Quoted below are "Ssnakes" comments to SimHQ about the images:
"I have a few new shots for you showing the MRAV Boxer which was just introduced a few months ago to the Bundeswehr; here as the ambulance and the troop carrier variant. It's probably the most heavily armored wheeled vehicle these days at about 32 tons weight. Quite a whopper! Both have already been deployed to Afghanistan a few months ago though I haven't heard about their performance."
"In SB Pro PE the troop carrier variant can be equipped with one of several remote weapon stations that can be controlled by the user, and with a shot detection system that can identify the caliber and location of an attacker by sound analysis (these systems are already deployed, though not necessarily with the Boxer). In this example, it's the Pilar shot detection system that can be configured to automatically override the gunner and point him to the approximate location of the attacker, in azimuth, elevation, and range."
"And now the Fuchs armored transport vehicle. It's also in the US inventory in the NBC reconnaissance role ("NBC Fox"), but by and large it's mostly being used by the Bundeswehr."
"Here is the Fuchs A6..."
"And below is the Fuchs A7 with additional armor and a protected roof gunner's position as it is currently employed in Afghanistan."
"The Boxer will replace the Fuchs in a few years, so I guess it's somewhat fitting to present both together. Admittedly these light armored vehicles aren't particularly glamorous or 'sexy' -- but they do play an important role in ongoing operations. Sometimes perhaps it is the not-so-spectacular things that make a big difference."
Unfortunately we just couldn't cram that part into the schedule for this release. It's next on the agenda (really!) - I have to say though that quite honestly, the lack of shadows is most dramatic only in these screenshots. During simulation runs you're doing something wrong if your attention is focused on your own vehicle. Most of the time you'll be spending in thermal and gun sights, or scanning the horizon with binoculars, and there the lack of shadows shouldn't bother you too much. Maybe we're too engineering oriented and focus too much on the pure functionality. But the new version will allow for rendering distances of up to 18 kilometers, and I have to say that the ability to orient yourself with prominent mountains in the distance is very helpful - had somebody forced me to make a choice, I'd have chosen the longer render distance in a heartbeat because the overall utility value is much higher. I concede though that my point of view isn't the only valid one.
"It takes forever +/- 2 weeks for the A-10 to get anywhere significant..." Ice
"Ha! If it gets him on the deck its a start!" MigBuster
"What people like and what critics praise are rarely the same thing. 'Critic' is just another one of those unnecessary, overpaid, parasitic jobs that the human race has churned out so that clever slackers won't have to actually get a real job and possibly soil their hands." Sauron
normal maps soft shadows self shadowing advanced particles
+1
I understand that in simulators graphics are NOT the main concern, but they still play a very important role because realistic graphics will greatly improve the game immersion.
Like I said, I do not debate the beauty of shadows. It just wasn't in the cards for the coming release. The alternative would have been to wait well into 2012, maybe even until summer, before we could have completed SB Pro PE, and that would have been more than the 18 month schedule which is the latest when we want to come up with a new version. 15 months is the targeted upgrade cycle, which will work out just fine this time .
Like I said, I do not debate the beauty of shadows. It just wasn't in the cards for the coming release. The alternative would have been to wait well into 2012, maybe even until summer, before we could have completed SB Pro PE, and that would have been more than the 18 month schedule which is the latest when we want to come up with a new version. 15 months is the targeted upgrade cycle, which will work out just fine this time .
If Shadows will be added in the next upgrade will there be a chance to add some sort of suspension system as well? I never seen a tanksim that doesnt have this these days exept Steel beasts pro. Is this a sign the simulation is getting out-dated , or is there some other reason for not including this in the sim?
Except for one crack head over on the steelbeasts forums, there really isnt a demand for bouncing roadwheels when it comes at the expense of other new vehicles. Things change glacially in the SB world.
The is always a digital download for the updates, so Im sure this update will be no exception. The problem is you need a dongle and youcant download that, so new users will have to order and wait a couple days for the mail to arrive.
Like I said, I do not debate the beauty of shadows. It just wasn't in the cards for the coming release. The alternative would have been to wait well into 2012, maybe even until summer, before we could have completed SB Pro PE, and that would have been more than the 18 month schedule which is the latest when we want to come up with a new version. 15 months is the targeted upgrade cycle, which will work out just fine this time .
it looks great. I like the look of those soldiers...are they still sprites? If so they're damn good lookingi sprites...
The problem is you need a dongle and you cant download that, so new users will have to order and wait a couple days for the mail to arrive.
There's always the option to order a copy today and then the upgrade later. The price has been reduced so that in combination with the upgrade both will cost exactly the same as a brand new 2.6 copy. So if anyone is already convinced - not even halfway through the presentation of new stuff in 2.6, mind you - that he'd like to have it, my recommendation would be to start with 2.5 right away then then just perform the license update and installation file download as soon as 2.6 is being made available.
If Shadows will be added in the next upgrade will there be a chance to add some sort of suspension system as well? I never seen a tanksim that doesnt have this these days exept Steel beasts pro. Is this a sign the simulation is getting out-dated , or is there some other reason for not including this in the sim?
Oscar, do you really believe that hawking over a single item in every. single. post. that you write will make the animation of roadwheels come any faster? Constant reiteration of the same point with the same arguments and without actually learning from three years or replies to that same question of yours only makes you look like a robot. Is there really nothing of bigger importance for you? Even if so, do you really believe that we haven't got your point?
Steel Beasts Professional, above all, is a simulation of combined arms combat tactics - at battalion level and below in larger multiplayer games, at company team level and below for a single player. A secondary role of Steel Beasts is crew procedure and gunnery training, in combination with the right hardware, be it as a desktop trainer station or as a part of larger cabin trainer installations (I hope to be able to make a decent video of some of them in the future). Bouncing roadwheels simply are of no importance in either role. Their main purpose is "good looks". Good looks are nice, we like them like everybody, but they simply are not at the focus of our attention, and never will as long as our main business is in delivering training tools.
If Shadows will be added in the next upgrade will there be a chance to add some sort of suspension system as well? I never seen a tanksim that doesnt have this these days exept Steel beasts pro. Is this a sign the simulation is getting out-dated , or is there some other reason for not including this in the sim?
Oscar, do you really believe that hawking over a single item in every. single. post. that you write will make the animation of roadwheels come any faster? Constant reiteration of the same point with the same arguments and without actually learning from three years or replies to that same question of yours only makes you look like a robot. Is there really nothing of bigger importance for you? Even if so, do you really believe that we haven't got your point?
Steel Beasts Professional, above all, is a simulation of combined arms combat tactics - at battalion level and below in larger multiplayer games, at company team level and below for a single player. A secondary role of Steel Beasts is crew procedure and gunnery training, in combination with the right hardware, be it as a desktop trainer station or as a part of larger cabin trainer installations (I hope to be able to make a decent video of some of them in the future). Bouncing roadwheels simply are of no importance in either role. Their main purpose is "good looks". Good looks are nice, we like them like everybody, but they simply are not at the focus of our attention, and never will as long as our main business is in delivering training tools.
I think you are mistaking me for someone else buddy. This is my first post on the subject and i dont even have Steel Beast (yet) But to comment on the subject (if you dont mind) i understandt bouncing roadwheels do not have that much value for simulation and that for the bigger part its just good on the eyes. But it seems shadows are about on the same level arent they? I wouldnt see any real value for simulation but yet it is mostly good on the eyes right? However its not a showstopper and i considering buying steel beasts somewhere along the line. Its just that i wondered if it would ever see implementation thats all. I didnt know that it was THAT big of an issue for some..
I don't know about anyone else, but bouncing road wheels are at least a distant 10th on my list of wants, far below a playible Merkava with 3D female crew who sport something else that bounces.
Registered: 10/23/05
Posts: 610
Loc: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Originally Posted By: Ssnake
There's an Oscar Klein-S. on the Steel Beasts forum with exactly the same arguments... That would be a remarkable coincidence.
To be fair, there must be quite a few Oscar Kleins with interest in tank sims (especially their suspensions) and helo sims. They are more common than you would think.
Steel Beasts Professional, above all, is a simulation of combined arms combat tactics - at battalion level and below in larger multiplayer games, at company team level and below for a single player. A secondary role of Steel Beasts is crew procedure and gunnery training, in combination with the right hardware, be it as a desktop trainer station or as a part of larger cabin trainer installations (I hope to be able to make a decent video of some of them in the future). Bouncing roadwheels simply are of no importance in either role. Their main purpose is "good looks". Good looks are nice, we like them like everybody, but they simply are not at the focus of our attention, and never will as long as our main business is in delivering training tools.
Aside from all the flaming here, this is still the main reason I won't buy Steel Beasts. For one, the stubborn rebuff of this crew to bring this sim into the 20th century, and the attitude that graphics are for eye-candy pie-heads. Bought the first one, and the downright comical infantry ruined the whole experience to the point it was taken from my HD.
No shadows, no realistic suspension or animations, still. Beg borrow and/or steal it from Battlefront if you have to. Their tanks in CM Shock Force embarrass SB (or should), and it's not even a tank sim. I would argue that the fidelity of their engine is every bit as complicated and realistic as SB. Sims are about immersion for gamers.
If graphics in sims are so over-rated and unimportant, why the 'eye-candy' in LOMAC and IL-2? Why aren't the developers on the sites flaming people for asking for these things? Or (as I suspect) are we just so lucky that SB is available to us lowly gamers at all? I realize we're just second fiddle to the army and should just be happy with the scraps we're given after the 'real' customer is served. What a load of arrogant BS.
_________________________
I mean, I guess it would just be a guy who you know, grabs bananas and runs. Or, um, a banana that grabs things. I don’t know. Why would a banana grab another banana? Those are the kind of questions I just don’t want to answer. -Michael Bluth
_________________________
I mean, I guess it would just be a guy who you know, grabs bananas and runs. Or, um, a banana that grabs things. I don’t know. Why would a banana grab another banana? Those are the kind of questions I just don’t want to answer. -Michael Bluth
What is the point of flaming? If nothing else, it looks like you are trolling from this reply you just made. Quite simply, if someone doesn't like a consumer product then they do not purchase it. That is the natural way of all things, is it not?
Edited by Volcano (11/04/1110:32 AM) Edit Reason: typo
aleader, your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's. The main difference between IL2, CMSF, and Steel Beasts is that the former are catering primarily to the consumer market where good looks are essential for commercial success. With Steel Beasts however the situation is different because about 90% of eSim's profits are made in the market for training solutions where functionality trumps good looks; still, about 20% of our development time (and 97% of all customer support) is spent on the Personal Edition, or closely related to it - clearly a disproportionate amount. SB Pro PE users are anything but second class customers to us.
We at eSim Games like good looks as anyone else, but we must concede that as long as the looks get the job done, the majority of our customers is served better by adding a new feature that enables a certain tactical training scenario that could not be adequately trained before. If that means that we cannot win some consumer customers who place a higher emphasis on visuals, that is unfortunate but the price to pay for superior functionality and code maturity.
Now, we tripled the number of programmers this year, and one of the reasons was that we also want to give SB Pro a facelift. It will come sooner than you think, just not this December; some things simply take more time than is available if we want to maintain the rhythm of a new major PE release every 15 months. We were confronted with the choice to have everybody wait for at least another half a year, or to bring a playable T-72 as soon as possible to the community that demanded it for several years now. We chose the latter option.
Whether I "flamed" Oscar lies in the eye of the beholder. I never, in all the years, rejected the suggestion of animated roadwheels as "rubbish" or anything. I just pointed out that from a functional point of view they add very little, so inevitably it can't be very high on our priority list. (I also pointed out that if he indeed is the same guy that has developed some notoriety on the SteelBeasts.com forum for his solo campaigning for animated roadwheels, in his third year he's beginning to sound a bit repetitive. If you're honest to yourself you'll admit that a mere repetition of the same arguments from the same one user can hardly be the basis to change the course of a development work plan unless the argument is of really exceptional quality). If I came across as a condescending arrogant #%&*$# - that wasn't my intent, but please let me say that maybe you just don't know the full background here.
Our prime consideration is code stability, followed by functional expansion, then low effort-high yield utility value improvements, followed by "better looks". Everybody is entitled to a different emphasis, but as it happens we are in charge of the development of our own software and nobody else. Therefore we will follow our own guidelines as long as we see financial reward from our customers. Other developers do a great job with their products.
Alright folks...screenshot thread... I keep coming back in expecting another screenshot and then leave disappointed. lol
Please take the discussion to the SB Forum below.
Thank you... and welcome new folks, hope you didn't join to become a thorn in my side!
_________________________
Magnum SimHQ
*Intel i7-2600K processor *Cooler Master Hyper N 520 CPU fan *Asus ROG Maximus IV Gene-Z mobo *8GB Corsair Vengeance 1600 DDR3 RAM *Asus ENGTX570 DCII GeForce 570 video card *Western Digital 640GB 7200 w/32MB cache HDD *Corsair TX750M power supply *Corsair Carbide Series 500R black case *LG CD/DVD optical drive *Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 64-bit
Steel Beasts Professional, above all, is a simulation of combined arms combat tactics - at battalion level and below in larger multiplayer games, at company team level and below for a single player. A secondary role of Steel Beasts is crew procedure and gunnery training, in combination with the right hardware, be it as a desktop trainer station or as a part of larger cabin trainer installations (I hope to be able to make a decent video of some of them in the future). Bouncing roadwheels simply are of no importance in either role. Their main purpose is "good looks". Good looks are nice, we like them like everybody, but they simply are not at the focus of our attention, and never will as long as our main business is in delivering training tools.
Aside from all the flaming here, this is still the main reason I won't buy Steel Beasts. For one, the stubborn rebuff of this crew to bring this sim into the 20th century, and the attitude that graphics are for eye-candy pie-heads. Bought the first one, and the downright comical infantry ruined the whole experience to the point it was taken from my HD.
No shadows, no realistic suspension or animations, still. Beg borrow and/or steal it from Battlefront if you have to. Their tanks in CM Shock Force embarrass SB (or should), and it's not even a tank sim. I would argue that the fidelity of their engine is every bit as complicated and realistic as SB. Sims are about immersion for gamers.
If graphics in sims are so over-rated and unimportant, why the 'eye-candy' in LOMAC and IL-2? Why aren't the developers on the sites flaming people for asking for these things? Or (as I suspect) are we just so lucky that SB is available to us lowly gamers at all? I realize we're just second fiddle to the army and should just be happy with the scraps we're given after the 'real' customer is served. What a load of arrogant BS.
make no mistake, we've wanted to implement shadows, lighting and all sorts of eye-candy for years, but because of the military contracts, and us only having a single programmer, we haven't been able to. then again, it is because of the military contracts that we are still here, if we only worked for the civilian market, Esim would have gone bankrupt 7 years ago. instead, we are doing exceptionally well, and now have the manpower and resources to expand on SB, and make it what it always should have been. we now have 3 programmers, 3 artists, and 1 sound guy/bughunter, plus some betatesters, compared to 1 year ago, when it was basically only 1 artist, and 1 programmer and 1 sound guy.
FYI, the infantry in SB has received more upgrades than just graphical ones. they're still not where we'd wish they'd be, but they're better now than before (they now duck and start firing when fired upon instead of run around like lemmings getting killed). i agree that more effective infantry is important to a tanksim, since they will provide a more realistic challenge for tanks, but we're working on a tanksim, so we have a tendency to focus on the tanks, and forget infantry.
_________________________
SB comes in 3 variations.
"SB2" "SB pro PE" and "SB pro". "public" "pub/mil" "military"
*Intel i7-2600K processor *Cooler Master Hyper N 520 CPU fan *Asus ROG Maximus IV Gene-Z mobo *8GB Corsair Vengeance 1600 DDR3 RAM *Asus ENGTX570 DCII GeForce 570 video card *Western Digital 640GB 7200 w/32MB cache HDD *Corsair TX750M power supply *Corsair Carbide Series 500R black case *LG CD/DVD optical drive *Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 64-bit
Very nice vid, considering that we are still a month away from release it makes me wonder as to the vastness of what we are getting here with the update
_________________________
l'Audace, toujours l'audace
People, Ideas, and Hardware. 'In that order!' John Boyd
"There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen." Lenin
"You never win an argument until they attack your person" Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Aside from all the flaming here, this is still the main reason I won't buy Steel Beasts. For one, the stubborn rebuff of this crew to bring this sim into the 20th century, and the attitude that graphics are for eye-candy pie-heads. Bought the first one, and the downright comical infantry ruined the whole experience to the point it was taken from my HD.
Recall that infantry sprites in Steel Beasts were industry standard for that generation of games. Panzer Commander- which I never really quite understood at all what people liked - had no infantry at all. M1TP2 and Panzer Elite both had infantry sprites. iPanzer '44 had very crude looking boxes triangles and spheres assembled to sort of look like little army men. They sure weren't sprites, they were worse insofar as how they looked. Of all of them, Steel Beasts is the only product that continues to exist and is still supported by the developer. Think about it. For some strange reason, no one complains about the infantry sprites in M1TP2 and Panzer Elite or their graphical limitations by today's standards. Why? They are dead end products, clearly outdated, the developers have folded up and there is no chance to see anything more than what users can come up with to mod them to the extent that it's possible within the software. Yet people rave about these games though they are very much behind the curve in every possible way- moreso than Steal Beasts. This doesn't make sense to me- Steel Beasts looks and plays better in every possible way. People should be slapping those games down left and right if Steel Beasts is the measure here, but more often than not, they're trying to get them up and running. To each his own, but it sure is inconsistent.
_________________________
No one gets out of here alive.
Registered: 06/19/10
Posts: 127
Loc: North Yorkshire, UK
Hmmmm, I'm getting quite excited myself.
Good job team and that was a nice response from Ssnake. Esim continues to be a real good bunch of guys. Best of luck with 2.6 and the future!!! It sounds very exciting!
[quote=aleader] Why? They are dead end products, clearly outdated, the developers have folded up and there is no chance to see anything more than what users can come up with to mod them to the extent that it's possible within the software. Yet people rave about these games though they are very much behind the curve in every possible way- moreso than Steal Beasts. This doesn't make sense to me- Steel Beasts looks and plays better in every possible way. People should be slapping those games down left and right if Steel Beasts is the measure here, but more often than not, they're trying to get them up and running. To each his own, but it sure is inconsistent.
guess it's all down to the price point. people don't want to pay 125$ for a game.
_________________________
SB comes in 3 variations.
"SB2" "SB pro PE" and "SB pro". "public" "pub/mil" "military"
Ssnake sent the following info with the screenshots...
"These show the New Zealanders' variant of the LAV-25 family, the NZLAV-IMV. It is more heavily armored than the Australian LAV (as I understand it, the Aussies wanted to retain the amphibious capability while the Kiwis emphasized protection more; ultimately they are both going together on deployments in the South Pacific area)."
Registered: 07/01/01
Posts: 602
Loc: Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
WOW!
No shadows and 2D "Sprite"-based particle effects really detracts from the wonderful vehicle models....
I understand that this sim is based on Military Contract sales but since it's "ADVERTISED" and sold on the CIVILIAN COMMERCIAL MARKET it should have shadows and 3D particle effects in this day and age.
I applaud the move to 3D non "Sprite"-based infantry as a move in a positive direction.
Registered: 08/10/08
Posts: 1605
Loc: Littleton, Co
If yea don't like don't buy it. I personally can't wait. I do have to say I am very addicted to sims. Eye candy is just that eye candy and when it coems down to it, system working and modeled is more important then shadows.I guess why I still play Falcon after 13 years and I had Steel beast 1 and follow this and a few others.
Bullet
_________________________
Specs home built I7 870 Lynnfield Chip at stock speed 2.93 with Evga P55FTW system board, A BFG GTX275 Vid card, 4Gigs Corsair Dominator Mem 2600+, 1.3 TB on 2 WD Hard drives, Corsair H50 water cooler.X-65F with peddals and Tir 4 track clip pro One badass machine...
No shadows and 2D "Sprite"-based particle effects really detracts from the wonderful vehicle models....
I understand that this sim is based on Military Contract sales but since it's "ADVERTISED" and sold on the CIVILIAN COMMERCIAL MARKET it should have shadows and 3D particle effects in this day and age.
I applaud the move to 3D non "Sprite"-based infantry as a move in a positive direction.
Everyone wants to see all of this- including yours truly. I remember when there was some news back in 2002 or so when a T-72 was coming soon with the inevitable release of Steel Beasts 2. Well, it wasn't until 2006 when Steel Beasts Pro was available, and it's now late 2011 when a T-72 is only now coming around. This says something about the type of person who has interest in the subject matter who has stuck with it waiting patiently all these years; although we've all wanted all these improvements, we still held out, because it's really worth it still.
That said, Steel Beasts seems to have reached a turning point. Updates are coming faster than they had in the past, more content is piling in faster than most people with a life and a job can practically delve into and master. So nice things like shadows and particle effects will likely come sooner rather than later compared to what happened in the past.
I'm glad to see guod paying attention and helping out eSim with coverage here, too, that's really class.
_________________________
No one gets out of here alive.
Ssnake, that was an incredibly intelligent, mature response to my post and I appreciate it. I have a deep affection for tank sims from my first days playing M1TP, M1TP2, Panzer Commander, Panzer Elite, and a few utter crap games in between (I believe one was called iPanzer 44). And I agree. Why anyone would want to go back and play those is beyond me. A poster at the Armchair general clarified the issue for me. This is a tank 'simulation.' I would bet that driving a tank in a field (muddy, dry, whatever) is very different from what we see in SBPro. Tanks make ruts, spray dirt, and generally cause extreme amounts of damage to everything around them. I still do not get that sense with SBPro. If you like ultra hardcore simulations of 20 minutes of dial fiddling and don't care at all about the immersion factor, then you are in the Falcon 4 crowd and in the extreme minority.
M1TP2 was released in 1998 with sprites. 3 years later ( a lifetime in PC games) SB was released with the very same sprites. 10 years after that SBPro is still using the same sprites (yes, the new infantry look very good). Longbow 2 was released in 1997 and was cutting edge at the time, and was also about as hardcore a chopper sim as you could get (I played it to death, even though it was tough). 15 years later, DCS Black Shark is night and day graphically, but with even more hardcore fidelity and functionality. Why can't we have a tank sim reflective of 2011? The sound is phenomenal (good on you for giving that some love), the gameplay is obviously spot on. You're so close to the pinnacle of a classic tank sim. That's all I'm saying. If you give SBPro the 'eye-candy' (immersion) treatment it deserves, I'll pay $200 for it.
_________________________
I mean, I guess it would just be a guy who you know, grabs bananas and runs. Or, um, a banana that grabs things. I don’t know. Why would a banana grab another banana? Those are the kind of questions I just don’t want to answer. -Michael Bluth
This is a tank 'simulation.' I would bet that driving a tank in a field (muddy, dry, whatever) is very different from what we see in SBPro.
Maybe with better graphics we could create a higher immersion for some players. That alone is worth it (and, as I wrote, we will continue to give SB Pro better looks, the transition to 3D characters is but a first step). Those that have been on a tank however - be it as professional soldiers like me, or as conscripts like many others - will to a large degree "appreciate" better looks, but it'll do little for extra immersion for them because no matter what, you simply can't substitute or synthesize certain things. I tend to be cautious with predictions, but I think I can say that for the foreseeable future, it can't be done at all. I wrote a chapter in the user manual about the limitations of simulating tanks in general. Form a training perspective, immersion alone does not make good training. In the Gadget Show they recently combined a dome projection, a universal direction treadmill, and a battery of paintball sentry guns á la "Aliens" (extended version) to shoot the player while he was playing some shooter game. They agreed that this was the best computer game experience, ever - yet I have to question whether zinging a student with paintball guns really would improve training results. Maybe as an educational measure it could help, were it not that there are laws against physical punishment in most armies, so it's a no-no.
Originally Posted By: aleader
You're so close to the pinnacle of a classic tank sim.
I have thought a while whether I should give this retort because it can, again, be misunderstood as arrogance. But I think I can say without a bad conscience that there has never been a tank simulation on the (commercial/computer game) market that came even close to Steel Beasts in any area, except eye candy. Maybe one day there will be a better simulation available. But for more than a decade now we've been in a league of our own.
Most of the time you spend looking through a scope where the least that is on your mind is the lack of shadows, or other eye candy. You try to concentrate finding the #%&*$# that just took out your wingman, and nail him first before he'll get you. A significant part of the timer you'll be looking at the map screen, trying to read the tactical situation to get the timing right for your units' next moves. You notice all these deficits in the screenshots and YouTube videos because they can only transport eye candy, but very rarely the excitement of (simulated) combat. It's one thing to see the video of British squaddies being strafed by an A-10 (and surviving it), and quite another to really being there. Or the difference between certain adult movies and actually being together with your loved one. While we are all visual animals, there's only so much that a screen can transport. Like I said, we'll do more in the field of better visuals. But I'm absolutely convinced that we already have a great package that is worth every dime.
Well, I shall post a few more screenshots today to bring this thread back on track.
Yes, they can. It depends a lot on what you want to do. You can have "red" and "blue" civilian cars. They are exempt from the fire of military units, similar to ambulances (understand that this is an intermediary solution). If you do not make them blind and if you remove the radio damage, they can become intelligence assets that will report presence of the other side's troops. You could mix blind cars with those transporting troops. As soon as the troops get out of the cars they may be engaged by the other side's military units.
So, by shaping their properties you can achieve different effects.
"The pictures show the Russian 2S1 "Gvozdika" howitzer, caliber 122mm. They will replace the "artillery placeholder" unit that we had in previous versions. It's mostly an artwork thing, they aren't yet fully functional. We will however equip them with a few HEAT rounds for self defense purposes so that they aren't completely helpless.
These new units should be a useful addition to create scenarios showing the events following a breakthrough in a linear battlefield where tanks are supposed to expand and exploit a gap in the defense line and wreak as much havoc as possible in the enemy's rear area. Ultimately, getting these units in one's sights is a tanker's classic indicator that an assault has been successful (that, and still being alive, of course).
The typical weapon range of this howitzer is 15km; per classic Soviet doctrine it would the the prime element of a regimental's artillery group and be found from about four to eight kilometers behind the mechanized and armor units' front line. The vehicle chassis is a derivative of the MT-LB, which is known for its excellent cross-country mobility especially across soft ground, or snow. The 2S1 is one of the most widely proliferated artillery systems worldwide."
Registered: 08/19/01
Posts: 2570
Loc: Seffner, FL USA
1) This is such a small niche market that no amount of graphical improvements will have any significant impact on sales. 2) Those who would be willing to pay for graphical improvements probably own the game already. So how is such a small company going to afford the effort it takes to make all of these changes UNLESS contracted by a large, wealthy commercial/government customer?
I have to agree with Ssnake: there is no substitute for Steel Beasts Pro if you want to SIMULATE modern armored warfare. If you want to play a shooter game whose focus is graphics and gameplay rather than realism, there are countless options.
If Steel Beasts Pro natively supported interfacing with the ArmaA 2 series in a way that retains its armor simulation model but allows ArmA 2 to provide the infantry modeling, that would be an awesome simulation AND game. What ArmA 2 lacks in realism, it compensates with immersion except for some physics modeling glitches that date back to the original Operation Flashpoint game. I assume that their new helo sim that evolved from the OFP/ArmA series game engine is probably the best helo sim option presently available. Hopefully, it will integrate with the ArmA series so that the high fidelity infantry combat can be mixed with decent helo sim modeling... If the market doesn't collapse, I see a very bright future in professional military grade sims that are being released in tandem as commercial products
_________________________
forum: a public meeting or assembly for open discussion discussion: an extended communication (often interactive) dealing with some particular topic censorship: practice of suppressing a text or part of a text that is considered objectionable
What needs to happen is an industry push to make an open battlefield. It would be an environment that developers could write to, which allowed something like Steel Beasts to survive. The market for sim products is just not big enough for every developer to tackle the entire thing. What we need is an open source platform that allows tank, flight sim, naval, fps, scenery, etc. developers to create content for. Sort of like FSX but for the sim crowd.
Then something like Steal Beasts would take off IMO.
What needs to happen is an industry push to make an open battlefield.
I'm not sure who should take the lead there, and with what kind of a business model. Only a pay to play/subscription model comes to mind, some sort of a MS Flight Simulator, just server based. But then the question is, if you make all extra content as something to buy separately, would the players actually be willing to do it, and wouldn't they end up paying a lot more than they do right now (subscription fees plus extra payments for vehicles and other content)? I'm not sure if something like an open cooperative would work. You need to have one strong player to set up the entire market, and that player then needs to hope that other developers will join in to create modules instead of entire applications. I'm not sure if that is attractive enough. From an artist's point of view you lose a lot of creative freedom by submitting to some other company's rules, both commercially and with what they actually allow you to make (engine/content limitations).
Armies are willing to pay more money for certain standardizations, but there's still a long way to go before an open standard emerges that is also meaningful and mature enough for broad commercialization. Don't hold your breath for it.
Quote:
It would be an environment ... which allowed something like Steel Beasts to survive.
We're doing well, don't worry. Thanks for your concerns, but we managed to stay in the market over the last twelve years and are in better shape than ever, both in finances and manpower. The best is yet to come.
Quote:
The market for sim products is just not big enough for every developer to tackle the entire thing.
May well be, but it's difficult to compromise between companies about engines and content to create one common product. I'm not saying that it is impossible - but rather unlikely. It worked with MS Flight Simulator for a while because there was one big corporation to establish the market, and at the same time that is exactly the reason why some developers would never want to join such a party. It is almost inevitable that there will be asymmetries in financial power and in the desired end-goals for all parties involved that make it questionable how long such an alliance might work out (see general Game Theory about that point).
Registered: 12/22/02
Posts: 3538
Loc: Wisconsin, USA
Very, very cool Ssnake.
You guys have gone to town on this upgrade. I saw 3D interiors for gunners position for Abrams and Bradley, beautiful gun sight for Challenger and of course a unbelievalbly beautiful 3D interior for that T-72. I've already okayed the purchase with the wife... ...now when can I send my money to you?
Registered: 10/23/05
Posts: 610
Loc: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Originally Posted By: enigma6584
Very, very cool Ssnake.
You guys have gone to town on this upgrade. I saw 3D interiors for gunners position for Abrams and Bradley, beautiful gun sight for Challenger and of course a unbelievalbly beautiful 3D interior for that T-72. I've already okayed the purchase with the wife... ...now when can I send my money to you?
Is it December yet? Is it? Is it?
I'm very much looking forward to this release. Hopefully as soon as possible
Registered: 08/10/08
Posts: 1605
Loc: Littleton, Co
this is gonna rock, I bet they MP side is gonna have a field day with the t-72's.
Bullet
_________________________
Specs home built I7 870 Lynnfield Chip at stock speed 2.93 with Evga P55FTW system board, A BFG GTX275 Vid card, 4Gigs Corsair Dominator Mem 2600+, 1.3 TB on 2 WD Hard drives, Corsair H50 water cooler.X-65F with peddals and Tir 4 track clip pro One badass machine...
You guys have gone to town on this upgrade. I saw 3D interiors for gunners position for Abrams and Bradley, beautiful gun sight for Challenger and of course a unbelievalbly beautiful 3D interior for that T-72. I've already okayed the purchase with the wife... ...now when can I send my money to you?
Is it December yet? Is it? Is it?
I'm very much looking forward to this release. Hopefully as soon as possible
December can't come soon enough.
_________________________
l'Audace, toujours l'audace
People, Ideas, and Hardware. 'In that order!' John Boyd
"There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen." Lenin
"You never win an argument until they attack your person" Nassim Nicholas Taleb
it doesn't matter how expansive or open to modding it is.
if the game doesn't appeal to the general audience, you're not going to draw much attention. and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
a sim doesn't need to take off. if it did, it probably means you've compromised yourself, or you have big advertising dollars. the latter only applies to microsoft.
No shadows and 2D "Sprite"-based particle effects really detracts from the wonderful vehicle models....
I understand that this sim is based on Military Contract sales but since it's "ADVERTISED" and sold on the CIVILIAN COMMERCIAL MARKET it should have shadows and 3D particle effects in this day and age.
I applaud the move to 3D non "Sprite"-based infantry as a move in a positive direction.
You need to make a choice: Sound engineering fundamentals and a very high standard of simulation, or superficial polish. The latter can always be done with time. History has continually shown that you cannot have both, with very few exceptions.
The reality of the simulation market is that time and again products (across all genres) are released that look amazing but the fundamental mechanics have problems. The forums are full of posts that complain about these things, but all are in agreement that said titles always look pretty good.
I know which I prefer.
Hats off to Esim for always taking the professional approach.
Calendar
Downloads
FAQ
Library
Multiplayer
News
Release Dates
SimHQ TV
Cannot wait for the update 
...now when can I send my money to you? 
Previous Topic
Index