Why no early m1 ingame in sbp

[oscar19681]

Why is there no early m1 ingame in sbp ? I mean it has The same m1a1 interiour right? Aside from from the main gun and armour thrength is the same right . Aside from the m1a2 its the same ... It is featured on dejawolfs site .. http://www.dejawolf.com/steelbeasts/gallery/M1.html

[dejawolf]

same reason theres no T-72 ingame. or leclerc.

[FlatTax]

Can I interpret that to mean time (as opposed to access or other issues) is the limiting factor?

[dejawolf]

time and implementation method, as well as time to devise a new implementation method.

[oscar19681]

But i dont really understand . The m1 has the same interiour as the m1a1 ??

[dejawolf]

its does NOT have the same interior as the M1A1. 105mm gun breech, new bustle rack, different radio set, difference in gunners equipment, some various minor details, storage for additional rounds in the turret by the loader, different overall storage solution by the loader and equipment displacement. and theres probably some stuff i haven't yet noticed. such as the difference in the stub catching mechanism.

some differences in the different turret roof (3 blowoff panels instead of 2, absence of rear stowage bustle, smaller storage boxes, different wind sensor, different GPS housing, shorter turret, different gun mantle, different gun for heavens sakes, no extrusion for addition of TC's peri....)
most of this work, and especially the maingun and radios is going to take at least as much time as creating a whole external model from scratch.
but then, the 105mm gun and radio sets will be good to stick into an eventual implementation of the M60A3 in the future.

you get the idea?

[Ssnake]

But even if we were sloppy, the collision model (LoD3) would still be different, as would be the armor properties, and all this requires to be integrated by the programmer into one package that then works & acts like an old M1 with 105mm gun.

It's in the pipeline. Eventually we'll have all major versions of the Abrams family available in a future version of SBx/SBPro. But as the versions and sub-variants grow we figured that we would better invest some time in making the integration of all these models less labor intensive. Such a partial automation however will require some more time invested early to pay off in the long run.

We're trying to adapt our workflow, OK?

[FlatTax]

Ssnake, thanks. :)

We just need to be periodically reminded that our concerns are your concerns too. It goes a long way.

[CriticalMass]

eSim needs more programmers...but they know that, right?

In fact I'm surprised as a defence contractor you'd be allowed to work with only one programmer. That's a big risk, if say, Al go "burnt-out".

[dejawolf]

yeah one of the army customers voiced a bit of concern for this, but figured that the high quality of the software was worth taking the risk for.

[Ssnake]

...or the low price. ;)

[flyboy]

Always knew you guys worked for peanuts.:casstet:

[Ssnake]

Mmmmmm.... peanuts!