Sorry to hear you are disappointed. I love the C2. Its different yes but I like it.

Nothing would be easier than to appease the public by upping the APFSDS ammo performance by 150...200mm. It is not our intent to make the Challenger look worse than it is. But we stand by our estimate. Our model isn't based on popular opinion, but a serious and informed estimation; needless to say that the real figures are a secret, and that our estimates are based on what can be found in more or less obscure public sources.
We have strong hints that the performance is anything but spectacular. Anyone who wants to see it changed should come forth with factual data that is suitable to convince our two independent consultants that the current estimate must be revised. We're not pulling our figures from thin air (or out of a much darker place). Citing some website with a different performance claim which doesn't explain how it came to this published figure is insufficient; likewise we cannot follow arguments that are based on mere opinion, even if they appear rather plausible.

The figures are what they are, like them or not. SB Pro is not a fantasy game but a serious simulation. We try to be as faithful as we can in all our work, to the extent that is economically feasible and still in the realm of legality, and we try to eliminate bias in our work to the best of our abilities. That includes defending highly unpopular numbers like these.


That being said, as engineers we won't stubbornly cling to certain figures if there is evidence that they are wrong; not even if we vigorously defended them in the past before we recognized that we were in error. We are human, and we make mistakes, and hopefully we will always be ready to recognize, admit, and correct our failings. We try to be as forthcoming as we can by documenting the principles and sources of our data (hence the big appendices in the user manual, the SB Wiki, and other forms of electronic documentation). But the onus is on our critics to show that there's more than opinion behind their arguments. I kindly ask to be just as thorough as we are in our work - no more, no less.

I don't buy your explanations - all modern APFSDS performance data are kept secret: British, German, American and so on. In sum all done publicly in this area is a "factual guessing" so other people can tell you that for instance German APFSDS penetration values in SBPro PE are overestimated because many other factual estimations suggest so. As a bottom line if you don't have access to top secret data (or even if you had, you obviously could not disclose them) the only remaining solution is fresh, logical thinking in historical context. Such way of thinking immediately would tell you that 105 mm gun from 1950s firing rounds from early 1980s cannot be better than 120 mm gun from 1990s firing rounds from early 2000s - especially if both guns were made in the same country. That is madness and I'd like to underline it to you. However if you think that's OK, then keep this pure oddity in SBPro. I can only tell if this had been a point Britons would have fitted L7 gun into Chally-2 and purchased M900 rounds technology from the US which obviously is not a case. Yet in SBPro PE still rules your story: "Britons introduced in 1998 new tank capable of fighting T-55, T-62 and early T-72 models only." No way...

I am not affected by your funny vision of Chally-2 with T-62 gun because I do not play it. But I think Chally-2 fans are very disappointed as I have read in this flame thread. They waited long time for playable Chally-2 and got a bozo so I agree with them especially if ERA armor and tandem HEAT warheads modeling in SBPro PE is not top notch, either and ruins advanced Western armor performance by the way.

Let's discuss your problem here.

You really sound like this other joker who made a lot of noise over at the Steel Beasts site recently under the handle Sky Hunter or something who didn't actually own a copy, but contributed a lot of noise. Just came off rather ignorant and then left.

Given: The invitation, the challenge, if you like, to give better data than what Steel Beasts uses has already been laid down to you.

Given: You haven't done this. Nothing empirical has come from you- nothing you can quantify with figures has been offered by you.

Inference: You have none, or you would have done this by now. Further: you won't.

If simply comparing bore diameter and expecting better performance with a larger gun is all you have, your argument fails. There simply isn't a direct one to one correspondence there without taking into account whether made out of different or same materials, the length / diameter ratio of the projectile, the flight characteristics.

Use your brain:

The primary market isn't the consumer market but national armies. Does it make sense that eSim would suppress or obscure the performance of the vehicles they want to sell to potential clients- such as the CR2?

If they are going off the best data available to them, it is implied that you have better. Where is it? Help them out.

The dimensions of most APFSDS penetrators are reasonably well known, e.g. by looking at photos and establishing the rod diameter and projectile length from the surrounding sabot which usually is the only known dimension (=120mm). Of course you're still limited to the pixel resolution of the image (or the grain of the wet film), eventual camera lens distortions, and digital manipulation of the image (e.g. by stretching it subtly).

Still, with these figures at had you can usually establish an upper and lower margin of the perforation performance if you enter the figures at Willi Odermatt's perforation calculator.

For that however you need suitable image material. Care to check how much one can find on the interwebs that allows to make a decent estimation of the various dimensions? I'm not saying that you are wrong, but your argument is based on plausibility alone and doesn't present anything verifiable. The UK MoD is decidedly fuzzy and restrictive with the information that is made public. We have to live with that, and one of the consequences is this debate about our estimate. Again: I welcome any verifiable new information that sheds more light on the issue.



Ah, so we're now casting majority votes about the truth?


You are right - I cannot disclose the basis of our estimate. This is very unfortunate since it obviously undermines the credibility of my arguments. I wish I could tell more. Even then however, there are still alternatives to "fresh, logical thinking in historical context" (not that there's anything inherently wrong with it - except that logic, if not rooted solidly in a factual basis, can easily suspend itself from reality). The alternative is to keep digging for information in archives and other places for more facts that help to establish a solid base for estimations. They can then lead to reviews of the current estimate. I'm all for it.


Again: Our work is not a popularity contest. We try to be as diligent as the surrounding conditions allow us to be. I also don't understand the referenced thread as a flame war. It was a spirited, lively debate where a few users expressed dissatisfaction with various aspects of our model. Most of these cognitive dissonances could be resolved on the pages that you didn't bother to read (per your own statement). One player didn't like the mobility, but we're just using the same mass and engine power output formula that we're using for all other tanks as well, with well established parameters that nobody disputed. Some thought that the Challenger was fragile when in fact it is the by far best protected combat vehicle in SB Pro. One user brought up a Discovery channel clip to refute our model. I tried to analyze the the clip and demonstrated, convincingly I hope, that the model in SB Pro conforms with every single factual statement in the film, and where the film presented mere opinions as facts.

At the end of the day the question is: Is there any better model of the Challenger 2 available in virtual simulations?

Our model may have its weaknesses, but show me where else you can play one without having to make other serious concessions to the overall fidelity. I'm not here to tell you that everything is roses with SB Pro, and that we have reached a state of perfection that elevates us above the criticism of you mere mortals. What I'm telling you is that we keep digging for a better factual grounding, and that we will honestly and critically review our work in the light of new facts. Give me something to work with, and if it casts a new light on the situation, we will adapt. I don't think that anyone who is serious about fidelity in modeling and simulation can offer a better deal.

Charlie 2 is how it is in SBPro Spearfish and I am glad to just be able to 'play' around with one in a sim. Only wish MOD would let you in one for the interiors.

@Kontakt5: Calm down, boy.

@Ssnake:

- so dimensions taken from photos are not any argument because as you pointed out himself there are many optical and graphical problems involved.

- Odermatt and Anderson equations exactly prove that German APFSDS penetration in SBPro PE is overestimated. On the other hand various L27A1 performance estimations are not as low as you believe they are. So no "majority voters truth" is a problem here but your attitude toward German and British APFSDS estimations. On the same ground you believe German ammo is better and British is much worse than equations and other knowledgeable peoples suggest.

- in case you cannot understand what I mean I repeat it last time: If you don't have any hard data about APFSDS ammo performance - which you don't have anyway and your explanations about being unable to disclose some "basis" is a bad excuse at best because reportedly foundation of SBPro PE are open-source data - first thing you should do is to check historical context in a logical manner. That should immediately tell you than L31+L27 combo must be better than L7+DM33 mix. If you think the opposite is a case that's funny and that's all.

- in fact there is no better Chally-2 simulation on the market because there is no other Chally-2 simulation except yours. However that fact does not mean your imagination of Chally-2 is good because many people are very astonished with its ridiculous firepower which is fully understandable, because Chally-2 is not T-62 tank.

That's all what I and possibly other players can tell about current state of Chally-2 made by eSim. Now the only viable solution is to avoid playing it as baseless wasting of time and jangling our nerves until eSim understands they are not right and that's not funny. Fortunately I am not affected by Chally-2 and ERA armor modeling flaws myself not playing vehicles without 3D interiors and enjoying Leo-1A5, Leo-2A4 and Abrams interiors.

Source?


Source?


Mostly open source. But even then not every source is of the same quality.


...you're still resting your entire argument on something that is plausible, but which doesn't jive with our information. I am presented with the challenge to judge whether your admittedly plausible opinion should carry more weight than the facts that we know which however I cannot disclose. There's two possible conclusions that you can draw from it,
a) I'm a biased liar who pulls figures out of thin air just to make the Challenger look bad
b) I'm actually someone who takes pride in his work, who tries to diligently separate wheat from the chaff, and use those arguments that carry the biggest weight as a basis for all estimations.

If you think that option a) is the answer for you - well, I guess there isn't much else that I can say to change your impression. On the other hand, if you have good sources at hand and you're willing to share them with me, you'll see if we are willing to adjust our parameters. Please put me to the test, if you can.


Guess what, we all were astonished, and couldn't believe it at first. Yet the numbers are what they are. As soon as there is a really strong argument (other than "I can't believe this!"), I'll be more than happy to revise the parameters and rid myself of this debate.

Spearfish- you make the assertion over and over again that the model is not correct, and it probably won't be 100 %- there's much to be interpolated from best estimates. The problem you bring to the forum is not only someone who obviously has no better clue, but much worse, since you don't have any data to back it up, but someone on top of it who just comes off obnoxious, you're practically saying that Ssnake can't even logically deduce anything here, and on top of that, is full of bad intentions. Ssnake has a solid reputation, I'm afraid that you don't. The community will give far greater credence to even his assumptions and best guesses in good faith than your blah blah and generalizations. There's nothing I've seen you contribute here that would make me think you have any idea- it just appears that the model doesn't coincide with your expectations, but there's nothing here you've explained to show you have better insights here.

Tanknet, Excel spreadsheets and calculator if you cannot make basic calculations yourself.



Tank Protection Levels



There is no room for "mostly" here - you disclose your source or that's rubbish source because such sources are worthless. Everybody can tell he has super-duper "source" giving fantasy weapon performance but he cannot disclose it unfortunately. Move to publicly available data only or stop selling us unverifiable arguments.



I am afraid now you don't have any facts (aside of "undisclosed facts") but only a strange believing British rounds are so weak. Again, all you way of thinking is false: closed-source data equals no data in game founded on open-source data philosophy because of being sold on civilian market.

Yet I agree this is very comfortable strategy because nobody can challenge your data - they cannot be disclosed after all.



Here you are your own data fitted into SBPro PE:

- German DM53 round fired from L/55 gun - muzzle penetration: 920 mm
- British L27A1 round fired from L/55 gun - muzzle penetration: 500 mm

I am sure everyone can judge this properly.



So believe in your numbers and live in your fantasy world where German APFSDS rounds are the best and British APFSDS rounds are the worst. We can only laugh at this.

Besides fix this ridiculous ERA armor and tandem HEAT warheads modeling still unfinished after more than ten years of SB development and also fix funny rounds dispersion bug introduced lately instead of defending so hard "undisclosed theories" about L27A1 round.


I am sure now every forum reader knows enough about "Chally-2 made by eSim" story and there is not much to add. So EOT.