учтите, что на относительно открытых Голанских высотах, где рельеф местности несколько приближается к европейскому, танковые бои часто велись на дистанции около 1500 метров. 1А40, перископы командира и ТКН-3М достаточны для этих расстояний, и эта адекватность увеличивается, если учесть, что доктринальное применение этих машин часто осуществляется как минимум взводным элементом - всегда есть группы из трех или более действующих вместе. Это значительно увеличивает шансы обнаружить угрозу. 1А40 идеален или хорош по западным меркам? Точно нет. Адекватно ли это, если рассматривать его как часть, которая должна соответствовать минимуму, позволяющему танку выполнять свою доктринальную роль в военной машине в целом во время холодной войны? Абсолютно. Для получения дополнительной информации о СУО 72-го и многого другого я рекомендую прочитать сообщения в блоге танкограда на 72- thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/t-72-soviet-progeny.html и https:/ /thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2.html. Я не знаю более всестороннего исследования из 72 доступных где-либо на Западе, по крайней мере. Это может показаться не совсем таким, как я хотел сказать, но оно выполняется через Google Translate, поэтому мы получаем то, что получаем от него. ENG: The FCS on the T-72B models lower than B3 is absolutely inadequate for night combat, but during the day and at distances forced by european terrain, the sight allows the T-72 to perform its doctrinal role. While both day and night modes are inferior to their western counterparts, even at the time of introduction, they are certainly adequate for engaging static defensive positions during daytime, and provide everything necessary to quickly identify and engage other armor when the T72 is moving inside its stabilizer's limits. Consider that in the relatively open Golan heights, where terrain contour somewhat comes close to european, armored engagements often took place at a distance of around 1500 meters. The 1A40 and the commander's periscopes and TKN-3M are adequate for these distances, and this adequacy is magnified when you consider the doctrinal employment of these vehicles is often by the platoon sized element at a minimum- there are always groups of three or more operating together. Chances of spotting a threat are significantly increased by this. Is the 1A40 ideal, or good by western standards? Absolutely not. Is it adequate when you consider it just a part that must meet a minimum to allow the tank to do its role doctrinally in the war machine as a whole during the cold war? Absolutely. For more info on the 72's FCS and much, much more I recommend reading the tankograd blog posts on the 72- thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2015/05/t-72-soviet-progeny.html and thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2.html. I do not know of a more comprehensive study of the 72 available anywhere in the West, at least. This may not come across exactly as I meant to say it, but it is run through google translate so we get what we get out of it.
Here's some interesting additional food for thought- The western designs MUST have better sights, guns, and armor at their weight, or else they are engineering failures that have wasted 12 tons (they are not engineering failures). Weight of T-72B- 44.5 tons Weight of 105mm armed Abrams (superior fire control, much inferior gun)- 54 tons Weight of M1A1 (now armed with a 120mm gun, generally considered completely superior to T-72B)- 57 tons. So, what are you getting in a T-72 that weighs about 25,000 pounds (11,300 kg) less than its opponent? Fire control- Inadequate at night, adequate but inferior during the day Main gun- Equivalent Mobility- Equivalent, with the 72 being below the weight limits of soviet era Eastern European bridge design, and the Abrams being heavier than many bridges were deliberately designed to allow) Armor- Inferior, but adequate, the 72B without ERA is frontally immune to all early 105mm ammuniton and the earliest ATGMs. Now consider that people have a tendency to compare tank vs tank, in a vacuum. You hear things all the time like "Abrams has better fire control. So it is better than T-72." This is factual, but ignores that combat is a multi system endeavor. Tank combat is not like world of tanks or war thunder, where tanks face each other directly in a sanitized environment where little things like "can this tank cross this bridge due to its weight or does it need to ford the river" are not considered. Consider that in actual warfare, it often matters much less if one design can see the other a few seconds earlier in a testing environment, and a lot more if the tanks the battalion commander wants at point X or Y are actually able to get there in a timely matter- having a small gun when you need it is more useful than a big gun you don't have in your hands. The 72 is a much cheaper, lighter design, that has a gun that allows it to confront other tanks- there is great utility in this. I often think it is more useful to compare the T-72 to a self propelled gun than a main battle tank. It is a somewhat well armored, decently maneuverable 125mm gun- and if you are the battlefield commander, this is more than adequate. Often it matters not so much that a tank is "good", but rather that it is a tank (look at the american Sherman tank during WW2 for example). Not so much for the west, but for the soviets, what mattered much more was having the superiority of fires that their artillery brought to the table. If you rain a storm of shells from artillery on a treeline where even the most modern M1s are, you are going to likely cut radio antennae, bust tracks, throw frag into optics, and so on. Crews will be shaken, and ATGM positions will be suppressed or worse. You will not be fighting a fully capable enemy. The tank vs tank comparison does not apply here, the artillery is more of a factor. Likewise, if an A-10 catches a column of T-72s on its way to the front, it does not matter if its fire control system is psychic or something, in the face of external air or artillery support, the only thing that matters is the armor of the tank- everything else is relatively fragile and liable to be broken by autocannons, blast, or fragments. Doctrinally, it should be much more common for these scenarios to occur than a tank bumping into another tank unsupported by chance. Therefore, the little design factors of tanks only truly matter if they do or do not add up to be the whole piece that you need doctrinally. Don't take this as to say the Abrams is a bad design- for western doctrine, it is a phenomenal design. And if you put an Abrams and a T-72 alone in a field, my money is on the Abrams being the winner almost every time. But the thing is, people always look to designs elsewhere, like these soviet tanks, and say they are inadequate because their numbers are worse in some spots on paper. This is a major falsehood. The designs of most militarily competent nations, including the USSR, usually do meet their doctrinal requirements. In the case of the T-72, I think it could be argued it is MORE than the soviet leadership really needed in its role. For the cost and weight, it is a phenomenal design. The tank matters more as a part of a system than as a tank. Consider that doctrinally, for soviet reconnaissance, movement should be in a column until met with "significant resistance"- you do not deploy into a combat formation until a vehicle in your column goes up in flames, keep hauling ass until someone blows up. Western recon vehicles were designed to have phenomenal optics, be somewhat stealthy, etc. They were good individual recon assets. Look at the BRDM-2, the main recon vehicle that motorized infantry and tank formations would have with them. The optics are garbage, the armor is poor, etc. But doctrinally, the individual vehicle does not matter. You have many columns across a front moving to objectives, like tentacles reaching out. If a few get hit hard, then have to slow down to fight, that is ok. The other tentacles keep flowing forwards, and you get a dynamic where a recon vehicle doesn't mean having good eyes- it means having something that can take enough fire to tell the commander there is a considerable force in one area, and having another one that goes around the combat to pressure an objective directly. Context is always important.
Вот интересная дополнительная пища для размышлений- Западные разработки ДОЛЖНЫ иметь лучшие прицелы, пушки и броню при их весе, иначе они инженерные неудачи, которые потратили 12 тонн впустую (они не инженерные неудачи). Масса Т-72Б- 44,5 т. Вес 105-мм вооруженного Абрамса (превосходное управление огнем, значительно уступающее орудие) - 54 тонны. Масса М1А1 (теперь вооруженного 120-мм пушкой, по общему мнению, полностью превосходящей Т-72Б) - 57 тонн. Итак, что вы получаете от Т-72, который весит примерно на 25 000 фунтов (11 300 кг) меньше, чем его противник? Управление огнем: неадекватное ночью, адекватное, но плохое днем. Основное орудие - Эквивалент Мобильность - Эквивалент, при этом вес 72 ниже пределов веса восточноевропейской конструкции мостов советской эпохи, а Abrams тяжелее, чем многие мосты, которые были преднамеренно разработаны) Броня - Плохая, но адекватная, 72B без ERA фронтально невосприимчива ко всем ранним 105-мм боеприпасам и самым ранним ПТРК. Теперь учтите, что у людей есть тенденция сравнивать танк с танком в вакууме. Постоянно слышишь что-то вроде "У Абрамса лучше управляемость огнем. Так что он лучше Т-72". Это факт, но игнорирует тот факт, что бой - это многосистемное усилие. Танковый бой не похож на World of Tanks или War Thunder, где танки сталкиваются друг с другом прямо в дезинфицированной среде, где такие мелочи, как «может ли этот танк пересечь этот мост из-за своего веса или ему нужно перейти реку вброд», не учитываются. Учтите, что в реальных боевых действиях часто имеет гораздо меньшее значение, если одна конструкция увидит другую на несколько секунд раньше в условиях испытаний, и гораздо важнее, если танки, которые хочет командир батальона в точке X или Y, действительно могут добраться туда за своевременное дело - иметь маленькое ружье, когда оно вам нужно, полезнее, чем большое ружье, которого у вас нет в руках. 72 - гораздо более дешевая и легкая конструкция, у нее есть пушка, которая позволяет ему противостоять другим танкам - в этом есть большая польза. Я часто думаю, что полезнее сравнивать Т-72 с самоходкой, чем с основным боевым танком. Это довольно хорошо бронированная, прилично маневренная 125-мм пушка - и если вы командир на поле боя, этого более чем достаточно. Часто важно не столько то, что танк "хороший", сколько то, что это танк (взгляните, например, на американский танк "Шерман" времен Второй мировой войны). Не столько для Запада, сколько для советов, гораздо большее значение имело огневое превосходство, которое приносила их артиллерия. Если вы обрушите град артиллерийских снарядов на опушку деревьев, где стоят даже самые современные M1, вы, скорее всего, перережете радиоантенны, сломаете гусеницы, бросите осколки в оптику и так далее. Экипажи будут расшатаны, а позиции ПТРК будут подавлены или того хуже. Вы не будете сражаться с полностью боеспособным противником. Сравнение танка с танком здесь неуместно, тут больше играет роль артиллерия. Точно так же, если А-10 зацепит колонну Т-72 на пути к фронту, неважно, психическая у него система управления огнем или что-то в этом роде, перед лицом внешней авиационной или артиллерийской поддержки, единственное, что имеет значение это броня танка - все остальное относительно хрупкое и может быть сломано автопушками, взрывом или осколками. С точки зрения доктрины, такие сценарии должны происходить гораздо чаще, чем случайный столкновение танка с другим танком без опоры. Таким образом, небольшие конструктивные особенности танков действительно имеют значение только в том случае, если они составляют или не составляют цельную часть, которая вам нужна с доктринальной точки зрения. Не принимайте это как утверждение, что «Абрамс» - плохая конструкция - для западной доктрины это феноменальная конструкция. И если вы поставите «Абрамс» и Т-72 в одиночку на поле боя, я уверен, что «Абрамс» почти каждый раз будет побеждать. Но дело в том, что люди всегда смотрят на конструкции в других местах, например, на эти советские танки, и говорят, что они неадекватны, потому что в некоторых местах на бумаге их число хуже. Это большая ложь. Проекты наиболее компетентных в военном отношении стран, включая СССР, обычно соответствуют их доктринальным требованиям. В случае с Т-72, я думаю, можно утверждать, что это БОЛЬШЕ, чем действительно требовалось советскому руководству в этой роли. Учитывая стоимость и вес, это феноменальный дизайн. Танк важнее как часть системы, чем как танк. Учтите, что доктринально для советской разведки движение должно быть в колонне до тех пор, пока не встретите "значительное сопротивление" - вы не разворачиваетесь в боевой порядок, пока машина в вашей колонне не сгорит, продолжайте таскать задницу, пока кто-нибудь не взорвется. Западные разведывательные машины были спроектированы таким образом, чтобы иметь феноменальную оптику, быть несколько малозаметными и т. д. Они были хорошими индивидуальными разведывательными средствами. Посмотрите на БРДМ-2, основную разведывательную машину, которую должны иметь при себе мотопехотные и танковые соединения. Оптика фигня, броня плохая и т.д. Но доктринально отдельная машина не имеет значения. У вас есть много колонн по всему фронту, движущихся к целям, как щупальца. Если некоторые получают сильные удары, то им приходится замедляться, чтобы сражаться, это нормально. Другие щупальца продолжают течь вперед
Where is the switch that blows the turret off?
I believe the switch takes many forms, activated externally. Requires special equipment. :)
It’s on the same location as the leopards 1 & 2, and all other tanks besides abrams.
@@FuckTheState Thats not quite correct - only few western tanks provide such a huge target cross section for the hull ammo, that is also so weakly armoured. Especially on the T-72, its hard to miss. Thats why hull down positions are prefered by all sides.
😴😴😴
Is it hard to learn the Su-33?
The 33 is one of the FC3 modules, meaning it has no clickable switches. It is much simpler to learn than most of the other modules. Once you have the bindings down for the systems, it is relatively fast and easy to learn.
Apa nama permainannya seru juga ya 😁😁😎👍
Steel beast
agus gaming, the nazi
flips switch* Crew morale: 120% boost
Finally a tutorial that is useful in my day to day life
i bet some ukrain guy found this useful
@@CANAL_FY *russian lol
Plot twist: playing war thunder is day to day life
@@jameszhou1544 eww War Thunder 🤮
FGM-148 Like this lol
Ah yes, because western tanks are totally immune to javelin.
Javelin=Overrated Trash
Steel Beasts its awesome
YEAH BUT ITS NOT REALISTIC IN LOADING TIME. kzread.info/dash/bejne/X3x9r8qCd9KsgJc.html THIS TAKES 16 SECONDS 1ST 31 SECONDS 2ND 47 SECONDS 3RD 70 SECONDS 4TH SHOT.
0:11 great kill
thanks bro
Back at it
bop
What game is this?
Steel Beasts 4.0
@@TR_P thanks
😂😂😂
what is the game's name?
steel beasts
Steel Beasts Pro Personal Edition.
The game's name is "Self propelled coffin for 3 crews".
how can u turn on the helmet mounted sight ?
The sight is selected as a mode, just like BVR and NAV modes.
what the game?
It's called Steel Beasts
@@danlen1118 isnt it GHPC tho?
The way you establish WVR, That's great fight 👍 what gear do you use anyway ?
My current system spec is Ryzen 5 3600x 16 gb DDR4 RAM Vega 56 GPU Driving a Samsung Odyssey 2 VR headset Controls are Thrustmaster T16000M pedals, throttle, stick. I am replacing the GPU shortly, as the current one I suspect after much testing is causing my computer to crash more than a dozen times a day on average.
Cool... classic 🤙 Have you tried GKS MiG-21 ?
I have considered getting it, but I have the DCS MiG-21bis from Leatherneck Simulations, it is one of the absolute best aircraft modeled in a FS bar none. As far as combat aircraft go, if they can be obtained in DCS (especially from a dev like LN), I usually find no need to get the same model of aircraft elsewhere unless there are significant differences. If you are interested, I do have some videos of it under the playlist "DCS MiG-21bis"
Yo, Buddy. Still Alive ?
I see you have found my MiG stash. I apologize ahead of time for the quality of some of these videos, some lunatic from A World With No Framerate is responsible.
i have been summoned
What is this game called and how do I play it?
The game is DCS. You can find the download on Steam or on their website.
Yo lets wait till this. Video get reccommended to everyone
Which bomb was that
RN-28
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍facebook Keith elite
In Syria, the ZSU-23-4 has proven incredibly effective against unarmed women and children. Against Israelites in jets and helicopters.....not so much.
Syrian and Egyptian shilkas were the low altitude cornerstone of the air defense forces during Yom Kippur of 73, and it proved extremely effective at the time. The current battlefield doesn't have much of a place for the classic, non-modernized shilkas in it except in fire support, but never underestimate old hardware- it was an "outdated and ineffective" SA-3 that blew an F-117 out of the skies over Serbia.
Syria uses the shulka agenst near fluing helis and its proven to be incredibly efektive
F-35 helmet is better than this offcourse
Hilarious! 🤣
That looks real! Except for the clouds tho, but that's not your fault, well done!
Thanks!
@@TR_P Also you and I have the same name :D