Ingolf

Of course our (personal desktop users) share is too low. We're just a few riding the waves. And I have absolutely nothing to say about that but "THANKS" eSim for providing the personal desktop version. (Well, not really true, I've asked for the ability to create maps using GIS-data in the PE-version, since I'm a GIS-developer myself). I don't think that the VR discussion is out of place here, but expect little until pressure comes from the industry...

Skybird, no need to dampen my enthusiasm. I know perfectly well what's going on. The demand for VR-development might even (some day, if not already) come from the professional military environment. Something I'd ask for if I was head of education in a SIM-department. No pain, no gain - and esim should know about it. Whether or not it's a good investment - today - is up to esim to decide. We, as personal users, can only benefit from it if development takes this direction. If there's no demand for VR in the military industry, fine! I'll use my personal gear for DCS (and other development branches) and continue enjoying SBproPE for what it is - namely a superb desktop simulator!

I can imagine one of the biggest thresholds is the FPS and SB being quite heavy on CPU. It has to deliver steady 45/90FPS (or more for future technology?) and at the same time carry out all the calculations. But we sure are a bunch around here that could assist with a VR-beta-branch when/if SB feels it's ready to go down that road.

I could see SB being a fantastic VR-title in the future. - The interiors, - The outdoors, - Situation awareness, - The pace, - The action. Some complex parts of SB that has to be developed, but I personally feel it is a very suitable concept for VR. That being said, it may have to wait for a massive development effort (just speculating), new approach/engine(s) etc. I do DCS, IL2, AC, ED, Bridge Crew and Lunar Flight in VR.

What Ssnake said. I do this quite often, especially when designing new scenarios. Very simple proceedure.

All hail the new Card!

I use VR for Bridge Command, DCS, Assetto Corsa, ETS2/ATS and Elite Dangerous. Quite immersive indeed. Also, I love Space Shuttle Mission. Think I did almost every mission just in time they dropped the whole (real) program.

Thanks Rotareneg for sharing those amazing pictures!

I might just add this gem here then: A really nice strategy freebee as in FreeOrion!

I bought it (War in the West) on Xmas-sale last year but have had very little time to get into it. Still, I know I will some day (when kids grow little older and I can play normal hours, lol). I'll try to get hold of that nice looking game manual, would be a nice to read when summer days gets shorter now. A nice feature of CMANO is how you can spread out the game over a tripple monitor setup. Missions and reports on the left monitor, unit database on the right and deployment/action map in the center. Not sure how GGWitW can use tripple monitors the best way, anybody have any tips/experience?

I've had my eyes on this for a while. Good to hear it's soon to be released. Not sure I will get into it right away - many other titles competing for my time at the moment (SB being one of them).

After hardware upgrade: 64 FPS 7700k @4.5 1080Ti 16GB RAM Win10 3840*1080 All Standard Settings (quite similar to Haferja)

It seems we run identical specs. I do get 60 fps when paused and 36 fps when unpaused. There's no way I get 60 fps so I wonder what specials you're running? As Rotareneg already asked, I would also like to know if the graphics card may be the diference?

36 fps (same with vsync off). | i7 2600K quad@3.40Ghz| GTX 560 Ti | RAM: 16GB | PSU: 750w | W7 x64 | G25 | LG1680x1050+Acer 1280x1024 |

Aha, so I was not entirely mistaken. I am not a fan of noise overlays as it looks too artificial in my opinion. But each to their own, having the option is perhaps a good idea. Still, at 10m data I would go without the noise. The most interesting algorithm now then is the levelling of the road-/railroadtextures. If that auto-generates roadbanks and cuts into adjacent slopes, it would be truly awesome. I worked on such an algorithm for a personal "tank project" using the CryEngine 4 Sandbox. Good to hear you're ready for the sub-meter data once/if it becomes more of a standard. Thanks again, Ssnake, for taking the time to still my curiosity. /Ingolf

A big thank you, Ssnake, for your comment! Good to hear/see that the engine can handle the data. I was misinformed about that video showing LIDAR, I thought it was a random noise overlay. I see now (in the zoomed out/up section) that it's LIDAR. Thanks for the clarification. The representation of such large datasets always needs some baking so algorithms for selection/rendering comes to mind, as you say. Back in the day when high-res DEM's (i.e. 0.25m vertical, ~1m horiz) saw first light, the software available could not keep up and one had to render small parts at a time (RAM/GPU-dependent). With todays software solutions (and better hardware) it is possible to render a whole nation down to 1 m on the fly. But of course, with Steel Beasts, it has to have a game on top of that! The only title where I successfully (performance wise) used 10m DEM on a national scale (well ~200 000 km2) + "auto-generated" infrastructure on vector-based GIS-layers, was the FSX-SDK. But here, the units don't fight eachother . Thanks for taking the time for a little casual talk on the topic. It's amazing what eSim have accomplished so far. I like the present graphics in SB and also look forward to seeing how the bridgehead is secured! Intrigueing, indeed. The way to go! Cheers, Inglf

As I understand it eSim is in the works of creating: roadbanks/escarpments to level out the roads on top of coarse elevation data (which is great) introduce a woodland fractal-like topography on-top of coarse elevation data, to reduce the "flat-terrain-factor" (also great) I see this as a measure to create more believable terrain out of free/open elevation data. My question is (for the future): Can SBProPE make good use of real point-clouds (i.e. laser data) down to 0.25-1.0 m resolution? This would apparently (to a degree) eliminate the need for 1 and 2 above. How are the thoughts going about this for now? Graphics engine limitations? Perhaps this is already utilized in the classroom version? The trend towards more and denser open data is speaking for itself, but it will take some time (if ever) before the high-res datasets are being released as open data (depending on national policies). As I work with advanced GIS on a daily basis, I was just curious to hear if eSim could elaborate on the future thoughts on terrain representation (including infrastructure) and the fact that there are fantastic data available, just not yet with a cheap price-tag. All the best, and thanks (for the 100'd time) for a fantastic sim , /Ingolf

All good, easter and all

I know, personally I have absolutely no problem with it, it was more of "just so you know" /Ingolf

Great update, thanks for the hard work! Not sure it has been mentioned somewhere else, but the 4.019 download section provides release notes for SB Pro PE 4.018. Not a big issue, just to let you know it can appear confusing? All the best, /Ingolf

Good to know - it means I am still considered "public"

Thanks Ssnake for info. The 4.019 is not yet available for us (the deadly species) right?. I'll await the public patches coming along and report back on issues. I should mention that it is a minor issue depending on client platform (hardware), but the essence is that rendering (or GPU calculations) seem to reveal targets in SP.

There is nothing that would keep me from staying tuned in for it Thanks Sean for the indication. So this has been adressed and been worked upon. Very intriguing, indeed! Fantastic dev job as always! Cheers, Ingolf

First; I'm a FPS freak that enjoy the amazing fidelity of the sights in SBProPE (4.010). I choose carefully when designing my own scenarios to optimize a constant high FPS (~60). This includes map choice and number (and type) of AI's. The options in the "terrain detail distance" and "graphics" menues allow us to finetune the experience, very nicely implemented. I also use Nvidia's options to find a good rendering "hotspot". However, when running a scenario I often experience micro-stutter as soon as I align my sight towards the enemy (AI's) position. Even though they are in the distance and not visible by far. So this becomes a spoiler. I know "they are there" by simply notice a FPS drop, although the enemy is behind 2 fields and 3 forests inbetween. I would like to know if this is coupled to the fact that SB needs to do CPU-calculations (when looking straight at them) or are the AI units actually rendered and hence coupled to GPU/visual-calulations? If the reason is the latter, perhaps it would be good to be able to set a "unit detail level"? Does this make sense? I know the urge/drive towards higher and higher detail of our tanks, but it has drawbacks for rendering and playability. Perhaps it is not possible to render units in various level of detail? Also: It seems some vegetation covers (certain crops) tend to eat FPS more than others. This is interesting in terms of map design. Perhaps analyze what crops (etc) causes FPS-drops? I have tried to edit some of the excellent addon-maps to remove the FPS-eating elements. This is something we could discuss in the mod section ofcourse. Join in for discussion /Ingolf

Thank you Sean. I understand completely. Lets move forward.