steel beasts 2

[the_doctor]

Steel Beasts is the best tank sim ever written. The only major flaw is the graphics. I can't see enemy tanks hiding in cover because of the low res graphics. It seems like Steel Beasts 2 will never be ready. How about a compromise? Why not release what you have now? Steel Beasts 1 is an incredibly good game. All it needs is better graphics. Why not release Steel Beasts 1 with improved graphics now and save all of the other goodies you are working on for a future release? People would buy this game as it is (you could call it Steel Beasts 1.5). I don't think people would criticise you for doing this, because the original game is so good, and people are really hungry for better graphics because it would make the existing game so much more playable. The waiting is killing us. We don't want to wait another year or two (or longer). I am a perfectionist myself, so I think I understand why it is taking so long--but you would make a lot of people happy if you do what I suggest. Please think about it.

[QuickDraw]

Doc


The SB2 team is got our hopes up and i cant remeber the post where it was discussed gow another company did that and it flopped big time because all the patchess please leave them be and let them make it the right way first remember haste makes waste

[MatsW]

SB 2 is like Carlsberg Beer:

"Worth waiting for"

:-)

[Joe]

Welcome aboard, Doc. Let the guys who are working on it do their job in a best way, let them concentrate on the final product to be released. Of course the graphics have often been complained about, but they are functional enough to still enjoy them. (Btw: which of the vet's complain about the graphics- can't remember that ;)). Stay with it, come and play online, get used to the editors (the real "core" of this Tactical Sim) and be patient- most of us will do

Happy new year to all :roll:

[OddBall]

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Too many promising games were ruined because of too early release, I will rather wait for a bug-free, feature packed game, thanks.

[PaleRider]

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Too many promising games were ruined because of too early release, I will rather wait for a bug-free, feature packed game, thanks.


Ditto!

[Lone*star49]

...

Remember my post.. June 6th 04 D-Day.. Delieverence !!

And say hi to my buddie there in Chicago.. M

Like him, Al, and Ssnake are perfectionist, thus the beauty of SB1..


LS :)

[Kingtiger]

I think I will join up with what all U guys have said here... better wait a few extra months and get a game without any bugs that needs to be pathed and patched and patched...

I love SB1 as it is now... so I will wait for SB2 with plesure....

KT out!

[9erRed]

Greetings,

As a note here, theirs a SB1 Pro version out with most of the graphics from SB2 in it, but it uses the SB1 engine. ( seem to remember it's an Alfa version) Now this is just an info note, so don't ask me any questions.

Now as a question for the SB Pro design team, could you advise us of what some of the additional options are in a Pro Version? Assumeing the stations avail. are the same, [gunner/commander/outside view] with an addition "Stealth" station, are their other positions? Does the map screen have additional options? I also imagine the map icons are changeable to nato standard or country spacific. I have more questions but you get the idea of the info I'm asking for.

All for now .... later ..... 9erRed

[hoggydog]

just thought of a wizbang idea for SBII, how about the ability to record short films of play?? a sort of extention of AAR (gun cam like!)

[the_doctor]

[quote="9erRed"]

As a note here, theirs a SB1 Pro version out with most of the graphics from SB2 in it, but it uses the SB1 engine. ( seem to remember it's an Alfa version)

This is exactly what I am talking about. Steel Beasts 1 is nearly a perfect game. I am talking about releasing the Steel Beasts 1 engine with improved graphics so that I can see enemy tanks hiding in cover--because I think one of the the major downsides of the current game is that you get killed by tanks you have no chance of seeing because the graphics are so bad. I am not talking about releasing a premature, buggy version of Steel Beasts 2. I am talking about releasing the already non-buggy Steel Beasts 1 with better graphics. Then, they can take all the time they need to release a perfect version of Steel Beasts 2. This would also generate some cash for the continued development of steel beasts, which would only benefit the future release of Steel Beasts 2. To the people who have already disagreed with me: Thank you for responding to my post. I think I have a legitimate alternate opinion.

Cheers.

[MatsW]

If I understood the SB2-team right from posts at this forum, they will work with the graphics as "The Last Subject", depending on the fast development in graphics-area. Therefore, there is no good option to use the graphics from SB2 into a SB 1+ edition.

[YdnarB]

Can someone explain to me how seeing the tracks move and the suspension actuate cause an improvement in the game? I don't get it. If I wanted really good graphics and quick, non-stop video game action, I'd get a playstation or xbox or gamecube. SB is different and I really don't think non-accelerated graphics detracts from the game at all. Sure, things can be improved but to me the graphics are at the bottom of the list.

Just my 2 cents.

[Tsahi]

as is and pay the price online and get the packaged game when it is ready. furthur dowloads of newer builds is also a nice idea.

That way no one get's hurt and every body wins. Kind of a large beta program.

[9erRed]

Greetings,

Ref the graphics... Before this gets out of hand, the graphics I was referring to are simply different and more BMP's ( images ) for most of the seen objects. NOT a better display engine. The depth of view and bit rate are the same as SB1, so there's no difference in "picking out tgt's".

Sorry "T Doctor" ... But without a better display engine you are not going to get improved "graphics". The SB design ( Mr Al Delaney) team have COMPLETELY rewritten the "code" to improve the viewed world.

PS: I think with a accelerated graphics engine you are going to get a big surprise when trying to "detect" hidden vehicles, from what I've seen from other high display programs, seeing something hidden in the trees or woods won't be easy. Remember the tree's and vegitation may now "move" with the wind and weather. So simply looking for movement won't be enough. Without termal, life may be very surprising and short.

Ok no more on this, later.

[Poker]

This is exactly what I am talking about. Steel Beasts 1 is nearly a perfect game. I am talking about releasing the Steel Beasts 1 engine with improved graphics so that I can see enemy tanks hiding in cover--because I think one of the the major downsides of the current game is that you get killed by tanks you have no chance of seeing because the graphics are so bad. Cheers.

Ummmmm - maybe you have a hard time seeing them because the graphics are good enough that the camouflage works - I think that's why they paint the tanks in those drab colors as opposed to a nice Sunshine Yellow !

And quite frankly, any improvement in graphics better have an improvement in the camouflage of the vehicles, therefore you may be setting yourself up for a lot more death by unseen tanks.
Is that what you'd prefer, or are you really just asking for improved graphics because you're predisposed by IL2 and other games.
The eye candy will be there - I don't think it makes a whole hell of a lot improvement to actual gameplay, but it'll look neat, and you'll get to go out and get a better video card so you can really enjoy it.
"Oooooh - look at how good my tank explodes once it's shredded by some unseen tank. Now that's good graphics !"

Guess this turned into a rant, but I just cannot comprehend people who judge a game by eye candy.

[Hector]

First of all wellcome Dr

I think like 9er red has already said, that we should separate 2 different things, one would be higher screen resolution, that SB Pro gets, and that might really help spoting but only for those with at least a 17 inch monitor. The second one would be better graphics (eye candy), that wont help us spot targets as Poke and 9er red point, but rather will make the spoting tasks more difficult. With SB2, along with good camo (even better than SBs actually), shadows, and weather and night effects will be far more real and will require virtual tank commanders to resort to lots of caution, and proper technics of scaning. Some of us are going to have real trouble to find targets. I don't think Doc did want to criticize the game, he had a good intention. Doc, be patient, SB2 will be amazing, and difficult too, just like SB is now. Tanking is very different to fighting aircraft. I dont understand much about planes, and i will not teach you about them. I can only tell you that tanking is maybe not so demanding on technical matters for their crews as the airplanes are for the pilots, neither do tankers experiment G forces or that sort of stuff, but it is very demanding on tactics. Tactics are very complex in land combat. Playing hide and seek are an important part of tank busines more so than in air dog fights. And technology isn't always the ruler of the battlefield. Definately, we are not handsome top gun dudes (tank females are, more than any pilot woman although Chrisoto does not like Danish, and i think Ssnake is not totally convinced with Swiss chicks), and we usually stink,- not the ladies of course- (well, in my SB manual says real tankers are :D) LOL, but we have lots of fun, (when our girls and wives allow us to,- and their boys and husbands allow them tank women - ;) )

greetings

[ido_]

Hi all,

I'm new to this fourm but i know SB for a long time, it is a nice tank sim but its not the best out there (I liked tank platoon better) and far away from being realistic. I found this forum as i was searching for a good new tank sim. I hope that SB2 will be as good as you all say but tank sim is much more than good looking graphics. there is much more for a tank especialy when you play the TC (I'm a TC in reserved forces). Anyways there is much more to be done, the developers should really learn tank warfare before releasing the new game cuz its a lot more than driving and shooting and much beyond getting range by laser designator (like getting the right angel for a moving target and corrections a shell which missed the target). Anyways realisem is the key for a tank sim and when one will be released it will be a really BIG hit cuz tanks rule....

[dejawolf]

Nils, the technical director, is a former leopard 2A4 TC, Volcano, the sound guy, is currently an M1A1 crewman (don't know the position) and Al is a tank nutter.
and a lot of the forum regulars here are tankers as well,
so you're not alone ;)

i suggest you try steel beasts before you talk about what's missing in it.
of course it's still far from being 100% realistic,
you're missing coax loading, loading the bustle with hull stored ammunition, loader manning the machine gun, adjusting the ballistic computer for weather conditions, more realistic suspension model,
the map screen isn't exactly realistic, Thermals have too high resolution, the terrain doesn't have any death traps, or places to get bogged in, water'd need a serious upgrade and much much more.

but strangely, the people around here seems to have been overlooking these features, for the pure and (in a true tankers eyes)
simplistic controls. the things that really matters for tank combat, is in steel beasts.

Nils said himself, since steel beasts couldn't compete graphics wise with the other tanksims,
it had to beat them in realism.

i can hint that steel beasts has both dynamic, and automatic lead.

[Johnny]

Hi Ido
Your statement about SB, caused to me blink several times.
I find it a bit arrogant to state that SB,which BTW is currently being used by several armies around the world for either tactical or gunnery training, is not realistic.
As a SB Pro user, I assure you, that we haven't started using SB for it's "Good looks", but for it's very realistic way of handling things like ballistics, the well working AI enemy and so on.
So I think if you dig a little deeper into SB, you will have to change your point of view.

LEARN OR BURN

[NEpi]

good to see more countrymen around here (told you we're taking over, didn't i? :) )

Ido, i'm also puzzled by your claim. your rant about gunnery is only due to the way americans do gunnery. don't forget it isn't exactly what you know...
second, what's best in SB is the fluency of MP. lag is really low most of the time, even for us people from the other side of the world. that means we have easy time finding opponents that are much more inteligent than the AI (no offence for the AI ;) ).

SB is hard to get used to, but ince you do, it's great, and it is quite realistic. more than other sims i've seen.

Tsahi, one of the best features of SB is the very low ammount of bugs in the sim. it lets you play it out till the end, no matter what you're throwing to the engine (a little overstatment, but very close to be true). now let off my avatar, please! :mrgreen:

NEpi, having to fend off usurpers of the avatar again :cool:

[sgtmarkcr]

Remember the old engineering maxim. " It takes 90% of the time to do 90% of the work, and another 90% of the time to do the last 10%.
We shall all wait for the good stuff, though not neccessarily patiently. *grin*

[ido_]

I find it a bit arrogant to state that SB,which BTW is currently being used by several armies around the world for either tactical or gunnery training, is not realistic.


Johnny,

I don't know much about other armies but as a former TC in the israeli army I can tell you that its still far far away from being realistic, it has some realistic elements but its still far from being called realistic. I think that Tank Sims all of them not just SB have alot to improve when you compare them to the reality in Flight Sims (handaling radars and dog fight tactics). Tank warfare is not an arcade where you drive and shoot... I can give you many examples but I don't think the forum is the place you can contact me in messanger or e-mail in ido_@hotmail.com.

[dejawolf]

hey ido, is that a sabra in your picture? you drive one of those?

[ido_]

Its not Sabra cuz Sabra is not operational in israel though this model looks quite the same but the targeting systems area much older.
this is a magah 7 which is a strange combaniton of different types of pattons.... the armor is much better though
and yup i drove....

[ido_]

your rant about gunnery is only due to the way americans do gunnery. don't forget it isn't exactly what you know...

NEpi, its not just the gunnery, its the complexity of the targeting system its much more than lasering and firing especially with moving targets and while moving don't forget that M1A1 cannot lock on to a target so it cannot laser while moving

[dejawolf]

are you playing the demo? afaik, the M1A1 in the demo wasn't entirely realistic, it was fixed in a later patch, 1.17.
also, the assumptions you seem to make, that the M1A1 can't "lase n' blaze" while on the move, seems pretty ridicolous.

[DrDevice]

"Lock on to a target" ? Say what? And that whole, stabilized gun, ballistic computer, LRF combo is designed so that you have to STOP to lase a target? The whole point of designing the M1 was to allow shoot-on-the-move capability. If you can't "laser while moving" it kinda defeats the purpose.

I can see your points on SB lacking certain veracity in simulation. But i think the issue is more what you define as "realistic." The game has a very high level of realism, even compared to modern flight sims. Read the manual section on why just because you can be an SB badass, that doesn't make you a real tanker in any sense of the word. Flight sims sure as hell don't make you a pilot. Just to name a few...your SA in a sim is for crap, you cannot accurately model positions of controls w/o special hardware, etc, etc...

The point is...this is as good as it gets w/o joining up with your country’s armed services.

And to get back to the original point of this thread:

I think the concept of game design is radically misunderstood here. This isn't like writing a book where you can release a "sneak preview." The game is a synergy of components that all must work in concert, and that means a finished product. Not some half-finished "1.5" version. Its just not possible, nor practical.

So to hammer what so many others have said: Ill wait. I'll wait here in pain, watching my poor digital tankers get mugged by hidden infantry. I'll wait, hoping for better reconnaissance assets to really find the enemy. I'll wait, knowing that when we can actually get some Cav assets out there in SB2, and really feel that brave new 3d world around us; it’s going to have been WORTH IT.

[ido_]

I don't know how much you guys understand about stabilization but as M1A1 has only sectorized stabilization and not track a dot stabilization it cannot laze while moving there are other ways for firing while moving... at least thats what I remember from the lessons we had in Armor school. I think M1A2 can laze while moving but I dont know for sure cuz we don't learn about it.
There is a bigger issue though... there was no Tank Sim that had a good way of showing the work as a crew, actually the closest thing to really good AI crew is in Operation Flashpoint which is not a Tank Sim.....
you cannot command a Tank while sitting in the gunner sit you should shoot at the targets the TC assigns you.... and as a TC you should control the whole tank with the help of the crew- assign targets and help the gunner finding them and give waypoints to the driver or just tell him forward back left or right (flashpoint done this part really good). the driver should also have some AI brain that when you encounter AT all of the sudden you should run him over and when you encounter a Tank you should drive on to the nearest cover.

[JAVEHN]

Wass up with that , yooo ?? DJ Javehn is back in thouse again , for a short ammount of time .
Wass up , daug , Ido ? What are you talking about ? You have Demo version or something like this ?
It strange statement , comming from Tc , but hey , if you are Magahnik , maybe it's understandable . However , you talking about locking system , so i understand you are Merkava guy . I am not shure , what you don't like , i find it very realistic ...

[OddBall]

you cannot command a Tank while sitting in the gunner sit you should shoot at the targets the TC assigns you.... and as a TC you should control the whole tank with the help of the crew- assign targets and help the gunner finding them and give waypoints to the driver or just tell him forward back left or right (flashpoint done this part really good). the driver should also have some AI brain that when you encounter AT all of the sudden you should run him over and when you encounter a Tank you should drive on to the nearest cover.

Are we talking about the same game here? Steel Beasts? I think you should try it for more than 5 minutes. :wink:

BTW even T-72 can lase while moving, do you mean something else?

[ido_]

I'm a Magahnik and thats what i'm talkin about M1A1 is not like Merkava or the "Gal" it cannot have the track, laze, fire command....
it has to use other methods like combat range

[JAVEHN]

Combat range? Man , you mixing shit up . Combat range is for engagements under close combat range , in order to shorten the responce time . What it has to do with firing on move ? I think it's actually the same in Gal , no ? It's reticle moves to adjust itself while on the move . You have to lase and track for one second .
U.S gunners have different correction system then ours .
You shure you were commander ? You supposed to know those things .I am sorry to dissapoint you , but a lot of guys here , actually know they tank shit . And as i see , better then you .

[Ssnake]

ido_,

I'm kinda puzzled about some of your statements. Since most of your comments are so generalized that it's hard to pinpoint whether they're factually right or wrong, I don't want to comment it yet. As far as "realism" of a simulation is concerned, I'd like to ask you what "realism" means to you,
- realistic looks?
- realism of procedures?
- realism of results?

Steel Beasts 1 certainly is no contender for the world's best graphics - although from a strictly functional point of view they're still somewhat adequate, allowing for visibility limitations that allow even the longest ranging anti tank missiles to be employed within their full capability.

I agree that SB doesn't fully model the "crew experience" of a tank. But please compare SB with its competitors (and aside from M1TP2 and Flashpoint I don't see much that qualifies as 'competition' here). The question also is how much responsibility one wants to hand over to the computer which can do just so much to accurately represent a human crew member. Flashpoint may be better in terms of crew coordination/representation, but it certainly lacks many other important elements to qualify as a simulation of anything other than the tactical coordination of forces (e.g. hitpoint based damage model for tanks, limited visibility, etc.; I don't want to imply that these elements have ever been a development goal for Bohemia, and I don't want to criticize Flashpoint for not being what it never attempted to be - it's a damn good game and tactical shooter, that's for sure).

But I think that given thousands of test hours with M1 crew members (retired and active) have ensured that after version 1.17 all gunnery related procedures that are modelled within Steel Beasts are 100% correct. Whatever they tell you about the M1's capabilities or lack thereof - if it doesn't match with what Steel Beasts shows, then THEY are wrong, not us. Of that I am dead sure. The same level of confidence can be attributed to the Leopard 2A4 fire control system.

There certainly are a lot of omissions and simplifications in Steel Beasts - impossible to seriously deny that. The question is, which of these simplifications and/or omissions are critical for the intended purpose of this simulation - and here I'm eagerly awaiting your comments since they will certainly help us to further improve our product.


Finally the question of "realism of result". Well, all I can say here that the intended purpose of Steel Beasts is to
a) be fun, and
b) to serve for instruction of basic maneuver at company level and below for armor centric combat action.

Our damage model is simplified and intended to provide the user with the information that enemy tanks are best attacked from flank and rear aspects - and it certainly is sufficient for this specific purpose. Our damage model also is based on publicly available information. Reality may differ a bit here and there. Nevertheless, I don't see that our damage model is at serious odds with reported battle results of the past. Steel Beasts therefore allows to predict the past - no more, no less. That is about as much as most wargames offer, so I think that SB is adequate for its intended purposes.
You may want to do something else with it, and therefore find it inadequate. That may very well be. But it would strike me a bit odd to criticize a dog for not being a cat. ;)

[Johnny]

Hi Ido
Well we don't have to agree, but SB in some important areas outruns the multi million dollars simulations, used by armed forces - and I have seen my share of them.
The realism part, I will contact you by mail, I'll like you to comment on a few things.

LEARN OR BURN

[ido_]

Combat range is for engagements under close combat range , in order to shorten the responce time . What it has to do with firing on move ? I think it's actually the same in Gal , no ? It's reticle moves to adjust itself while on the move . You have to lase and track for one second .

JAVEHN, that is true but not accurate... in Magah 7 and Merkava 2 combat range is used for firing while moving and (its also good for telescope firing in Magah 7) as you are 188 i don't know if you know this staff but you cannot lase while moving in those tanks so you use combat range which is effective for over 1 km in sabo shells.
mybe in merkava 3 its like it is in the game so you donno what I'm talking about.

Flashpoint may be better in terms of crew coordination/representation, but it certainly lacks many other important elements to qualify as a simulation of anything other than the tactical coordination of forces

Ssnake, I agree with you completely. Flashpoint has only a good crew experiance though AI is not really good but its not a Tank Sim.
What I am saying is that a good tank sim should have both cuz the crew experiance is really important in a tank sim you cannot play all positions at once (though there was a sargent who did it once.... really cool story) and the Idea is to create an AI that will be good enough. If you'll combine the model of SB, the crew of Flashpoint and the Tactical overlay of Tank Platoon you'll get the perfect tank sim. and there is not one game that has at least two of those features yet.

[hoggydog]

my impretion of the FC system in the M1 (and to make things very clear im not a tanker and have very little knowlege of how real the current generation of tanks do work, but for how much they cost the tax payer of the countries that have them i should hope they could shoot off a nats balls at 3 miles in the dark going over a cattle grid!!) is that you track your intended target for say 1-2 secs, all the time the balistic computer is comparing the movment of the sight, gun, turret and tank itself so that when you "lase" your target getting a range, it has a pretty good idea from the input of the gunner (keeping the crosshair on target in the sight) the movment, speed and aspect of the target so it takes over the resposibility of having to add lead to compensate for the movment of both the target and firing vehicle, all the gunner then has to do is keep the crosshair on target. The only flaw i can see in this system is that a target making radical course or speed changes will upset the information the ballistic computer has at the time of lasing therefore it will put the crosshair off target in the GPS. (the solution i use in game for this is to lase for range then dump the lead and manualy adjust for target movment but try doing this on the move and its a nightmare)
The leo uses a slightly different method seperating the lasing and lead compensation but the results are more or less the same

i have no knowlege of Israeli tanks or how their FC systems work but as far as my knowlege of modern warfare is concerned any tank that needs to stay still to fire is going to die very quickly. Remember that America, Russia and the various European countries that had the threat of WWIII hanging over them for the best part of 40 years poured millions (probably billions) of Dollars into development of the ballistic computers, stabilisation systems ammunition and optical systems to give their tanks the ability to fight on the move

[TheVlad]

Wow , Israel IS taking over the forum.

Ido, I cannot beleive anyone could call SB unrealistic. Of course the ability to kick the gunner if he's taking too long aiming or to yell at the driver when he falls asleep would make the game more like the real tank, but what good would it do to the simulation ? Try as you want you cannot simulate the crew's training and working together , but no one is trying to ,anyway.

The game is a tactical simulation first and most of all , and beleive me, it does that very well , no other game even comes close . All of the lectures on atack, defence e.t.c in oficers school are just words until you get into a real war (no thanks) or play SB. Plus the ultra cool ability to blow stuff up !!!

I won't comment on the technical side of fire control in Israeli tanks (nor should anyone of you if you ask me), but clearly you need to do a refresher course on your "bakash".

Never the less , the more Israelim the merier, and we'll see you in MP. :3starSK:

P.S. I recognize the "morak" and Yossi Laper is my hero :mrgreen:

[JAVEHN]

Yes. To admit sometimes , that you weren't commander , but a driver helps , you know :wink: . We all like a big family in here . Also , you need to upgrade your SB to 1.226 version . But Israel indeed takes over the forum .
And yes , Yosi Laper is ok ... 8)
By the way , i have a proposal . I want to see ingeneers in SB2 . Where is the buldosers ? Where is Mines breachers , passes breachers , and so on ? Common , that one is most needed , you know !!! I think that detail would make it really tactical game , along with little more intellegent infantry ( and better ground ) . But i know the list is long , i know .... :(

Ah , by the way , no need to kick gunner with boots on the head . I found much better and harsher sollution ... I used to eat a lot of beans before target practise , you know . What can get worser then that ?

Happy cristmass , everybody , by the way .

[NEpi]

WOW! we're all here! impressive...

Vlad, never mentioned that terrible place in the desert with the white shoulder tags :-)

Ido, i think you're wrong. remember that the terrain type used in SB is much more forgiving than the ones we're used to (nothing like driving on the boulders of the Golan). i found it much better to stay on TC position, and not zip between stations, and i can do fine just by doing that.
one of the problems of the SB gunnery model is that there's no effect of acceleration on the gunner. IIRC, it would be solved in SB2. for that reason, gunnery on the move is too easy in SB, but not that easy yet, compared to real life.
areal stabilization (stab. for the direction) is more than enough for short periods of time, and could be corrected by manually tracking the target. point-stab. is useless against a moving target anyway, and most of them are...

for the tactical/technical aspect, it's a very good sim, as much as PC sims go.

btw, i concur with vlad. hadal kashkeshet.

[Skip]

Combat range is for engagements under close combat range , in order to shorten the responce time . What it has to do with firing on move ? I think it's actually the same in Gal , no ? It's reticle moves to adjust itself while on the move . You have to lase and track for one second .

JAVEHN, that is true but not accurate... in Magah 7 and Merkava 2 combat range is used for firing while moving and (its also good for telescope firing in Magah 7) as you are 188 i don't know if you know this staff but you cannot lase while moving in those tanks so you use combat range which is effective for over 1 km in sabo shells.
mybe in merkava 3 its like it is in the game so you donno what I'm talking about.

Welcome aboard, ido_. It's always good to add to the community. However, your thoughts on the M1 are incorrect. Even the old M60A3 could lase and fire on the move with a high probability of a first-round hit and the M1 improves on that greatly. (While I was never in combat, this isn't from "book learnin" ;) )

[ido_]

Even the old M60A3 could lase and fire on the move with a high probability of a first-round hit

Skip, I know exactly what M60 is capable of, my gunner took out 3 targets in 31 secs (the only reason he didn't take out the 4th is because the shell was a dud) anyways, our computer was not the latest generation but it does the job. yet you cannot lase while you are driving and there is a simple explantaion you change you position newer generations can compansate but not tanks made up to late 1980s.

[Jimmybar]

I bought a new computer with a decent graphics card.

The framerates in SB game were a problem with my older computer, but the graphics
resolution and and the outlook of infantry were not a problem for me and they still are not.

While still waiting the SB2 I decided to use the properties of my graphics card
for something before it will be outdated. I installed Operation Flashpoint.

Well, the graphics is fine, and the actions of a rifleman look good.

I tried a tank mission, but that was really a disappointment after playing SB.

Operation flashpoint does not use the graphics for any tactical purposes.
Tank commander does not see anything, because he does not have even binoculars or magnification
in sights. Some magic system shows him a text marker "T80" even if the enemy tank itself is not
visible at all to the player. The damage modelling is arcade type: The tank gradually
wears out after receiving multiple hits.

Good graphics is not enough, if the model and user interface in the game is not right.

I continue playing operation flashpoint, but that game is neither a tank simulation nor a
helicopter simulation.

Esim Games does a good job modelling armoured vehicles, and especially model the
tactically important things first.

I do not care if I see tank wheels to rotate or not. It does not help making tactical decisions
or affect my playing in any way.

Adding thermal sight view and manually controlled TOW to Bradley will be significant for game play,
I hope.

[ido_]

You completly missunderstood my point about Flashpoint, its not a tank sim at all, and SB is much better in the realisem of the model or firing procedures but Flashpoint has a good way of showing the crew aspect of the tank sim, you can give a waypoint to the driver or just simply tell him forword backward left right, and you choose a target and tell the gunner to track it and then issue the fire order. when you play SB you get the feeling that the gunner is the main position you choose your own targets and do what ever you wish, you can even tell the driver where to go... as a TC you have a 0.5 cal and some basic driver commands thats it.... and I'm talking about single player mode only ofcourse you can do better in MP but a good tank sim should have AI crew that will work with you and if you want to play a gunner or a driver you should even have an AI TC which will order you where to go or what to shoot at.

[Bluewings]

>>> " you should even have an AI TC which will order you where to go " <<<

:shock:
And how do you want to implement that if I may ask ?
Do you really think the AI TC will take tactical decisions on its own and tells you where to go ??!! :roll:

You must be kidding ! :hallucine: :mrgreen:

Cheers . :3starsk2:

[Hell_Hound]

...Flashpoint has a good way of showing the crew aspect of the tank sim, you can give a waypoint to the driver or just simply tell him forword backward left right...

SB user manual pp25-26:

"In Steel Beasts, driving commands are interpreted as orders to the driver...you can order the driver to any point that you mark on the terrain by pressing and releasing the lase button...typically, however, it is more convenient to use the following hot keys..."

...and you choose a target and tell the gunner to track it and then issue the fire order...

SB user manual p61:

"...the TC designates targets using the peri by pressing an override button...once the gunner can see the target he says 'Identified!'...the TC then issues the order to fire..."

In short, I think it's possible that you're not fully aware of the capabilities of the TC position and that you might want to go over the manual and tutorials in greater detail.

[DrDevice]

when you play SB you get the feeling that the gunner is the main position you choose your own targets and do what ever you wish

Most players man the gunner position because they are simply better gunners than the AI.
And believe me, when you are the gunner, and the AI TC overrides you, you'll know that you certainly don't "do whatever you choose!" :shock:

heard over the tank intercom: "NO THE T-80!!! THE f!@#$ing T-80, not the DAMN BRDM!!!" :casstet:

Since no AI can perform the necessary tactical decisions to fully manage even a SMALL fight, the player must make those choices, whether from the TC seat, the map, etc. To become a good SB player you must master the synergy of the whole crew...no you don’t have to actually load the rounds, and no you don’t have to be in the drivers seat to find a hull down position, but the human brain has to do the tactical thinking, maybe some gunlaying, etc. to be an effective player, in single or multiplayer modes. It's a compromise of the "reality" and the playability.

I don't see how Flashpoint offers any other, or better, options in this arena. If they had spent the development time that they did attempting a weak tank/driving/apc/helo sim on the FPS/Infantry tactical shooter portions of the game it would blow the doors off of any competition; but I digress.

[hoggydog]

if the AI TC could be told to prioritise targets by type or by relitive threat to the tank (sort of the was you set up formations or engagment ranges in the map screen) i think some of the probs desribed above would be ironed out

[ido_]

Describing the right target to the gunner is one of the TC's tasks... "gunner lase to the right t-72", "gunner lase to the infantry on the hill ahead" thats actually the most important role of a TC to make the gunner understand what the hell you want from him ofcourse there will always be that stupied gunner who will fire on a completely different hill but thats a part of life....
I'll try and dig out the game from where ever i put it three years ago and give it another shoot though cuz hell hound tells me stuff i didn't know before.

btw how well does the "tilim tilim" drill works in SB ? I just love that one :)

[TheVlad]

Ido, I've sent you a private message.

[Poker]

I'll try and dig out the game from where ever i put it three years ago and give it another shoot though cuz hell hound tells me stuff i didn't know before.


FROM 3 YEARS AGO ?????????????????????? :shock:
GOOD GRIEF !!!!!!!! :x
YOU MEAN TO SAY YOU ARE GOING OFF MEMORY FROM 3 YEARS AGO ?????????????????
:roll:

Not only have you been wrong in what you state, you're going off memory and don't even have the current patches installed, and yet you dare to judge the game ??????
That is just assinine !!!!!!!!!!!
Well, in that case - I think Medal of Honor is crap ! - I don't have the game, I just looked at the box, but I'm obviously qualified to judge it ! :roll:

[Skip]

Even the old M60A3 could lase and fire on the move with a high probability of a first-round hit

Skip, I know exactly what M60 is capable of, my gunner took out 3 targets in 31 secs (the only reason he didn't take out the 4th is because the shell was a dud) anyways, our computer was not the latest generation but it does the job. yet you cannot lase while you are driving and there is a simple explantaion you change you position newer generations can compansate but not tanks made up to late 1980s.

Ok, I think I see what you're saying. Yes, the lasing vehicle is moving and the range will immediately start to become "old" data. In addition, the target may itself be moving and therefore the data will possibly become "bad" data even quicker. However, in the few seconds it takes to track, lase and fire, the range data is well within parameters for getting on target so I'd have to say your argument is bullshit. ;)

[ido_]

Skip, you didn't understand what i'm talking about but never mind :)

[NEpi]

Vlad, you are herefore announced as the "Bashnik" of the forum!

(sorry, couldn't give you "bashbashon" to wear on your uniform :) )

don't take it the wrong way. you're right. (if i'm guessing right the content of the PM)

[Wolfman]

Skip, you didn't understand what i'm talking about but never mind :)

What you are saying about M1A1 lasing on the move is the opposite of what I've been told by US Army tankers, and with all due respect I think they are more qualified to talk about the M1 than you.

Therefore I declare the comment that M1A1 cannot lase on the move to be BS.

[Ratseal]

I would have to agree that all my info is that nearly all up to date (incl the M1A1) MBTs can laze/shoot on the move - except for the LeClerq, which can also laze/shoot/teleport/seduce Playmates AND open the transdimensional portal (all while moving at 60km/h over broken terrain). The M1A2/Chally2/T90U can only open the portal while they are holding still.

[Ratseal]

more seriously, I think there are some semantics at work confusing us in this thread. Either Ido's knowledge of how the M1A1 FCS works is so detailed that he is the only one correctly using the words 'lazing on the move', or there is some other misunderstanding. In any event, the M1A1 can definitely shoot quite accurately while maneuvering tactically - seen it done myself in person at 29 Palms.

I would encourage Ido to get all the latest SB goodies and play some of the sce's listed in the second half of the AFK. Of course, you may fall in love with this sim all over again, which is very expensive in terms of time!!

[ido_]

Ok folks after finding it again (first time I played it I was in armor school i think) I must say its much better than I remember though there are some things in the AI you can improve... what I don't like mostly is that there is no initiative from the AI friendly units and when you play a gunner from the AI TC (for example if you see a missile coming in your direction go back behind cover bah!!!!!)
but really its a great game

[Ssnake]

We discarded the option to have tactically relevant initiative by computer controlled friendlies to retain full control over what's happening in the hands of the instructor/scenario designer. Once that the software agents are given the power to do things on their own, they are also empowered to act embarrassingly stupid now and then. The question is whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, and we felt that it didn't.

[m1a1vha]

i think the misunderrstanding is 'fire on the move' and 'laze and fire on the move'.

the M1 and Leclerc can both fire on the move, no problem there. however, the Leclerc can laze and fire on the move. when on the move, the M1 must laze and fire very quickly. this is due to the fact that the distance to the target decreases as the M1 moves in its direction. the targetting computer does not register the movement of the M1 in relation to the target.

say that an M1 lazes a target at 2000m. when the M1 moves for a better shot to a range of 1800m the range the computer knows is only 2000m. when the M1 lazes on the move, the gunner has to shoot in less than 5 seconds or so. on the Leclerc, the gunner lazes the target, and as long as the target does not move, the computer will recalculate the distance to the target as it is fed local information of the tank itself. i think the Leo2A6 has this feature as well. this means that the Leclerc really does have 'laze and fire on the move' capability.

[dejawolf]

the T-72 has a quite primitive version of this feature too, called delta-D

[OddBall]

Delta-D rocks. :D

[Skip]

i think the misunderrstanding is 'fire on the move' and 'laze and fire on the move'....when the M1 lazes on the move, the gunner has to shoot in less than 5 seconds or so. on the Leclerc, the gunner lazes the target, and as long as the target does not move, the computer will recalculate the distance to the target as it is fed local information of the tank itself....
The key phrase above is "...as long as the target does not move..." :) If the computer is trying to account for the tank's motion it seems that, though it would undoubtedly help when the target actually is still, it would be of no use if the target was moving and could just as easily introduce more error for a moving target than not having the capability. Seems like a crap-shoot as to whether it would actually be useful or not.

Does anyone have an definitive data about this?

[CommC]

Getting back to the main topic of this thread, I think we would all love to see an earlier release of SB2 rather than a later one. One of the concerns I have is that there may be some apple polishiing going on SB2's development.

To that end, one idea I would like to float (along the same lines as the original post of this thread) is that of releasing SB2 with a core set of basic features, then follow with an expansion pack which adds more features. For example, what if the main release just had one playable tank, say the M1A1, and all other vehicles were AI controlled. Then the expansion, which would cost more, would have playable Leo, Bradley, T-XX, etc along with potentially some graphic improvements, additional missions, etc. This is the model adopted by the Ghost Recon series, and I think it worked well. This would also allow the developers the get some income while finishing more details of the game. The scenario editor could also follow in the expansion pack.

Al and Ssnake, please give this idea some consideration. And please all post your feedback on this.

[PS-SCUD]

I think they probably want to start off with a bang, instead of having people be dissappointed with SB2, and have it get mediocre reviews at wargamer etc.


Waiting patienly......still have my hardon, 8)

SCUD

[Hell_Hound]

There might be some thrill factor to releasing "SB...but with better graphics!" but then when the complete game is done, they have to try and market "SB2...but with some extra features!" I don't think they want to blow their marketing load prematurely.

[Ssnake]

Exactly. Apple polishing is essential for successful marketing. We want to attract NEW customers. I know that almost everybody here would be happy with what we have already (save for a couple details). But I find it unacceptable to release the software without the key development goals met - night combat, weather effects, better physics model. Unly until after these have been accomplished I'm willing to think of a public release.

[Grenny]

Better Physiks model?? C'mon, just take real life and put it into a simulation...can't be that hard :wink:
(nur blöd das rechner nicht analytisch lösen können 8) )

[ido_]

Ssnake: how about realising some new screenshots so we'll dribble alittle....

[Puckstop31]

i think the misunderrstanding is 'fire on the move' and 'laze and fire on the move'.

the M1 and Leclerc can both fire on the move, no problem there. however, the Leclerc can laze and fire on the move. when on the move, the M1 must laze and fire very quickly. this is due to the fact that the distance to the target decreases as the M1 moves in its direction. the targetting computer does not register the movement of the M1 in relation to the target.

say that an M1 lazes a target at 2000m. when the M1 moves for a better shot to a range of 1800m the range the computer knows is only 2000m. when the M1 lazes on the move, the gunner has to shoot in less than 5 seconds or so. on the Leclerc, the gunner lazes the target, and as long as the target does not move, the computer will recalculate the distance to the target as it is fed local information of the tank itself. i think the Leo2A6 has this feature as well. this means that the Leclerc really does have 'laze and fire on the move' capability.

We (M1 gunners) compensate for this by a technique called "lase and blaze". Basically, you NEVER pull the trigger without lasing immediatlely before you fire. For me, I almost always re-lase when I say the "on" in "on the way". This takes some practice because you have to learn to trust the reticle. It might bounce and move but if you boresighted correctly the bullet will go where the dot is. :D

As for applying this to SB, well, it works for me. It use the "lase and blaze" and it works just like it should. The game models the tank inducing lead very well. It even sounds right. :)

All this is my $.02 and IMHO.

[JayMan]

del

[gtrof]

Don't realise Steel Beast 2 till its ready! I have time to wait. Plus I can wet my gamming plate with SB, Call of Duty and when it comes out Halo 2 (3-4-04 if you wanted to know!).

[Puckstop31]

The lase and fire and blaze on the move will not have something to do with the 2 or 3 stab axis ?
If I am correct, 2 axis is x,y (horizontal, vertical); 3 axis is x,y,t (t>time added or distance between target and shooter)
And I've read somewhere that the M1 has a 2 axis stab.

Any thoughts ?

Yes, the M1 has a 2 axis stab system. Believe me, a M1 can hit a mover on the move, far away, at night, while it is raining. :)

[Newbie-Olle]

If the computer is trying to account for the tank's motion it seems that, ..., it would be of no use if the target was moving and could just as easily introduce more error for a moving target than not having the capability.It would only worsen the error if the target and shooter move in the same general direction.

I can definitely see a benefit from tracking the shooting vehicle's move, primarily if the LRF is positioned higher than the gun.
Then you can take a turret down peek at the intended target while getting it's position and revealing yourself through the target's laser detector.
The targets position can then be used to guide indirect fire, or you can simply relocate to attack from a better angle, possibly without having to re-measure the distance.

Cheers
Olle