Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
#4481261 - 07/03/19 08:18 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Woofie_Dog]  
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 13
Ronin_germany Offline
Junior Member
Ronin_germany  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by Woofie_Dog
Off the top of my head???...comparing fidelity to DCS?? A driver position,a loader position.

Better to have a 75%(since remaining 25% would be guess work I would imagine) realistic T-XX to man then shooting from a 3rd person AI position....hands down.But I also think there is enough info out there to get it better than 75%.Hell,I just saw a news article that suggested that Pro Russian T-72's in Ukraine are using french thermals by THALES....why not model that system for OPFOR.(addressing my wish for a thermal OPFOR tank)
OPFOR should be HUMAN and with THERMALS...same as BLUEFOR in a NATO vs Soviet/RUSSIAN FEDERATION scenario.


See the difference there, neither driver nor loader position would have a training value...so not a real reason to model them.

On the rest we can just disagree here (apart from the point that these % are rather arbitrary)
Having a Thales TIS, does not realy tell you much about the FCS, the TIS resolution not even the stadia lines...again, I rather not see the limited resoucre that is coding time invested in "fake" stuff when there is other things that need attention.

If this wasn't the case, I'd agree with NATO/Rus scenario. Good thing is that this is just one of the plenty scenarios that you can set up with steelbeasts.


NEC CUPIAS, NEC METUAS
Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4481273 - 07/03/19 08:48 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Ronin_germany]  
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 7,603
Ssnake Offline
Virtual Shiva Beast
Ssnake  Offline
Virtual Shiva Beast
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 7,603
Germoney
Originally Posted by Ronin_germany
See the difference there, neither driver nor loader position would have a training value...so not a real reason to model them.

Worst of all, they wouldn't be much fun.
As a loader, either you're pulling rounds from a rack and then shove them into a hole where they disappear with a bang. Or you'd swap coax barrels and ammo belts. All of that are distinctly physical activities where a mouse/3D interface are utterly pointless. Or, if you're not doing the physical thing, you could observe out of the hatch like the commander, without being able to influence much (unlike the commander's position), except that you have the AA MG and can get whacked by some unseen sniper while you look all badass.

The driver's position might be slightly more fun, but it's largely in there, better in some vehicles than in others, but again the main point of the driver's position in SB Pro is to support the training of the commander, not to train the driver himself. For that, you have dedicated driving simulators with a substantially higher complexity. Last but not least, the driver's position is also more physical than the Gunner's or commander's, which is why motion platforms add so much immersion to any driving simulation. But the typical player doesn't have a motion platform at home, and in any case SB Pro isn't a racing game. Spintires is probably the best driving simulation for military/offroad vehicles there is, and I admit that it has its own appeal, but then the maps are just like 5x5km² where we need to be able to simulate 150x150km², so the technology in Spintires could not possible be adapted 1:1 without running into severe scaling issues in multiple dimensions.


Visit the home of Steel Beasts!
...the ultimate armor sim...
#4481276 - 07/03/19 08:56 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Ssnake]  
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59
Woofie_Dog Offline
Junior Member
Woofie_Dog  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59
BUT...a loader could fill a man down position...ie a commander or a gunner or a driver in a pinch.Not to mention if your training a tank crew...you train the whole crew.And for the record ,I have no idea if the thales thing is true or not.But if it is,its something of a way out for our opfor scenerios.Alot easier modeling a single system than a whole other tank.

Last edited by Woofie_Dog; 07/03/19 09:01 PM.
#4481277 - 07/03/19 09:00 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Woofie_Dog]  
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 13
Ronin_germany Offline
Junior Member
Ronin_germany  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by Woofie_Dog
BUT...a loader could fill a man down position...ie a commander or a gunner or a driver in a pinch.Not to mention if your training a tank crew...you train the whole crew.

And for that you can use the gunners or TC position that the simulator offers to train the loader on them.
To train the loaders position, you need hardware, nothing a PC based software can offer...


NEC CUPIAS, NEC METUAS
#4481278 - 07/03/19 09:00 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Ssnake]  
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 7,603
Ssnake Offline
Virtual Shiva Beast
Ssnake  Offline
Virtual Shiva Beast
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 7,603
Germoney
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that SB Pro is "better than ArmA" (just - different), or that it's "perfect" and doesn't need improvement.
We will probably never be done with SB Pro. There's always one more thing that you can do. But the things that we do, I'd rather do right. Yes, yes... "Challenger!". There's a background to that, and maybe one day we'll find an opportunity to work on it again.


But in any case we need to work within a business context that puts serious constraints on us about how much time we can devote on military vehicles in which our military customers have no active interest. Everything that we accomplished in the last 20 years, we did with our own money and our own talent. We have quadrupled the team size and increased the number of programmers sixfold, and we're operating without losses. After 20 years, we're still completely independent.
Other companies have different business models, and that's swell for them. Wouldn't it be boring if everything was just the same?


Visit the home of Steel Beasts!
...the ultimate armor sim...
#4481280 - 07/03/19 09:06 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Woofie_Dog]  
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 7,603
Ssnake Offline
Virtual Shiva Beast
Ssnake  Offline
Virtual Shiva Beast
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 7,603
Germoney
Originally Posted by Woofie_Dog
BUT...a loader could fill a man down position...ie a commander or a gunner or a driver in a pinch.

...aaand how exactly would that change how Steel Beasts works already?
If your argument is that the loader is a spare guy that can fill any of the roles that are already in SB Pro...?!?
If you lose a commander in Steel Beasts, as a human player you can still occupy the commander's position. But then we reduce the loading speed. Lose loader and gunner, you can still shoot the gun once a minute or so. Not that it was a good idea, but... you could. Lose three guys, and you can still drive away the tank and hope for an ambulance to show up. With remarks like this, I'm wondering how familiar you are with Steel Beasts at all.


Visit the home of Steel Beasts!
...the ultimate armor sim...
#4481284 - 07/03/19 09:14 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Ssnake]  
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59
Woofie_Dog Offline
Junior Member
Woofie_Dog  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59
I dunno...being a loader,loading, on the MG and spotting targets while I mange the other assets instead of the platoon commander doing it (like maybe fuel,ammo etc,while still being part of the crew)would have its place...I would enjoy that even if its not a true role(the asset managing I mean.)I think a loader would have lots to do game play wise in a mission.Same for the driver.And I can't tellyou how many times my tank was out of action because my driver was dead(from a tree no less!!!).With a loader onboard I could drive to the repair area myself.When did steelbeasts come out...thats how long I've played it...pretty familiar.

Last edited by Woofie_Dog; 07/03/19 09:20 PM.
#4481285 - 07/03/19 09:21 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Woofie_Dog]  
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 13
Ronin_germany Offline
Junior Member
Ronin_germany  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by Woofie_Dog
I dunno...being a loader,loading, on the MG and spotting targets while I mange the other assets instead of the platoon commander doing it (like maybe fuel,ammo etc,while still being part of the crew)would have its place...I would enjoy that even if its not a true role(the asset managing I mean.)I think a loader would have lots to do game play wise in a mission.Same for the driver.


Did you ever play a SB mission?
IRL (an in game)
95% of the time the loader in under the hatch...and guess what; waiting for the command to load a round., then 4% he is actually loading...then maybe 1% helping with spotting
Not really my idea of fun gameplay

Driver would by 60% looking at a mound of dirt directly to your front, waiting for the TC to yell at you...rest of the time is doing what the TC is yelling, often without seeing where you're going.
(and these are thing that you can not realy simulate to without a motion platform and true 3D ad dept of view emulation)


NEC CUPIAS, NEC METUAS
#4481287 - 07/03/19 09:28 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Ssnake]  
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 7,603
Ssnake Offline
Virtual Shiva Beast
Ssnake  Offline
Virtual Shiva Beast
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 7,603
Germoney
The asset management largely is, surprise, the commander's/platoon leader's role. The platoon leader is an incredibly overtasked guy. And from a training perspective - remember, that's eSim's primary point of view - you wouldn't want to take away that stress of being overworked. Because the simulation is supposed to prepare him for that level of stress in real life (plus some extra, because then it's for real with all the metal flying through the air).

It's perfectly fine to want, as a consumer/gamer, better immersion and maybe some fun mechanics that aren't entirely realistic. I agree, it would make a better game. But for reasons of reliable cash flow and the absence of publishers with creative accounting practices eSim Games is now in the training market. This has allowed us to stay in business in the first place, over the last 15 years. Otherwise the story of Steel Beasts and eSim Games would have ended in 2003. So everything that has happened ever since is a direct result of that business decision, and given that the alternative would have been economic death you will find me entirely unapologetic.
We have taken up the fight with multiple multi-billion dollar defense contractors, and won often enough to be still there. We have a dozen different armies as customers, on three continents. For a company the size of eSim Games' that's not too shabby. If SB Pro PE isn't exactly the kind of game that you'd be hoping for, well, I certainly regret that. But I'm realist enough to understand that this is the price that we had to pay for the opportunity to have this conversation in the first place.


Visit the home of Steel Beasts!
...the ultimate armor sim...
#4481289 - 07/03/19 09:36 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Ronin_germany]  
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59
Woofie_Dog Offline
Junior Member
Woofie_Dog  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59
Pffft...in real life the loader probably does more than the gunner does.(half a joke...half not)...if we were using T-34's that WOULD be the case...but that's being silly isn't it.However having 4 to a tank wouldn't be as boring in game play as you say. Alot of the time we have players doing that from the exterior view...would be cool if they could become part of the tank crew(loader)its been mentioned and discussed more times than you obviously think.

#4481292 - 07/03/19 09:46 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Ssnake]  
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59
Woofie_Dog Offline
Junior Member
Woofie_Dog  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59
Originally Posted by Ssnake
The asset management largely is, surprise, the commander's/platoon leader's role. The platoon leader is an incredibly overtasked guy. And from a training perspective - remember, that's eSim's primary point of view - you wouldn't want to take away that stress of being overworked. Because the simulation is supposed to prepare him for that level of stress in real life (plus some extra, because then it's for real with all the metal flying through the air).

It's perfectly fine to want, as a consumer/gamer, better immersion and maybe some fun mechanics that aren't entirely realistic. I agree, it would make a better game. But for reasons of reliable cash flow and the absence of publishers with creative accounting practices eSim Games is now in the training market. This has allowed us to stay in business in the first place, over the last 15 years. Otherwise the story of Steel Beasts and eSim Games would have ended in 2003. So everything that has happened ever since is a direct result of that business decision, and given that the alternative would have been economic death you will find me entirely unapologetic.
We have taken up the fight with multiple multi-billion dollar defense contractors, and won often enough to be still there. We have a dozen different armies as customers, on three continents. For a company the size of eSim Games' that's not too shabby. If SB Pro PE isn't exactly the kind of game that you'd be hoping for, well, I certainly regret that. But I'm realist enough to understand that this is the price that we had to pay for the opportunity to have this conversation in the first place.



Did you just say that you got lots of money rolling in from dozens of armies ??...and you can't give us a thermal opfor tank over the course of 2 decades??? okie dokie!

#4481312 - 07/04/19 12:57 AM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Ssnake]  
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 7,603
Ssnake Offline
Virtual Shiva Beast
Ssnake  Offline
Virtual Shiva Beast
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 7,603
Germoney
Well, we have to work for the money that we get. If you think that it's all free cash, you're seriously mistaken.
And that money influences to a large degree where our development priorities are. It couldn't be any other way.

That we're working for armies is no secret. So I'm not sure what you think that you just discovered.


Visit the home of Steel Beasts!
...the ultimate armor sim...
#4481319 - 07/04/19 01:16 AM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Ssnake]  
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,513
VF9_Longbow Offline
Hotshot
VF9_Longbow  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,513
Tokyo, Japan
Though I don't really agree with most of what woofie is saying, I will say this.

Increased multi-crew positions have enormous implications for your ability to market to military customers. Even if they don't recognize the need or you don't see it yet, the need could be manufactured.

CRM in the aviation industry is booming - safe operation of a vehicle, increased crew effectiveness - there's your multicrew angle.

Steve Jobs sold everybody on the ipad - something nobody thought we needed or wanted, using technology he already had available to him. You may be overlooking a need your customers have that you can fill with the tools you already have.

eSim has an opportunity to do the same by increasing the scope of multi-crew operations. That being said, I don't know the full extent of what can be done in the military grade versions so it may be a moot point.

#4481344 - 07/04/19 08:41 AM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Ssnake]  
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 7,603
Ssnake Offline
Virtual Shiva Beast
Ssnake  Offline
Virtual Shiva Beast
Hotshot

Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 7,603
Germoney
"Manufacturing need" is a strategy that we will follow the day that we have exhausted all our good ideas, maybe in 20 years.
As hinted, the loader's tasks are observation, radio monitoring, providing close security to the vehicle, and physical activities that require strength, agility, and coordination. All this screams for a simulator cabin environment and even where customers have such environments they do not always want the loader present in exercises because there isn't much to learn or to train for them. None of the simulator cabins goes so far as to integrate a fully operational loader's position with mock cartridges that could be loaded into an actual breech.
Such trainers exist, and they are great (if underutilized), but nobody wants the added complexity of the mechanical and electric or hydraulic components involved in a platoon trainer because then you also have to add the Krauss-Maffei mechanic's bill for maintenance every other month. It may be hard to understand, but armies do not have bottomless pockets of cash for everyone to grab. The US Army may come closest to this idea, representing more than 50% of the world's demand for land system silmulators, but even the US Army can afford only three mega simulation facilities (Germany, Korea, USA), and even there many of the vehicles are represented by generic mockups.

Is the Belgian Army happy about their DF30 and DF90? Do they think they can win wars with them?
Hell, no! It's what they can afford. If given the chance they would pick the big tanks without hesitation. But they don't have the money for MBTs, so they sure as hell don't have the money for elaborate cabin trainers, let alone some with loading cycle electro-mechanical setups. Instead, it's desktop trainer stations with control handle replicas and triple touchscreen environment. And while the Belgian Army may be a particularly crass example, they are closer to the typical situation than the US Army's CCTT that aspires to assemble an entire brigade combat team in a single simulator factility. Look up the size of tank fleets in countries like Australia, Denmark - this information can easily be found on Wikipedia, FAS, SIPRI; often enough you don't even reach triple digits, it's eye watering. And we're not even touching the question of recruiting. SOme armies are 25% understrength because they can't get young men to join. That's the prime reason for opening armies for women (an entirely different chapter of its own, let's not go there). Don't pay much attention to the feminist "empowerment" talk - that's just window dressing to put lipstick on the pig of manpower shortage. And even if you have a small tank fleet, decent simulators, and enough people to get trained in them, often enough the soldiers are pulled from their regular duties to help an undermanned police in the anti-terror operations against Islamofascists, or to deal with forest fires, floodings, and other non-military tasks that get thrown at them in addition to actual operations abroad.

It's perfectly fine to tell me that you want loaders' positions in Steel Beasts because you think they would make a great addition; you don't have to worry about the implications for workplans or effort-to-reward ratio, nor should you. But at least trust me when I tell you that the balance is not favorable. We can agree to disagree about the "fun" point; I think it would be a high-effort novelty that everybody would play with for ten minutes and then never go back to it simply because it'd be very boring. But hey, that's just my opinion, and just because I've been a tank officer doesn't mean that I always have the right answer to every possible design decision in Steel Beasts. And even when I do - different people, different preferences. I'm happy to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of such a change.
But please don't use promises of exceptional wealth and business success if only I would add (X) to Steel Beasts, or lower the price, or put it on Steam, or that (X) is actually very easy, or that we should have switched to DirectX 12 in 2009...
I'm honest with you, please be honest with me and the way you argue. Refuting an outlandish claim without violating the NDAs under which I am takes time. I want to take you seriously, so I'm happy to provide background information why we do things the way we do. Still, my average work day only has 14 hours and even if I work on the weekends I'm on a time budget. Whenever I write stuff in a thread like this, I'm not making sh!t up, I don't hide behind "secrets you're not supposed to know" or take other shortcuts (and neither do Ronin, or Gibsonm). But that requires that you keep your side of the deal, no phony arguments.

It's perfectly sufficient to say "I want (X) because I think it would be fun"; and even if you bring up a convincing argument that changes my mind, your expectation should be moderated by the fact that implementing features takes time, and that the weeks before a release are about the worst possible timing. Three months after a release: Perfect timing. You had time to digest the new things, we have received the first wave of bug reports and probably released a patch already. Now we can lean back and see what we can do better in coming versions.


Visit the home of Steel Beasts!
...the ultimate armor sim...
#4481386 - 07/04/19 01:59 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Ssnake]  
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59
Woofie_Dog Offline
Junior Member
Woofie_Dog  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59
Originally Posted by Ssnake
Well, we have to work for the money that we get. If you think that it's all free cash, you're seriously mistaken.
And that money influences to a large degree where our development priorities are. It couldn't be any other way.

That we're working for armies is no secret. So I'm not sure what you think that you just discovered.



Oh please...its not hard to comprehend what I'm saying...you've come to SHQ to solicit gamers for dollars where all the other simulation competitors get critiqued,and make claims of your success while not being able to deliver simple requests that your user's have been asking for for almost 20 years.Sorry but we hold you as DEV's accountable to OUR dollars not your military contractors. DCS,Bohemia,777...the list goes on ,make a point of asking us what we want,and go out of their way to deliver it.WE are THEIR customers.Can you say the same? Doesn't sound like it to me.We get the table scrapes.A "take what yer given" and be thankful attitude.My prediction is DCS,Bohemia and maybe others are going to wise up and your one trick pony show is going to be obsolete.I wonder where il-2 TANK CREW is going ...Or what wag's has up his sleeve for the future.Hell even warthunder can pull off patches every other day.Bohemia is capable...lots of room to be innovative there.And yeah we let them know what pleases us and what doesn't...and they make more an effort to accommodate us than you ever have.All we get from you is excuses.WE'RE to busy,our main customers don't want that.Its not condusive to the training... blah blah blah.How many bugs got fixed that have lingered for I dunno ...EVER.Trees don't kill tanks by bumping into them.Roads have ditches.Tanks have people in them. Nato tanks have 4 people in them.The enemy tanks in our game need the ability to shoot back.We need to see the enemy like they see us.Your control set up is a convoluted mess.Your terrain looks like something from another era.The list goes on and on and has for almost a decade.If you were DCS,777,il-2,Bohemia we would say exactly the same thing to you.Get over it,fix the #%&*$#,and be happy we even give you 25$.Gee now I sound like YOU.YEAH I SAID IT.I'm out.

Last edited by Woofie_Dog; 07/04/19 03:19 PM.
#4481395 - 07/04/19 02:45 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Ssnake]  
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,513
VF9_Longbow Offline
Hotshot
VF9_Longbow  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,513
Tokyo, Japan
What is it with simulations that brings these kinds of folks to the surface. I mean really. There is no software on earth that is accessible to consumers that even comes close to providing the amazing quality of armored warfare simulation that SB does. Some of the features being added with this update are features I've never seen in any other game or sim, such as the new engineering/entrenching stuff.

What is it that makes you feel so entitled?

Can you honestly say you've mastered even one or two of the existing vehicles that are already in SB? Why clamor for more? More is nice but it costs money and takes a lot of work to get access to vehicles to simulate them properly. In the case of Russia I don't think they're going to be all that cooperative if asked to share their ammo, sensor and armor data for their latest and greatest tanks with the general public..

You know, it's not like the copy of the sim you paid for will stop working if you decide not to buy the update.

#4481404 - 07/04/19 03:23 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: VF9_Longbow]  
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59
Woofie_Dog Offline
Junior Member
Woofie_Dog  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 59
Its simple really...I pay them...they don't pay me.So I'm gonna let then know what I like and what I don't like,what I want and what I don't want.I paid for it.If thats too much for them to take then they can cut me a check for the amount I've given them the last 15 -20 years.
And if you wanna play with others you do have to upgrade or it doesn't work.

Thinking about it IF they did refund me I'd be able to buy :
DCS F-16
DCS Mig-19
Il-2 Tank Crew
The lastest upcomming DLC for arma3
and maybe still have change left over...I'd do that in a EFFIN heart beat

Last edited by Woofie_Dog; 07/04/19 04:50 PM.
#4481413 - 07/04/19 04:15 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Woofie_Dog]  
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 13
Ronin_germany Offline
Junior Member
Ronin_germany  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by Woofie_Dog
Its simple really...I pay them...they don't pay me.So I'm gonna let then know what I like and what I don't like,what I want and what I don't want.I paid for it.If thats too much for them to take then they can cut me a check for the amount I've given them the last 15 -20 years.And if you wanna play with others you do have to upgrade or it doesn't work.


Well, thats what you like.
I just hope that noone at esim will pick up these ideas. I'd hate to see them implemented, taking resources away from the stuff that makes Sb stand out...and making it a worse game.


NEC CUPIAS, NEC METUAS
#4481440 - 07/04/19 06:54 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Ssnake]  
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 977
Red2112 Online content
Member
Red2112  Online Content
Member

Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 977
Airborn
It sounds like a milenium generation to me, built on demand, then when they don´t have it there way, they then get all upset!

Yes please, I too hope SB keeps it´s policy, and that´s from someone that´s been simming for +20 years.


Win10 Pro(x64), i7 8700k @ 4.7Ghz, 32GB ram DDR4, EVGA GTX 1070ti 8GB, M.2 PCIe NVMe (x2) 480GB + 960GB SSD´s, LG 29" Ultrawide 21:9 monitor, Logitech G13 and G502, TM Warthog HOTAS, CH Pro pedals, TrackIR 5.0, Corsair Void Pro 7.1 USB.
#4481445 - 07/04/19 07:34 PM Re: News about version 4.1 [Re: Woofie_Dog]  
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 316
Gibsonm Offline
Member
Gibsonm  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 316
Sydney, NSW
Originally Posted by Woofie_Dog
I'm out.


Good. smile


Mark (}-:
LTCOL RAAC
IAW the Defence Communication Manual 2016, Chapter 3, paragraphs 3.28 - 3.30 - The views expressed are mine alone and do not reflect the views of the Department of Defence.
Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  Meatsheild, RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
What's the longest movie you've seen in the theater?
by PanzerMeyer. 02/24/20 04:18 PM
'Microjets' are so cool.
by MarkG. 02/24/20 05:41 AM
And This Year's "Darwin Award" Goes to...
by vonBaur. 02/24/20 12:25 AM
The most popular games on Steam
by PanzerMeyer. 02/23/20 02:10 PM
Anyone use VoiceAtttack?
by bones. 02/21/20 01:50 PM
Fanatical Platinum Bundle
by Red2112. 02/21/20 12:21 PM
Raising the Kursk
by CyBerkut. 02/20/20 11:09 PM
Borderlands the movie?
by PanzerMeyer. 02/20/20 07:41 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0