Military Customers and the T-72 Australian View

[jrcar]

As one of the evil military customers that has now hijacked Steel Beasts for our own noble ends I thought I'd share we I think we will end up taking SB over the next 12 months.

First the T-72 is on my personal wishlist, and at least some of my users have expressed an interest in it so they can understand OPFOR vehicles better. Also when Nils was here earlier in the year we crawled all over a T-72 and a BMP1 (both operable) at the Puckapunyal Tank Museum.

But before we get to the desirable requirements we have to have our essential requirements met, which include:

Better infantry modelling.

Complete range of Australian vehicles, and having them playable (Bushmaster and RWS on ASLAV, M88, Australian version M1).

Armed Recon Helicopter (Euro Tiger).

Extra engineering assets.

Modifications to the Arty model to make it more "commonwealth" compatible (UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia use a quite different system to the US).

By mid next year we need to be able to represent an entire Australian combat team, hopefully with some New Zealand vehicles as well.

After that we would be interested in manable OPFOR vehicles.

Weekly I'm adding extra demands on eSim as our users increase their use of Steel Beasts. The Royal Military College are about to start using it, the School of Infantry, Combined Officers Advanced Course, officer staff courses, the School of Armour (with a couple of other schools also interested), and of course the units themselves.

The ANZAC version of SB Pro PE will also be released in a few weeks free to all Australian and New Zealand Defence personnel, from which I expect new requirements to bubble to the surface... and more emails from me to Nils.

SB is one of two simulations (the other being VBS) in a USD$3 million dollar program.

So I understand and share your frustrations, however the real life military requirement is now driving SB. This will benefit the civilian players, but you will just need to be patient :)

Cheers

Rob Carpenter
Deputy Director, Simulation Development
Australian Army

[Gibsonm]

Rob.

Ack all.

Any chance we can squeeze in “hetrogeneous units” so a Cav Tp of ASLAV and ASLAV-2 can move around as one unit?

[Ssnake]

That is one of the less sexy, but still important features on his wish list.

[Lone*star49]

...

Very informative.. ty



LS :wink:

[Gibsonm]

Great!

Whilst on the “not so sexy“ list, if we can get rid of “up!” and use “loaded!” instead and maybe some Australian voices / call signs life would be very nice.

[jrcar]

The school was doing new .wav files.... I'll try and chase them up.

There are a number of other things on The List, like joining a game in progress that are less sexy, but non-trivial.

Cheers

Rob

[Storm91]

Burnage

[smogover]

G'day Rob,

Curious.... does the non-sexy component of your wish list also include planning stage type things? Some examples that I am thinking might be useful for you guys (& us :P ) are being able to script platoons dividing/re-attaching, and infantry dismounting/re-mounting. Also, is the modified artillery model you mention just to make it work better for commonwealth countries, or is it more of a total makeover of the model itself?

Thanks for the information by the way :D

[GaryOwen]

The ANZAC version of SB Pro PE will also be released in a few weeks free to all Australian and New Zealand Defence personnel, from which I expect new requirements to bubble to the surface... and more emails from me to Nils.

I wonder if the commercial version of SB Pro PE can be used in network play for ANZAC version compatible scenarios with ANZAC personnel.

[Gibsonm]

Nope.

Jrcar (using the Pro version) and I (with the Pro PE version) have already tried this. And I think the ANZAC versions has other limitations as well (when compared to the Pro version - but I can't recall exactly what they are).

[flyboy]

Yes us Aussies are evil,woohahahahahahahaha..Umm I,m not military but I volunteer at an Army(aviation) museum..do I get a copy..Please,please,please...Actually would really like something for the public to look at when they trawl through the museum...Would give them a brief look at the internal workings of a modern day MBT .Might get some of the younger ones interested enough to join up in the defence force,maybe,one day..Good post mate.It,s good to see where the military is heading these days.

[Gibsonm]

Any truth in the rumour that your museum will soon get an especially "lowered" F111? :D

[flyboy]

I wish..LoL..Does it come complete with undercart??

[[panzer]]

Finally all those taxes I pay can go to a just cause.

What will be the differences between the Aussie and US M1?

Will the Euro tiger heli be crewable?

[E.Blackadder]

As much as I'm also on the T-72 fan-wagon, I have to admit that I'm
every bit as happy to see this item: Better infantry modelling.

That's the most important thing for the right now of it, I think.

[tankenator]

infantry modeling would be a good thing....

[Gibsonm]

I wish..LoL..Does it come complete with undercart??

Yes - except for the nose wheel which I believe they left behind somewhere.

[RogueSnake79]

As far as I know Panzer, the differences between them are Engine and ammo.

The Aussies opted for a diesel power plant, and don't use anything radioactive.
So its AP Tungsten, not DU.

Darkangle filled me in :)

[[panzer]]

Cool, that means it wont take so long to switch the switch the engine on and off. Go the Aussie m1 4 the win:)

[flyboy]

Typical RAAF,leaving bits off planes or things coming unstuck.I suppose they only had the one nose wheel which had to go around the entire fleet.Also have they put a cammo job on the Abrams yet,the black,tan,green one.What will happen with the Leapards,will they serve a secondary roll or will they get sold off to the Kiwis like everything else we had..Skyhawks etc.

[smithcorp]

As one of the evil military customers that has now hijacked Steel Beasts for our own noble ends I thought I'd share we I think we will end up taking SB over the next 12 months.

First the T-72 is on my personal wishlist, and at least some of my users have expressed an interest in it so they can understand OPFOR vehicles better. Also when Nils was here earlier in the year we crawled all over a T-72 and a BMP1 (both operable) at the Puckapunyal Tank Museum.

But before we get to the desirable requirements we have to have our essential requirements met, which include:

Better infantry modelling.

Complete range of Australian vehicles, and having them playable (Bushmaster and RWS on ASLAV, M88, Australian version M1).

Armed Recon Helicopter (Euro Tiger).

Extra engineering assets.

Modifications to the Arty model to make it more "commonwealth" compatible (UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia use a quite different system to the US).

By mid next year we need to be able to represent an entire Australian combat team, hopefully with some New Zealand vehicles as well.

After that we would be interested in manable OPFOR vehicles.

Weekly I'm adding extra demands on eSim as our users increase their use of Steel Beasts. The Royal Military College are about to start using it, the School of Infantry, Combined Officers Advanced Course, officer staff courses, the School of Armour (with a couple of other schools also interested), and of course the units themselves.

The ANZAC version of SB Pro PE will also be released in a few weeks free to all Australian and New Zealand Defence personnel, from which I expect new requirements to bubble to the surface... and more emails from me to Nils.

SB is one of two simulations (the other being VBS) in a USD$3 million dollar program.

So I understand and share your frustrations, however the real life military requirement is now driving SB. This will benefit the civilian players, but you will just need to be patient :)

Cheers

Rob Carpenter
Deputy Director, Simulation Development
Australian Army

*swoons in a manly way*

[smithcorp]

The school was doing new .wav files.... I'll try and chase them up.

There are a number of other things on The List, like joining a game in progress that are less sexy, but non-trivial.

Cheers

Rob

*swoons in a girly way*

[Mace]

*swoons in a manly way*


*swoons in a girly way*

You really should go see a Doctor about that.

:wink:

[smithcorp]

*shudders, remembering the last time*

[stuart666]

Couple of questions, how is it intended to impliment the M88? Will it be just for show, or is it perhaps intended to have some functionality?

Secondly,there was some discussion in the past of having commonwealth style vehicle codes eg 2B, 22A etc, which appear to differ from the US practice. Is this going to be looked at as well?

Not too fussed on the T72, but a long wheelbase SAS landrover would be nice. :)

[jrcar]

The plan is for some recovery capability, not much point otherwise.

Yes the call sign thing has been discussed, a number of possible solutions.

Not the SAS one, but maybe the reserve recon version... a bit down the track.

Simthcorp I hope my restraining order is still in place :)

Cheers

Rob

[smithcorp]

8)

[RecceDG]

Will all the ANZAC improvements/changes make it back into ProPE?

I'd expect bugfixes would unquestionably be common, but are things like support for Commonwealth callsigns etc going to be merged back into the PE codebase, or will they be kept separate?

I'm really hoping "merged"....

DG

[jrcar]

Yes, that is why you have the ASLAV and M113AS4 already :)

However the choices, such as callsigns and arty calls, may end up making things harder for the newbie (especially a yank newbie :) ).

I expect you will have the option of the US system or the commonwealth system, or any other system that gets included in the future.

Cheers

Rob

[Hillslam]

Does this mean we'll get a fully modelled M1 interior?
Overall performance of the M1 simulation modelled to the fidelity of the Leopard?

[stuart666]

I must admit I think the M88 would be a very welcome addition. Dont expect me to give up on the Landrover 110 though. :)

Cant we call it 'Steel Beasts, the Commonwealth armour simulator' so Americans know what they are getting? :)

[dejawolf]

the M-diddely-1's already got a hunkload more diddles and doodles of interior than its Steel beasts 1 stablemate leopard 2A4, neighbourinoes.
leopard 2a5DK's like an M1A2 with a german flag.

[Sean]

Besides the interior, Id like to know what about the m1 is not modelled to same fidelity as the leopards. :-)

[Ssnake]

Does this mean we'll get a fully modelled M1 interior?
Overall performance of the M1 simulation modelled to the fidelity of the Leopard?
That's the development goal even without the Aussies being interested in it.

[Ssnake]

Will all the ANZAC improvements/changes make it back into ProPE?
Yes, although we haven't planned for the callsign conventions. The problem with that is, Denmark, Sweden, Australia, Germany - they all have their own and noticeably different callsign naming conventions. Now, what do you do in multiplayer games? The guy from Sweden reports "I'm in AJ/3", and everybody else thinks "WTF?" because they can't see that unit on the map. Having the option for single player only might be counterproductive as well since you'd constantly re-learn between your national, and the common conventions.

Therefore we're limiting this to SB versions that are explicitly compiled for our army customers.

[CriticalMass]

Sorry, I disagree on the single player thing being counter productive. If that were the case you would have identical keyboard layouts for each vehicle, well you do, kinda, but, you are trying to simulate the differences between them [vehicles]. As this is a realism simulation, surely the solution must be to give the player the option to choose their prefered method of communication.

As far as MP goes shouldn't this be a game host option "tonight gentlemen" the scenario is a what-if Sweden vs Germany and the call-sign convensions will be...

Geez, I don't even get the current call sign but I want to learn them. And maybe I'll find my prefered method.

TANX
Andrew

[Ssnake]

Callsign conventions are not vehicle bound. Sweden and Germany may both be using the Leopard, their callsigns are different. I simply don't see the merit in making things complicated just for the sake of it. It must have a functional reason. The function of callsigns is to let you identify who's reporting and receiving orders. That can be done with SB the way it is right now. We really have bigger fish to fry than opening another can of worms that doesn't offer anything but the illusion of immersion. I'd rather concentrate on making our units behave smarter, light sources casting shadows, or having a playable T-72 in it.

[RecceDG]

I couldn't disagree any stronger Nils - callsign conventions are an integral part of dealing with multinational forces sharing the same net, and it's a huge realism boost. I know I ***REALLY*** want to see this in ProPE.

It's also very simple to implement - each unit just needs a "Nationality" tag associated with it (which is sorta already there for infantry uniforms).

Setting a "Nationality" tag then determines the callsign convention for that unit, the vehicle skin, the drills/sound files used with that unit, the uniform skin, etc etc etc.

And this makes vehicle independance easy, and makes "what if" scenarios all that much more realistic.

So if you have an M1A1 tagged as "American" you get the American vehicle skin appropriate for that theme, the callsign drop-down uses American conventions, the in-game voices for that vehicle use American conventions with American accents ("Up! On the way!") - maybe even the lettering on the vehicle interior is skinnable too.

Change that tag to "Canadian" and now you get the Canadian Abrams skin, the callsign drop-down switches to Canadian/Commonwealth conventions, in-game voices use Canadian/Commonweath drills/accents "Loaded! Firing Now!" - and hey, maybe even the interior lettering is now in English and French.

Change to Swedish, Finnish, Russian... you get the idea, I'm sure.

And it's so easy to implement... just need a data structure that stores a pointer to the appropriate callsign list etc based on Nationality.

And as far as "confusion in scenarios" goes... for non-military players, the callsign is just a string of characters anyway. "I'm in A/3!" "I'm in T42A!" "I'm in Barely Legal"... it's all the same anyway; you make things no better or worse for them. But for military customers (assuming the scenario designer has assigned callsigns appropriately) that tells me that "I'm in an American unit!" "I'm in a recce vehicle belonging to the D squadron 2 troop Troop Warrant" "I'm in an American tank!" etc.

(Hey ANZAC guys - did you specify that the arm indicator be part of the callsign? Did you ask for I11 (infantry platoon) T21 (armour troop) G23 (arty FOO) or just the number+letter?)

Seriously Nils, this is more important to me than any crewable T72 or moving suspension or whatever. I'll even take it over the improved artillery model.

DG

[Gibsonm]

Not aware of what was asked for but the arms identifier (whatever they maybe - security issue) would be useful.

The current appraoch looks like when I play my ADF copy of Steel Beasts I’ll get Aust callsigns and when I play my copy of Pro PE I’ll get US?

Does the same extend to sounds (i.e. I’ll hear “loaded!” in the ADF version and “UP!” in Pro PE)?

[RecceDG]

Not aware of what was asked for but the arms identifier (whatever they maybe - security issue) would be useful.

I don't think the Canadian arm indicators have changed since WW2... I don't think there's a security issue there.

I like to think of SB working on a giant, single radio net with all the friendlies on the same net. That would imply that arm indicators are pretty much a necessity, at least according to doctrine.

Other nationalities on the same net might not realize that the "T" in "T42" stands for "tank" and means "armoured" but that doesn't really matter; the real requirement is that all callsigns be unique.

DG

[dejawolf]

"its so easy to implement"

well, you didn't think about individual units as well. in addition to what you stated, each of the 40 vehicles needs to be modified with callsign "plates".
you need a script which shows the right number of echelon and dots on american tanks, another script that shows the correct numbers and echelons for another
company of american tanks. then there's the australian way, the german way etc. and you'd also want the german cross and such.
then when you have callsigns, you might start complaining about the callsigns not being in the right position, and/or the storage layout of the particular vehicle being wrong for that particular scenario. for example the pumba teddy that was attached to the gunshield of a specific M1A1 during OIF.
and when we finally get infantry in, you'll complain that the nametags is impossible to spell out. and that they are wrong. and on it goes.

each callsign plate will take around 2 hours to work into a model. each texture for callsign plates will take an additional 2 hours.
times 40, means it will take 80 hours to work in a callsign plate for every vehicle, and an additional 20-30 hours of work to create the callsign textures. in addition i have to create for you every army vehicle in the world, as well as interior for every army vehicle in the world.

[Gibsonm]

I don't think the Canadian arm indicators have changed since WW2... I don't think there's a security issue there.DG

Perhaps, but my RTP pam has a secuity classification other than “OPEN SLATHER - POST ON THE ‘NET” on the top and bottom of every page.

Got to set an example to the subordinates - don’t you know.

[Alan323]

Deja, you know us so well. :)

[RecceDG]

each of the 40 vehicles needs to be modified with callsign "plates".
you need a script which shows the right number of echelon and dots on american tanks

That's to get callsigns visible in the "world view", which really, is eye candy.

I'm talking about callsign displays on the *map screen*, which really is trivial - it's just what text string you show on the map screen.

And as far as doing callsigns in the "world view" goes... it dosn't have to be anywhere NEAR that difficult. You load the texture skin for the vehicle, you load the callsign font, you specify the X/Y/orientation of the callsign, and then you dynamically "type" the callsign onto the texture.

For those crazy American chevrons and pips (assuming you want to get that detailed) you just create a new "chevron and pip" font and map callsigns to the character strings that generate the appropriate patterns.

The data file might look like this:

{VEHICLE=M1A1}
{NATIONALITY=CAN}
{SKIN=/skins/can/(theme)/m1a1.jpg}
{CALLSIGN=T42A}
{FONT=/fonts/can/[theme]/callsign.ttf}
{TEXT X=120 Y=30 SIZE=15 DIRECTION=0 STRING=42A}
{TEXT X=180 Y=150 SIZE=15 DIRECTION=180 STRING=42A}
{TEXT X=60 Y=100 SIZE=25 DIRECTION=90 STRING=42A}
{/FONT}
{FONT=/fonts/can/(theme)/vehnames.ttf}
{TEXT X=200 Y=30 SIZE=10 DIRECTION=0 STRING=DIEPPE}
{TEXT X=240 Y=150 SIZE=10 DIRECTION=180 STRING=DIEPPE}
{/FONT}
{/CALLSIGN}

{VEHICLE=M1A1}
{NATIONALITY=USARMY}
{SKIN=/skins/usarmy/(theme)/m1a1.jpg}
{CALLSIGN=A/3}
{FONT=/fonts/usarmy/[theme]/chevrons.ttf}
{TEXT X=120 Y=30 SIZE=30 DIRECTION=0 STRING=XL}
{TEXT X=180 Y=150 SIZE=30 DIRECTION=180 STRING=XL}
{/FONT}
{FONT=/fonts/usarmy/(theme)/gunbarrel.ttf}
{TEXT X=200 Y=30 SIZE=10 DIRECTION=0 STRING=COJONE EH}
{TEXT X=240 Y=150 SIZE=10 DIRECTION=180 STRING=COJONE EH}
{/FONT}
{/CALLSIGN}

Etc. You get the idea.

Yes, this allows for vehicle names and gunbarrel text and whatnot to be dynamically generated by callsign - for FREE

DG

[dejawolf]

this still means you need to maintain a massive amount of memory(768kb per vehicle, instead of per vehicle type), and by default vehicle textures are simply too low-res to accomodate gun barrel names and callsigns on the sides.

[RecceDG]

Which is fine; like I said, it's eye candy in the game world.

And with video cards carrying 256MB of texture memory these days (never mind texture compression) even at ~800k per texture, that's still 320 unique vehicles. Yes, I'm overlooking environmental maps, bushes, trees, etc etc - but the point is that it's not outside the realm of possibility now - and it can be made optional, configurable etc etc.

Don't get wrapped around the axle about the 3D world aspects; that's not the point.

DG

[RogueSnake79]

I would be happy with just numbers in world view. I know, its eye candy.

In reality, echelon's and whatever the other states use would be accurate.

But a simple 13A, 1st 3rd tank Alfa, on the skirt would be fine. With the ability to change the number color from black or white depending on the theme, black for winter.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v512/RogueSnake79/13.jpg

The whole point for me is:
When I'm in a tank platton with other ppl, I don't want to have to look at the map an try and judge these very small distances between tanks to figure out whos' who.

[stuart666]

Without inflame things, lets be fair flight sims have been doing this for ages. IL2 had different national symbols appear according to selection, not to mention work out a way of generating a different skin for a different country. Even strikefighters managed to find a way to get a national emblem, a dedicated skin, squadron number and even an accurate serial number on each aircrafts tail!

I dont underestimate how difficult this would be to do, Im sure it would be very time consuming to achieve. What I would say is that its something that would be a good idea to impliment in future perhaps for SB2. It certainly would be worthwhile to achieve for training, particularly for units that might form part of multinational battlegroups.

[9erRed]

Greetings all,

Ref the unit ID function,

Yes I do have some difficulty with the US call sign layout, being Canadian and using the commonwealth system. But for in "game" situations their is the option of being able to Id a unit from just looking at it, the sce. designer has to select in the editor / options / "Friendly id", which will display a red unit id as you pass over the unit in the center of your view.

That being said it does appear that the "world view" keeps reference to what each unit is (id), although it may be selective as to when it calls for this info?

Now that still doesn't help with the Nato / US / Commonwealth callsign issue. And I do like recce dg's idea for element nationality with reference to callsign, which can be only a "in simulation world" reference and allow the sim. engine to designate whatever id number it wants as long as the map view and world view show the system (nationality) you've selected. [ ie: sim. engine id "byx" transposed to "Canadian" display "xxc" ]

Just thinking out loud, ... later ... 9erRed

[Trekker]

The problem would still be that when you give a position, all non-canadian user will see their callsigns and not yours.

But what about if you press a key and the default US callsign shows. Like, press space in mapview and all unit show US callsigns. My 2£..

[RecceDG]

I see the Nationality, and with it the Callsign, being set by the scenario designer, so there's never an opportunity for one person to see one callsign and another person to see a different callsign for the same vehicle.

Thus no need for a "display default callsign" control.

DG

[12Alfa]

I think in the area where we pick our vehs (assembly area) if we had the option to place a callsign after our veh and the mission commander to fill in the rest of the vehs this would work. In this way only the vehs being used would require a callsign and it would freeup any memory problems. A small mission would see a small amount of callsigns/memory and a big mission...well you get the idea...

[Hackworth]

"its so easy to implement"
...in addition i have to create for you every army vehicle in the world, as well as interior for every army vehicle in the world.

Get back to work! Chop-chop! No rest for you! Hehe, just kidding chief ;)

Thanks for the info guys from Down Under. And yes Panzer, those are tax dollars well spent ;)

[wingtacticslab]

On the subject of vehicles being used:

We now have a Bell 412 Griffon and a Chinook included for our tactics lab. The Hind plays the role of escort for us.

Don't know if that is going to be put in SB Pro PE but it works great for us low flyers.

1 Wing Taclab.
Canada

[jrcar]

Thanks for the Chinook! The joke I heard the other day is that our UH1's will probably be used to fly the pilots back once the UH60's are disposed of (the UH60 was bought to replace the UH1).

We also use the Griffon on some exercises, so that is also appreciated.

When the ARH (aka Aussie Tiger) comes in early next year you will be able to ditch the Hind :)

Cheers

Rob

[flyboy]

Hell yeah seen the Tiger fly in to Oakey a few times when we are out there at the museum workshops.Speedy bastards and a lot taller than what you would expect for a recon helo.

[chappy]

Well as an armoured reserve officer and a 'casual player' of steelbeasts im happy to see these things are in the works.
I would very strongly encourage the developers to implement the various callsign differences with nationality into the pro pe sim (commercial one) because, as has been said already it Does ad an element of realism to the sim for all.

To me the most important impreovements would be :
Nation specific Callsigns
Dynamic Troop structure (our cav has 6 vehicles, and 2 types within those 6 vehicles)
Added Australian vehicles (rovers and australianised m1s)