PDA

View Full Version : Why a playable T72 and not a playable T80


Marko
02-12-2007, 12:32 PM
Hi Guys
There seems to be tremendous support for a playable T72.
I was wondering Why Not have A playable T80 If that option was available.?
It would be a much better tank in terms of survivability and fire power.When The guys eventually do add a T72.i suspect the novelty will ware off very Quickly when You are being handed your ass on a plate by Leo's and m1's.

Hedgehog
02-12-2007, 12:37 PM
Why not go further and have a T90, for those 2010 type scenarios.

Just my opinion, I am aware that the vehicle needs to be added first.

Been making a little sb1 scenario with a T80 company equipped with best ammo, my M1s die on quite a regular basis.

Stewy
02-12-2007, 01:10 PM
Yeah, and besides, there's nothing like the challenge of using Leo 1s against T-72 and t-80...it's as hard as hell, but satisyfying when you pull it off!

Vati
02-12-2007, 02:06 PM
This was already answered some time ago.
One of the strongest points are that T72M1's interior has been already finished for some years and there is all data available for it as well.

Of course T80 would be great as well. But if we start with T72 it will be already a fabulous step forward in SBP in simulating the OPFOR :thelmut:

Marko
02-12-2007, 02:34 PM
Yeah, and besides, there's nothing like the challenge of using Leo 1s against T-72 and t-80...it's as hard as hell, but satisyfying when you pull it off!

Hi Stewy.

I often wondered how the T72 Fair ed Against Leo 1.
Would you say they were evenly matched in terms of armour protection and Firepower.

dejawolf
02-12-2007, 02:51 PM
Hi Stewy.

I often wondered how the T72 Fair ed Against Leo 1.
Would you say they were evenly matched in terms of armour protection and Firepower.

T-72 is superior in both armour and firepower. but the leo has better FCS components.

cobrabase
02-12-2007, 03:17 PM
Priorities gentlemen, priorities.

:)

Stratos
02-12-2007, 03:25 PM
Cause the T-72 a by far a lot more common than the T-80, cause the interior is done, cause will be challenging to kill M1 with the T-72, cause we are waiting this since SB1, cause is a promise, cause is a Tank available in NATO countries like Poland or Cezh Rep... cause the T-72 entered combat in tons of wars...
Anything more??

silberwiese
02-12-2007, 03:42 PM
Cause the T-72 a by far a lot more common than the T-80, cause the interior is done, cause will be challenging to kill M1 with the T-72, cause we are waiting this since SB1, cause is a promise, cause is a Tank available in NATO countries like Poland or Cezh Rep... cause the T-72 entered combat in tons of wars...
Anything more??

You make good cases for the T-72, and want it too!!!!

But you forgot a little (very important) precondition:

eSims has to find a customer, who pays/finance for that development/venture!

PS: or do i make a misstake? Is the T-72 development concluded?

Captain_Colossus
02-12-2007, 03:44 PM
T-72 offers a much larger historical base for scenario construction- there is almost no material for T-80U to draw upon. Cold War 1970s challenges are an attractive draw for many people.

Volcano
02-12-2007, 04:43 PM
Well, I don't forsee anyone getting their "ass handed to them" if they had a playable T-72 *if* the scenarios are designed correctly. By that I mean, you would certainly give the T-72 side a numerical advantage and pit a M1A1/M2 or Leo2A4/Marder company sized unit vs. a T-72/BMP battalion sized unit at a minimum. But I suspect that people will do the ol' 4 vs. 4 or even number deathmatch scenarios and give the T-72 a bad reputation.

Vati
02-12-2007, 04:48 PM
But you forgot a little (very important) precondition:

eSims has to find a customer, who pays/finance for that development/venture!

PS: or do i make a misstake? Is the T-72 development concluded?
Esim said that T72 is going to be included... we just do not know when.
I think 2008 is more realistic than 2007, but lets keep fingers crossed and hope for the best ;)

Marko
02-12-2007, 05:31 PM
T-72 offers a much larger historical base for scenario construction- there is almost no material for T-80U to draw upon. Cold War 1970s challenges are an attractive draw for many people.

Yes i agree the T72M/M1 would make some great Material for Recent conflicts
And historical Based scenario's.but What about future conflicts From what i have read. A lot of countries currently using the T72 are considering upgrading there fleets.Many companies are offering substantial upgrades in the area of fire control and Armour I Believe this would make the upgraded Tanks more comparable with the T80/T90 Thus a playable T80 would be better for the longevity of the Sim.
Further more which would you prefer if you were playing online
A T72 or a T80.concidering your opponent could be crewing a Strv122 or Leo 2A5.The T72 is one off my favourite tanks but i would hate to have to go in to battle in one

Hedgehog
02-12-2007, 10:28 PM
Would be interesting to test a T72 in a defensive scenario, with a human crew.

In the right hands a group of T72s could be a real headache for a NATO commander.

What with it being smaller than NATO tanks, its harder to see and thats half the problem, right?

dejawolf
02-13-2007, 12:48 AM
Yes i agree the T72M/M1 would make some great Material for Recent conflicts
And historical Based scenario's.but What about future conflicts From what i have read. A lot of countries currently using the T72 are considering upgrading there fleets.Many companies are offering substantial upgrades in the area of fire control and Armour I Believe this would make the upgraded Tanks more comparable with the T80/T90 Thus a playable T80 would be better for the longevity of the Sim.
Further more which would you prefer if you were playing online
A T72 or a T80.concidering your opponent could be crewing a Strv122 or Leo 2A5.The T72 is one off my favourite tanks but i would hate to have to go in to battle in one

exactly why would the opposition be crewing 122s or 2a5s? thats entirely up to the scenario designer, and if he wants to make interesting, he'd put 1a5s and 2a4s and maybe some M1s against a horde of player controlled T-72s and some AI T-80s.

Captain_Colossus
02-13-2007, 04:33 AM
but What about future conflicts From what i have read. A lot of countries currently using the T72 are considering upgrading there fleets.Many companies are offering substantial upgrades in the area of fire control and Armour I Believe this would make the upgraded Tanks more comparable with the T80/T90 Thus a playable T80 would be better for the longevity of the Sim.
Further more which would you prefer if you were playing online
A T72 or a T80.concidering your opponent could be crewing a Strv122 or Leo 2A5.The T72 is one off my favourite tanks but i would hate to have to go in to battle in one

T-80 and T-90 would offer some nice Pak vs India choices; really though even T-55 and T-62 clones remain the mainstay of many nations to this day- for example some priviledged heavy Iraqi divisions received the T-72 and locally produced their own under license, while the backbone of the armored corps used T-55s and Chinese copies of the T-62; the DPRK still fields T-62 as its premier main battle tank. Even Russia held back its precious T-90s and operated upgraded legacy tanks in the Chechen wars.

At the end of it all I prefer the challenges of Cold War match ups evoking T-55/62/64s; the ultimate armor sim would gain the rank of penultimate armor sim at the point that any of them would make it in the kit.

Marko
02-13-2007, 05:33 PM
exactly why would the opposition be crewing 122s or 2a5s? that's entirely up to the scenario designer, and if he wants to make interesting, he'd put 1a5s and 2a4s and maybe some M1s against a horde of player controlled T-72s and some AI T-80s.

Before steel beasts hit the market tank platoon 2 was the only haft decent Tank Sim on the market you could edit missions to play as Opfor.I played Some historical Battles such as the battle of easting.Fighting in a T72.And even when i edited the battle in favour of the Opfor i was never Able To defeat the enemy but when i edited the scenario to crew a T80
In the same battle i won decisively using the Exact same tactics.
I must admit i observed a noticeable difference when playing the battle of Eastings in SB1 But The result was the same the T72 was no match For the M1.
In summery I would like Both T72/T80.but given the choice the T80 has the Edge.

Ssnake
02-14-2007, 12:46 AM
The T-72 is much better documented, as far as optics, reticules, and fire control system are concerned. Since we try to replicate fire control systems and not invent solutions that may or may not be this way in reality, it is a natural choice to pick what's known better.

sabot_ready
02-14-2007, 04:29 AM
If the reason that we have no T-72 is because nobody will pay ..then why do we have a M1 ? Is the US paying for SB Pro yet?

Captain_Colossus
02-14-2007, 04:51 AM
In summery I would like Both T72/T80.but given the choice the T80 has the Edge.


That's the idea- the T-72 brings unique challenges, among other things; sort of like Imperial Tie Fighters, the player must cope with slender means and desperate needs- you'll have to do without first rate armor protection and fire control equipment, while the T-72 is fast, sleek and rates good firepower. It's an offensive tank from the outset.

It would also seem that many perceived weaknesses are predicated on the assumption of a baseline T-72 or WarPact export kit rather than T-72B or something like this:

JamesT73J
02-14-2007, 10:08 AM
It would also seem that many perceived weaknesses are predicated on the assumption of a baseline T-72 or WarPact export kit rather than T-72B or something like this:

That's impressive looking. Really reminds me of the T-80 in the game. Is that a completely different glacis plate?


James

tankenator
02-14-2007, 10:56 AM
If the reason that we have no T-72 is because nobody will pay ..then why do we have a M1 ? Is the US paying for SB Pro yet?

or for that matter sabot_ready, a bradley.......noone besides the us uses the badley (aussies use the m1 so that argument is moot)

face it, a T72 in the game would place this sim squarely into the sights of other former WP and third world nations which use that tank, I think it would be a pretty good addition on our, the gamers, front, as well as the military supplier front.....

Vati
02-14-2007, 11:03 AM
If the reason that we have no T-72 is because nobody will pay ..then why do we have a M1 ? Is the US paying for SB Pro yet?
Esim is saved by the bell with an argument that Aussies will now also use M1 :biggrin:

Jester_UK
02-14-2007, 11:41 AM
If the reason that we have no T-72 is because nobody will pay ..then why do we have a M1 ? Is the US paying for SB Pro yet?

or for that matter sabot_ready, a bradley.......noone besides the us uses the badley (aussies use the m1 so that argument is moot)

face it, a T72 in the game would place this sim squarely into the sights of other former WP and third world nations which use that tank, I think it would be a pretty good addition on our, the gamers, front, as well as the military supplier front.....


Regarding the M1 and M2: How many of the US members of this community would have bought SB Pro PE if they hadn't been included? my guess is that the numbers would have been far smaller than they are had the original release only contained the Leo models.

Or perhaps there were discussions with the US military that we're not aware of?

Good point about the T-72 though. But with a limited staff, is it better for ESim to serve the military client base they already have, or to spend time implementing something the existing clients don't want in the hope of landing one or two small contracts (that will in all likelyhood produce less revenue than the existing cleint base is willing to pay for extended attention) and risk the possibility (however small it may be) of actually losing an existing client in the process?

If I were in Al and Nils shoes, I wouldn't be prepared to risk that, no matter how small a risk it may be.

daskal
02-14-2007, 01:43 PM
with a limited staff, is it better for ESim to serve the military client base they already have, or to spend time implementing something the existing clients don't want in the hope of landing one or two small contracts (that will in all likelyhood produce less revenue than the existing cleint base is willing to pay for extended attention) and risk the possibility (however small it may be) of actually losing an existing client in the process?

If I were in Al and Nils shoes, I wouldn't be prepared to risk that, no matter how small a risk it may be.

- struggling with tears - Unfortunately it's true, and I was thinking about lately that we should be glad that we even have this SIM at all.

BUT you know what?Today I played on the lottery :) (never did it before), and who knows, I might even win - if so I'll see to it that that the Chally and some playable T-XX is brought on board :)

Who knows...

sabot_ready
02-14-2007, 02:35 PM
Esim is saved by the bell with an argument that Aussies will now also use M1 :biggrin:

Not the same M1...are not the engines different?

Stratos
02-14-2007, 03:26 PM
If the problem is money, why we can buy an expansion?? How much time will cost to implement the T-72??, how money cost that time?? Divide this money in expansions, and ask how many of SBProPE owners will buy it and make numbers.
I can pay 40 euros more for that tank

What Esim game think about it??

Chaplain
02-14-2007, 04:19 PM
If the problem is money, why we can buy an expansion?? How much time will cost to implement the T-72??, how money cost that time?? Divide this money in expansions, and ask how many of SBProPE owners will buy it and make numbers.
I can pay 40 euros more for that tank

What Esim game think about it??

8,000,000 Euros. In advance.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=9213

OK, so he's talking about the T-80 there, but I think the point is pretty clear...

tankenator
02-14-2007, 08:04 PM
the point being, that they developed many vehicles, including the T72 (if i remember correctly it is fully modeled interior and exterior, all that remains is glue code to tie in the optics/gunnery etc.), and that some of that was done to attract new customers. While i realize that current customers take priority, if the system was rewritten to modularize the vehicles, they could make this issue very easy to add the T72, as well as any further vehicles that military customers require.

As it is it seems that it requires two weeks of al's time to code in a new vehicle, 4 weeks of beta, and then 4 months of secondary beta from the rest of the community, rinse lather repeat to get out all the bugs introduced by the new patch.......

I sense (and no proof of this at all) that the T72 is made, but that they are waiting till we get enough of a case of the ass to pay for a patch (which i would be willing to pay a reasonable fee for btw) and then try to sell that as an addition.....just a thought....

tankenator
02-14-2007, 08:07 PM
Chplain said:

8,000,000 Euros. In advance.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/...ead.php?t=9213

OK, so he's talking about the T-80 there, but I think the point is pretty clear...

But considering that the aussies paid what all of 7 million complete (that included pcs and network hardware as well) for their version, and that has several new vehicles.....

Something doesnt jive here....

3Star
02-14-2007, 08:10 PM
Not the same M1...are not the engines different?

They have different armour, a refrigerator, and red kangaroos. Otherwise, the tanks are identical.

NTM

tarball
02-14-2007, 08:43 PM
At the end of it all I prefer the challenges of Cold War match ups evoking T-55/62/64s; the ultimate armor sim would gain the rank of penultimate armor sim at the point that any of them would make it in the kit.

I am confused...

SteelBeasts Pro PE would go from being the ultimate (maximum; decisive; conclusive; highest; final; total; greatest; unsurpassed) to the penultimate (next to the last) armor sim?

Does this mean you think the inclusion of T55/62/64/72 would be a step down? Would it diminsh the greatness of the sim? :confused:

Chaplain
02-14-2007, 08:51 PM
Chplain said:

8,000,000 Euros. In advance.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/...ead.php?t=9213

OK, so he's talking about the T-80 there, but I think the point is pretty clear...

But considering that the aussies paid what all of 7 million complete (that included pcs and network hardware as well) for their version, and that has several new vehicles.....

Something doesnt jive here....

Ssnake's point was that for them to drop their current Army contracts to create/finish a new vehicle, they would be risking their entire business.

In other words, they'll finish the T-72 in the time available between Army contracts. It won't help if we offer to pay for moving it up the ladder - they cannot afford the risk of trading that money for loosing the confidence of their Army customers. Unless, of course, the money we offered was so much that it didn't matter if they lost the confidence of their Army customers.

tankenator
02-14-2007, 09:16 PM
I understand the sentiment, but I think that esim overplays the amount of time and effort that is required in making a crewable vehicle.....as demonstrated by the addition of many many vehicles in a very short period of time.....

A T72 is at least 30% done (models, armor model, skins, and interior), possibly more as its already available as opfor, wheras helicopters (the new one specifically) are new models new physics, etc, yet that was added quite quickly. While I realize that the military takes priority, I do believe that a crewable T72 would be possible between other items.

I do realize that this issue is not the most important in the sim (Opfor's incredible gunnery and spotting ability seems to be the most glaing issue ive run into of late, as well as the water crossing continuing to be an issue) crewable opfor vehicles (of a realistic type, not leos or abrams) would alleviate much of the problem with the opfor's gunnery accuracy at least, and would make many of us in the community very very happy.....

Chaplain
02-14-2007, 10:00 PM
They may be overplaying it. However, I do know that coding tends to be done in spurts. The programmer for my company is like that. Sometimes he'll do something amazing by working 60+ hours a week for a week or two. He can't keep up that pace on a regular basis, however, and is not nearly as "productive" most of the time. I suspect that Al goes on programming marathons when an Army contract is finalized, but then takes time to have a "normal life" in between. As a result, I suspect the rate of things getting done is probably a lot higher during the Army programming cycles than during the off-cycle time periods.

tankenator
02-14-2007, 11:31 PM
absolutely, and i agree that esim is not a machine. I just wish some of that productive time would be dedicated toward a T72!!!

Captain_Colossus
02-15-2007, 03:52 AM
I am confused...

SteelBeasts Pro PE would go from being the ultimate (maximum; decisive; conclusive; highest; final; total; greatest; unsurpassed) to the penultimate (next to the last) armor sim?

Does this mean you think the inclusion of T55/62/64/72 would be a step down? Would it diminsh the greatness of the sim? :confused:


Well- SB 2 is coming in theory: the culmination of all this work.

Captain_Colossus
02-15-2007, 07:02 AM
That's impressive looking. Really reminds me of the T-80 in the game. Is that a completely different glacis plate?


James

It's add-on armor.

Stratos
02-15-2007, 08:17 AM
The question is, what will reach first? The T-72?? or in 2-3 years SB2?? We deserve that??

Kepler
02-15-2007, 08:26 AM
The question is, what will reach first? The T-72?? or in 2-3 years SB2?? We deserve that??

:?:
We've all bought a tank trainer, knowing that it contained a limited number of vehicles. What Esim later choose to add through patches and upgrades rates as a bonus, not something we've been promised or that we "deserve".

[panzer]
02-15-2007, 08:30 AM
Well, I don't forsee anyone getting their "ass handed to them" if they had a playable T-72 *if* the scenarios are designed correctly. By that I mean, you would certainly give the T-72 side a numerical advantage and pit a M1A1/M2 or Leo2A4/Marder company sized unit vs. a T-72/BMP battalion sized unit at a minimum. But I suspect that people will do the ol' 4 vs. 4 or even number deathmatch scenarios and give the T-72 a bad reputation.


On the contrary Volcano.

All this would do is give the ill educated M1 nuts (who believe everything the Discovery channel and Tom Clancy tell them) more reason to complain about how underpowered and biased the M1 is becasue they got raped by 4 t72's regardless of whether they got hit from the side or rear at 50 meters.

tarball
02-15-2007, 11:38 AM
Well- SB 2 is coming in theory: the culmination of all this work.

Gotcha... thanks. :)

enigma6584
02-16-2007, 12:57 AM
;129461']On the contrary Volcano.

All this would do is give the ill educated M1 nuts (who believe everything the Discovery channel and Tom Clancy tell them) more reason to complain about how underpowered and biased the M1 is becasue they got raped by 4 t72's regardless of whether they got hit from the side or rear at 50 meters.


LMFAO! I'll never watch the discovery channel again.:clap:

flyboy
02-16-2007, 02:03 PM
Hmmm the T72 will come.I think one of Esims customers has asked for one.If Ssnake had a dollar for every time someone asked for a T72 then he would be able to hire a programming team to get the job done sooner...We don,t have fridges.We have Eskies.They hold everything a true Blue Aussie loves........ :D

Stratos
02-16-2007, 02:31 PM
I believe will be enough to have a deadline. And stick to it, this way we will not ask, and they can do the job, simply saying it will be done is not enough, anyway, maybe they can ask someone around here If it have time and dedication to do it. The beta can be done in a public patch, this way the T-72 will come a lot faster.

P.S. I know I know, not a single word spoken here will be taken in account

Ssnake
02-17-2007, 11:29 AM
If the reason that we have no T-72 is because nobody will pay ..then why do we have a M1?

We had to start somewhere, and Al happened to start with the M1.

Ssnake
02-17-2007, 11:33 AM
Chplain said:

8,000,000 Euros. In advance.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/...ead.php?t=9213

OK, so he's talking about the T-80 there, but I think the point is pretty clear...

But considering that the aussies paid what all of 7 million complete (that included pcs and network hardware as well) for their version, and that has several new vehicles.....

Something doesnt jive here....

That figure included opportunity cost for abandoning our current contractual obligations; an erratic behavior on our part which would also propably result in the loss of future contracts because we would no longer be seen as a reliable partner to armies as far as after-sales product support is concerned, which is a really important factor.

Ssnake
02-17-2007, 11:35 AM
The question is, what will reach first? The T-72?? or in 2-3 years SB2?? We deserve that??

SB2 will not be released without a playable T-72 or M1A2 SEP.

Stratos
02-17-2007, 01:41 PM
Of course, but what about SBProPE?? Why we Can't we have a crewable T-72??
The modern companys don't work only over commands, they usually develop new products ( in this case a T-72 ), for attract`possible customers, in this case:
Poland, Czech Rep, Russia, Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Morroco, Peru, India....

flyboy
02-17-2007, 02:43 PM
Aaaarggghhhh.But we are getting a T72 .A customer asked for it and it WILL be implimented down the track....I think....Later on..... :D...Maybe

enigma6584
02-17-2007, 07:28 PM
Man some of you guys need to relax and get some patience.

Stratos
02-17-2007, 08:25 PM
What we need is a crewable T-72

[panzer]
02-17-2007, 09:52 PM
SB2 will not be released without a playable T-72 or M1A2 SEP.

Does that mean SB2 wont be released at all?

Going by the theory that Esim games cant drop everything and work on a t72 because miltary contracts come 1st. Where is the 2+ years of free time going to come from to get SB2 off the ground with all these extra vehicles?

JG11Bear
02-17-2007, 10:56 PM
Isn't it possible to do a little "bodgie job" T-72? Kinda like the Leopard AS1. It looks underdone when compared to the detail spent on the CV90 and Leopard 2A5, but is practical enough to play. Surely that wouldn't take long to do? Call it a beta if you want, and make a high detailed version when time permits ( 2009?? )

Bear

dejawolf
02-18-2007, 03:55 AM
patience? i lost my patience in 2002-2003.
back then the T-72 had already been in "development" for 3 years.
it was actually planned as an expansion for Sb1.

[panzer]
02-18-2007, 05:11 AM
patience? i lost my patience in 2002-2003.
back then the T-72 had already been in "development" for 3 years.
it was actually planned as an expansion for Sb1.

Exactly...... Dejawolf..... In the short time i have been here i have seen endless excuses as to why we dont have a t72 when the vast majority of the work was done for it years ago.
Military customers blah blah blah..... Well what am I for $125 US a pop and the other X amount of people who have lined Esim games pocket....... ?
Once again the old classic story of the the dev team do exactly as it chooses and totally ignoring the people that pay $125 a copy.

If we are so insignificant and you make no money of us then charge $10 a copy.

Why dont you just come out and admit that u have no intrest in giving something back to the communtiy that essentially made you what you are.

I get the feeling that it wouldnt matter if pro pe sold 10 000 copies tommorrow, the community would still be getting piss poor excuses as to why we dont have a t72

Stratos
02-18-2007, 10:15 AM
patience? i lost my patience in 2002-2003.
back then the T-72 had already been in "development" for 3 years.
it was actually planned as an expansion for Sb1.

APLAUSES!!!!!

Stratos
02-18-2007, 10:15 AM
;129658']Exactly...... Dejawolf..... In the short time i have been here i have seen endless excuses as to why we dont have a t72 when the vast majority of the work was done for it years ago.
Military customers blah blah blah..... Well what am I for $125 US a pop and the other X amount of people who have lined Esim games pocket....... ?
Once again the old classic story of the the dev team do exactly as it chooses and totally ignoring the people that pay $125 a copy.

If we are so insignificant and you make no money of us then charge $10 a copy.

Why dont you just come out and admit that u have no intrest in giving something back to the communtiy that essentially made you what you are.

I get the feeling that it wouldnt matter if pro pe sold 10 000 copies tommorrow, the community would still be getting piss poor excuses as to why we dont have a t72

EXCELLENT SPEECH!! MORE APLAUSES!!!!

Kepler
02-18-2007, 10:24 AM
I'm starting to hope Esim will never release a crewable russkie. Now that we're talking about what you 'deserve' and all...

[panzer]
02-18-2007, 10:41 AM
I'm starting to hope Esim will never release a crewable russkie. Now that we're talking about what you 'deserve' and all...

Altar boy

JG11Bear
02-18-2007, 11:03 AM
I'm starting to hope Esim will never release a crewable russkie. Now that we're talking about what you 'deserve' and all...

Why would you say that? To punish those who want more from the sim? Strange.

Bear

Kepler
02-18-2007, 11:04 AM
;129666']Altar boy

What's up with the name calling? Would you care to elaborate?

Kepler
02-18-2007, 11:14 AM
Why would you say that? To punish those who want more from the sim? Strange.

Bear

I'm sure if you go back and read my post in relation to some of the attacks directed against Esim you will realise that I really am not out to 'punish' anyone, and that my post was directed against a certain, rather volatile segment of the posts in the thread.

JG11Bear
02-18-2007, 11:28 AM
I'm sure if you go back and read my post in relation to some of the attacks directed against Esim you will realise that I really am not out to 'punish' anyone, and that my post was directed against a certain, rather volatile segment of the posts in the thread.

Oh....OK then...carry on.

Bear

[panzer]
02-18-2007, 11:58 AM
What's up with the name calling? Would you care to elaborate?

There those little kids that the priests take in the back room and tell them bible stories

Kingtiger
02-18-2007, 12:09 PM
Guys, I want a T72 as well... but

WHY do we DESERVE a playable T-72 finished tomorrow? DESERVE?? isnt that a bit heavy word? its not like they owe us anything, we are they customers and we can tell Esim what we want (like a playable t72) BUT they are the guys actually doing the sim, its up to them what they prioritize and not.
Its not like WE can say "Do this first, then that" to them. Would you accept having someone outsider tell you to do something in certain order that you see to be FUBAR to do in certain order? I wouldnt...

I really think you guys should calm down and think for a moment...

/Kingtiger

[panzer]
02-18-2007, 12:20 PM
Guys, I want a T72 as well... but

WHY do we DESERVE a playable T-72 finished tomorrow? DESERVE?? isnt that a bit heavy word? its not like they owe us anything, we are they customers and we can tell Esim what we want (like a playable t72) BUT they are the guys actually doing the sim, its up to them what they prioritize and not.
Its not like WE can say "Do this first, then that" to them. Would you accept having someone outsider tell you to do something in certain order that you see to be FUBAR to do in certain order? I wouldnt...

I really think you guys should calm down and think for a moment...

/Kingtiger


Well KT under normal circumstances your bang on the money. However this debate has raged for many years with a rational justifacation and yet we still dont have a t72. People have infact given up the game altogether becasue they are sick of waiting and hearing the same old story.
The fact of the matter is that we (pro pe purchasers) are still customers and should have some kind of say. I do undstand that we are far from the top of the food chain however a crewable t72 in my eyes is far from a selfish request.

Kepler
02-18-2007, 01:02 PM
;129671']There those little kids that the priests take in the back room and tell them bible stories

And this relates to me...how?

Kingtiger
02-18-2007, 01:14 PM
;129674']
The fact of the matter is that we (pro pe purchasers) are still customers and should have some kind of say. I do undstand that we are far from the top of the food chain however a crewable t72 in my eyes is far from a selfish request.

Agreed Panzer, but some ppl in this tread still asumes that they deserve the T72... Since when do a customer deserve a certain thing because he has X copies and played X years? I cant really melt it down to be honest.

Sure we can complain that it takes a long time for X to arrive (god know I waited long for that CV90) and that is one thing, but going around and saying that "I deserve that T72 NOW" is way of...

Only good part with this tread is that the guys over at Esim see that many ppl starts to get irriated over this T72 issue, but that we could do in a friendly way, like Dejawolfs T72 banner... irritating them and acting like a spoiled kid wont help, that is one thing for sure.

and I cant still accept that someone "deserves" a thing in this game...

/KT

JG11Bear
02-18-2007, 01:39 PM
I think I deserve a T72. What's wrong with that?

Bear

Stewy
02-18-2007, 01:44 PM
Yeah, I agree with KT -

Don't forget guys, we're playing a sim that was developed for armies, and so private gamers like us are always going to play second fiddle to army contracts...

If we want a sim where private gamers are the priority, where modders can make any vehicle under the sun, etc...maybe we should all be playing the tanks in OFP or ArmA?

I'm sure Esim has a 'to do' list a mile long, but at the same time, I'm sure that when a vechicle is ready for release, they will get it out there in a second!

Kingtiger
02-18-2007, 01:47 PM
I think I deserve a T72. What's wrong with that?

Bear

WHY do YOU DESERVE the T72 bear? please inform me because I cant see this from your Point of View.

/KT

Stratos
02-18-2007, 01:59 PM
KT, when we say deserve, we are thinking about the fact that the T-72 is planned since SB1!! Like Deja says, imagine a politician or a seller saying I will give you that!! and 7 years later we are still waiting.
I believe Esim games have a wrong point of view here, we are all in the same ship, enjoying the same Sim, getting us pissed this way is no good.
No no

JG11Bear
02-18-2007, 02:03 PM
WHY do YOU DESERVE the T72 bear? please inform me because I cant see this from your Point of View.

/KT

OK trying to be nice here, but getting harder and harder.

Why don't I deserve a T72 Kingtiger? What is your beef with people wanting more out of the sim? INFORM ME PLEASE.

What is it with this fan boy bullshit that causes a few to trash anyone who DARE asks for more out of the sim. Bloody hell!

I remember one time when some poor sod asked for shadows or bouncing suspension to be included....and it was asked...not demmanded...and FFS you should have seen the shit he copped because a few people here thought "HOW DARE YOU!!!"

Now...if we do ask for a T72 to be included in this sim, and it pisses you off that we are "ASKING!!!!" the don't read the bloody post mate!! Ignore it!

Bear out!

Kingtiger
02-18-2007, 02:18 PM
KT, when we say deserve, we are thinking about the fact that the T-72 is planned since SB1!! Like Deja says, imagine a politician or a seller saying I will give you that!! and 7 years later we are still waiting.
I believe Esim games have a wrong point of view here, we are all in the same ship, enjoying the same Sim, getting us pissed this way is no good.
No no



I understand you Stratos in one way, but saying you deserve? its a bit heavy IMO. And on the other hand, have Esim tolled you you would get the T72 in SB Pro? I cant remember ever read it, please feel free to correct me thoe (and I will most likely change my POV then) because as long as they havent promised the T72 at a certain date or realese date we cant really demand anything.


OK trying to be nice here, but getting harder and harder.

Why don't I deserve a T72 Kingtiger? What is your beef with people wanting more out of the sim? INFORM ME PLEASE.

What is it with this fan boy bullshit that causes a few to trash anyone who DARE asks for more out of the sim. Bloody hell!

I remember one time when some poor sod asked for shadows or bouncing suspension to be included....and it was asked...not demmanded...and FFS you should have seen the shit he copped because a few people here thought "HOW DARE YOU!!!"

Now...if we do ask for a T72 to be included in this sim, and it pisses you off that we are "ASKING!!!!" the don't read the bloody post mate!! Ignore it!

Bear out!



bear, calm down will ya? im not a fan boy, I want the T72 as well.
I dont have problem with ppl who wants more out of the game, I want more out of the game as well, as a T72 for example.


What is it with this fan boy bullshit that causes a few to trash anyone who DARE asks for more out of the sim. Bloody hell!

Ehm... "Dare to ask".. you arent asking, you are telling them that you DESERVE, thats a whole other thing... asking is one thing, witch we and me have done for a few years, claiming to deserve is a totally different thing...

And its not me who need to tell you WHY you DESERVE a T72, im asking you why YOU DESERVE it... tell me WHY you deserve it...

And about the poor guy being bashed, I wasnt in the bashing gang...
and im not in the bashing gang atm either about this, im just trying to figure out why the hell you lot think you deserve a certain tank.

and so far, dear bear, there are no harsh feelings here, so calm down and grab a coupe of coffe, no need to get pissed of really.

/KT

JG11Bear
02-18-2007, 02:34 PM
I understand you Stratos in one way, but saying you deserve? its a bit heavy IMO. And on the other hand, have Esim tolled you you would get the T72 in SB Pro? I cant remember ever read it, please feel free to correct me thoe (and I will most likely change my POV then) because as long as they havent promised the T72 at a certain date or realese date we cant really demand anything.



bear, calm down will ya? im not a fan boy, I want the T72 as well.
I dont have problem with ppl who wants more out of the game, I want more out of the game as well, as a T72 for example.


Ehm... "Dare to ask".. you arent asking, you are telling them that you DESERVE, thats a whole other thing... asking is one thing, witch we and me have done for a few years, claiming to deserve is a totally different thing...

And its not me who need to tell you WHY you DESERVE a T72, im asking you why YOU DESERVE it... tell me WHY you deserve it...

And about the poor guy being bashed, I wasnt in the bashing gang...
and im not in the bashing gang atm either about this, im just trying to figure out why the hell you lot think you deserve a certain tank.

and so far, dear bear, there are no harsh feelings here, so calm down and grab a coupe of coffe, no need to get pissed of really.

/KT

Maybe it's your perception of the english word DESERVE and DEMAND are confused.

"WE DESERVE" the T72 because at $125USD a pop makes for an expensive piece of software.

"WE DESERVE" the T72 because "WE" have been pretty patient for a crewable OPFOR tank.

Now back to you. Why do I not deserve one? ( other then this post :) )

And it's too late for a coffee, or to be pissed off at a Swede. I settled for a warm cup of cocoa.

Bear

JG11Bear
02-18-2007, 02:49 PM
If we want a sim where private gamers are the priority, where modders can make any vehicle under the sun, etc...maybe we should all be playing the tanks in OFP or ArmA?

I am not asking for every vehicle under the sun. I am asking for 1 crewable OPFOR tank.

BEAR

Kingtiger
02-18-2007, 02:51 PM
Maybe it's your perception of the english word DESERVE and DEMAND are confused.

"WE DESERVE" the T72 because at $125USD a pop makes for an expensive piece of software.

"WE DESERVE" the T72 because "WE" have been pretty patient for a crewable OPFOR tank.

Now back to you. Why do I not deserve one? ( other then this post :) )

And it's too late for a coffee, or to be pissed off at a Swede. I settled for a warm cup of cocoa.

Bear

Hope im not keeping you up from bed with this discussion.

1.Anyway. about that you have payed 125USD cant really motivate it, because we bought what we got for 125USD, and that was a playable M1,Leos,M2A2. we got CV90 and Strv122 in a free update (thanks to the swedish army, a customer to Esimgames). So that doesnt motivate a deserve at all.

2. Being patient doenst allow to deserve something either in my point of view. so Nopp.

3. Sorry,I cant motivate why you (ME!) shouldnt have a playabe T72 at all, actually, before I started using my ARRC sig I had the red T72 sig as my sig
So I wont it just as bad, exept that I cant motivate a "I deserve" imo.

DESERVE - DEMAND.... by the looks of the posts on the lately pages of this tread some ppl seems to demand more then asking for the T72...

But hell, I want a T72 to, I just cant take it that someone think they deserve it in anyway, they could claim to deserve it if Esim had guaranted like "you will have playable T72 in summer 2005" then I would agree we could demand/claim we deserve, but as it is now, no cant say we deserve it.

/KT

JG11Bear
02-18-2007, 02:59 PM
Hope im not keeping you up from bed with this discussion.

1.Anyway. about that you have payed 125USD cant really motivate it, because we bought what we got for 125USD, and that was a playable M1,Leos,M2A2. we got CV90 and Strv122 in a free update (thanks to the swedish army, a customer to Esimgames). So that doesnt motivate a deserve at all.

2. Being patient doenst allow to deserve something either in my point of view. so Nopp.

3. Sorry,I cant motivate why you (ME!) shouldnt have a playabe T72 at all, actually, before I started using my ARRC sig I had the red T72 sig as my sig
So I wont it just as bad, exept that I cant motivate a "I deserve" imo.

DESERVE - DEMAND.... by the looks of the posts on the lately pages of this tread some ppl seems to demand more then asking for the T72...

But hell, I want a T72 to, I just cant take it that someone think they deserve it in anyway, they could claim to deserve it if Esim had guaranted like "you will have playable T72 in summer 2005" then I would agree we could demand/claim we deserve, but as it is now, no cant say we deserve it.

/KT

Oh OK then...

So...If the T72 ever gets released will you ponder "geee....do I deserve this download....hhhhmmmm.....no I don't....hmmmm"

Sorry mate, but I still think you have demand and deserve confused. Too much ABBA perhaps. ( joke there...nothing against ABBA...)

BEAR

Kingtiger
02-18-2007, 03:06 PM
Oh OK then...

So...If the T72 ever gets released will you ponder "geee....do I deserve this download....hhhhmmmm.....no I don't....hmmmm"

Sorry mate, but I still think you have demand and deserve confused. Too much ABBA perhaps. ( joke there...nothing against ABBA...)

BEAR

Hehe, I dont like ABBA ;)

well, its not like im not gonna download the realese (as I stated before, I do want the T72) but I dont think I deserve the T72... I didnt ewen deserve the CV90B despite Ive been waiting for it since I started playin SB back in 01/02...

/KT

Jester_UK
02-18-2007, 03:21 PM
You lot want to listen to what KingTiger's saying. Him and Stewy are the only ones in the last three pages of this thread talking any sense.

To be honest if my daughter acted the way you lot are acting, she'd get what she deserved alright...... She'd get my hand round the back of her head! As it is she's only 14 in April and judging by displays in this thread she's a damn sight more mature than some of you lot.

Let me put this in terms you might understand: You've already GOT more than you deserve from SBPro PE. You GOT precisely what was promised in the original release. You've GOT the added Swedish equipment in a free update as promised. You're GOING to get further content in a future update that (although not promised to be so anywhere on the ESim sales site) is likely to be free as well (Remember they only promised us FREE updates for the first year).

NOWHERE does it OFFICIALLY promise to include a crewable T-72. Ssnake may well have spoken about it on the forums, but that can hardly be taken as a contractural agreement like some of you lot seem to think.

You may WANT a T-72 crewable (don't we all)..... But you don't DESERVE one (if you don't understand this one important point go get a dictionary and look up the word deserve.... You obviously have no idea what it actually means!).

You are NOT going to get a T-72 any quicker by screaming like a bunch of schoolgirls with wet knickers.

All you ARE going to do is discourage Ssnake from being as open and forthcoming with information as he has been in the past.

I've seen it happen before in the early days of IL-2 Oleg (the developer) was always on the Ubi forums. He even had his own section specifically for answering questions and discussing technical details..... Then the insults demands and whining bitches eventually ground him down and he stopped showing up. Want that to happen here?

Well if you go on the way you are doing that's what you're risking.

Stratos
02-18-2007, 03:30 PM
Nice discussion guys!! Don't let warm please
Anyway, what we need is the crewable T-72 for tons of reasons, and for a credible multiplayer

Kepler
02-18-2007, 03:50 PM
Hear hear!

I'm not objecting to people WISHING FOR a crewable T-72 (why would I - I'd like one myself), but some posters express themselves in extremely childish ways. I for one value the fairly direct access to the developer more than said posters' 'right' to express themselves like spoilt children. Further, it's a matter of fairness; claiming that the developer is trashing you because he is not giving you (has not given you YET, one might add) something that you simply CANNOT claim was part of the package you paid for is just not fair. It's utterly beside the point that you paid $125 for the sim, because you knew (SHOULD have known, at least) exactly what was in the sim before you bought it. If you think that you've made a poor investment because the developers aren't adding some extra content you'd like, blame yourselves, not Esim.

dejawolf
02-18-2007, 04:12 PM
esim hasn't "talked" about it. they've promised to include a T-72.
i've heard several dates over the years, and then nothing has happened, because something else came up. a military contract here, and bughunt there.. and a million IFV's and APCs into what once was dubbed as a tanksim.

all these broken promises and endless waiting is really irritating.
http://www.dejawolf.com/steelbeasts/t72int2.jpg
http://www.dejawolf.com/steelbeasts/T-72int.jpg

dunno if this can satiate anyones wait. imo its just as painful as waiting for the T-72.
i've memorized most of the switches and buttons, and i know almost exactly how the autoloader works.
oh yeah, and a small program i made that simulates the T-72 autoloader.
http://www.dejawolf.com/steelbeasts/t72carousel.rar

Stratos
02-18-2007, 06:20 PM
ARGHHHH That's what I call a perfect job!! This is my dream!! The most common tank in the world, in his full glory!!!

THANK'S Deja!!

[panzer]
02-18-2007, 08:37 PM
Man I HATE it when he teases us like that.

JamesT73J
02-18-2007, 09:04 PM
I'm curious about the FCS; I'm never quite sure what the T-72 'has' in terms of systems, what with all the different versions.

If it were to appear in ProPE, I'd like at least the option of playing with a 'base' T-72, including the IR searchlight and 3BM9 ammo - all those Desert Storm scenarios would be a hoot to play around with.


James

Kingtiger
02-18-2007, 09:39 PM
T72M1 I think... dont know what it got thoe... but we not gona have it in a while so I will forget it again...

JG11Bear
02-18-2007, 10:32 PM
You lot want to listen to what KingTiger's saying. Him and Stewy are the only ones in the last three pages of this thread talking any sense.

To be honest if my daughter acted the way you lot are acting, she'd get what she deserved alright...... She'd get my hand round the back of her head! As it is she's only 14 in April and judging by displays in this thread she's a damn sight more mature than some of you lot.

Let me put this in terms you might understand: You've already GOT more than you deserve from SBPro PE. You GOT precisely what was promised in the original release. You've GOT the added Swedish equipment in a free update as promised. You're GOING to get further content in a future update that (although not promised to be so anywhere on the ESim sales site) is likely to be free as well (Remember they only promised us FREE updates for the first year).

NOWHERE does it OFFICIALLY promise to include a crewable T-72. Ssnake may well have spoken about it on the forums, but that can hardly be taken as a contractural agreement like some of you lot seem to think.

You may WANT a T-72 crewable (don't we all)..... But you don't DESERVE one (if you don't understand this one important point go get a dictionary and look up the word deserve.... You obviously have no idea what it actually means!).

You are NOT going to get a T-72 any quicker by screaming like a bunch of schoolgirls with wet knickers.

All you ARE going to do is discourage Ssnake from being as open and forthcoming with information as he has been in the past.

I've seen it happen before in the early days of IL-2 Oleg (the developer) was always on the Ubi forums. He even had his own section specifically for answering questions and discussing technical details..... Then the insults demands and whining bitches eventually ground him down and he stopped showing up. Want that to happen here?

Well if you go on the way you are doing that's what you're risking.

So got sit in the corner like a good little boy then. "We're not worthy, we're not worthy!" FFS mate your the one who needs to grow up.

Explain why you don't deserve an upgrade for me, mr. Humble? What have you done wrong? What crime did you commit not to deserve a free upgrade? If it's offered to you because you are underserving of it you will refuse it right? Bullshit.

I have no problems paying for it either. I have no problems waiting for it. But I can't see why I don't deserve a T72.

Bear

JamesT73J
02-18-2007, 10:40 PM
ProPE has always been specified 'as is'. I'm sure in time we will see a T-72, but a bit of patience has never hurt anyone - we waited a long time for SB Pro. I remember when I first bought SB Gold and joined this community, there was already much anticipation for SB2. Esim like to get it right, and their level of support and community interaction is superb.

No need to start getting exciteable - we've got a fine product here, worth every penny. I knew what I was buying for my 125US, and I'd be perfectly happy if the game stayed the way it was.


James

Homer
02-18-2007, 10:51 PM
A friendly reminder to watch the name calling and cheap shots....

Kingtiger
02-18-2007, 11:10 PM
So got sit in the corner like a good little boy then. "We're not worthy, we're not worthy!" FFS mate your the one who needs to grow up.

Explain why you don't deserve an upgrade for me, mr. Humble? What have you done wrong? What crime did you commit not to deserve a free upgrade? If it's offered to you because you are underserving of it you will refuse it right? Bullshit.

I have no problems paying for it either. I have no problems waiting for it. But I can't see why I don't deserve a T72.

Bear

Bear, as I posted before, its not us needed to explain to you why we arent worthy of a upgrade, its up to you to explain why you are worthy (with reasons that a normal sense person actually agree with)

and turn down the language, there is no need to get upset or pissed about this, whatever we say in here wont change Esims The_List anyway, so why bother?

/KT

BearF
02-18-2007, 11:14 PM
This is getting silly. Childish is not the word.

This thread will be locked, deleted and thrown away if this carries on Im sure. Who benefits then?

All this over a crewable T-72? Oh, and the use of the word 'deserve'.

Bear, are you saying that anyone who does not use the word deserve, or does not agree with your point of view shouldnt DL a T-72 IF, and I stress the word IF, it became available? You 'deserve' one because you paid for this product, well done so have we all. 'We', the paying customer, are not ESims driving force IIRC, they are driven by what several nations Armies want from this training tool...that being what we consider 'our' game.

A crewable T-72 would be a good edition, granted. On that I think everyone here agrees, yes?

But to say 'I DESERVE IT', well, deserve is a very strong word and (correct me if I am wrong please everyone) the use of the word 'deserve' is causing the friction.

Could we all just raise the civility of this thread? Or is that asking too much before a mod locks it (which, frankly, may be for the best).

tarball
02-18-2007, 11:17 PM
I did some research over at simhq (just as a cross-reference) and here is what seems to be the story:

Somewhere along the way, esimgames increased their stature as a company by attracting military contracts - this we all know. Hence, esimgames now has a wider customer base to satisfy - individuals and militaries. As these military contracts are lucrative, esimgames tends to focus on the requirements and needs of those contracts first (http://www.simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=20&Number=451833&Searchpage=1&Main=52126&Words=playable&topic=0&Search=true#Post451833).

Additionally, esimgames' long-term commitment to SB Pro (PE) is stated as being central to their business model. Part of the devotion to SB Pro (PE) is to continue to supply the title with features and content - so, we can expect upgrades (http://www.simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=450915&page=31#Post450915). Oh yeah, those upgrades will likely cost more $.

The cause of the particular altercation transpiring in this thread is whether or not an OPFOR tank, the T-72 perhaps, will become available. Unquestionably, we all WANT it. Whether anyone DESERVES it is not my affair as that is a matter of the personal sentiment of any given customer. There is no accounting for customer expectations short of the direct relationship between a given customer and esimgames. However, it does seem clear that the T-72 is planned to be included in SB Pro (PE) and/or SB2 (http://www.simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=20&Number=452367&Searchpage=1&Main=52189&Words=playable&topic=0&Search=true#Post452367). This is in light of the fact Ssnake feels that esimgames has invested too much effort on the T-72 to abandon it (http://www.simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=20&Number=451833&Searchpage=1&Main=52126&Words=playable&topic=0&Search=true#Post451833).

Having followed the SB story since 2001 myself I can only say that SB is not a pursuit for the impatient. I have certainly lost my cool/temper over the rate of progress surrounding this title. Being humans, we all need to vent now and again, but I can't see that any of the venting will make the T-72 the model arrive more quickly.

Everyone wants their wishes to be fulfilled as the "game" allows us to escape into armor heaven. The question is, assuming esimgames values your business and wants to make you happy, what will the inclusion of the T-72 be worth to you?

Perhaps another tactic is to express, in terms of $, what you'd be willing to spend to subsidize this vehicle such that it lands on a development track ahead of whatever the current military contracts demand?

I've played MS Flight Simulator for 20 years now and that title thrives on 3rd party model add-ons. While SB Pro (PE) isn't the same extensible platform that MSFS is, the typical price for a professionally crafted add-on aircraft model for MSFS is between $20 and $70. This makes for an average price of $45.

I'll speak for myself in asserting that I would be willing to pay that amount to see the T-72.

Having said all of this, I am not certain that such a proposition would be enough inducement to allow our desire for a T-72 shortcut the line of military contract maintenance/needs.

Stratos
02-18-2007, 11:45 PM
I believe that the better they can do to get the things calmed is too spend one week to implement the crewable T-72.
We will make the beta test!!!

dejawolf
02-19-2007, 12:03 AM
http://www.dejawolf.com/steelbeasts/t72gnroverview.jpg

Jester_UK
02-19-2007, 12:19 AM
So got sit in the corner like a good little boy then. "We're not worthy, we're not worthy!" FFS mate your the one who needs to grow up.

Explain why you don't deserve an upgrade for me, mr. Humble? What have you done wrong? What crime did you commit not to deserve a free upgrade? If it's offered to you because you are underserving of it you will refuse it right? Bullshit.

I have no problems paying for it either. I have no problems waiting for it. But I can't see why I don't deserve a T72.

Bear


You might want to go back and read my post again.

I never said there was anything wrong with WANTING a T-72. Nor did I say there was anything wrong with ASKING about the T-72.

What I said is that there's a MAJOR problem with the way you're DEMANDING a playable T-72.

I said: You've already GOT what ESim promised you. Want proof? Find me a single mention in the sales blurb for SB Pro PE that mentions a crwable T-72 as either a part of the original program or part of an add on. This means..... are you reading carefully.... You already got what you deserve.

Now why would I say that?

Well since you didn't do what I suggested and look the word up in a dictionary, I did it for you.

http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/deserve

Now you tell me why you deserve a T-72. What have you done that's so special? Paid more than me?

No?

Then you DON'T deserve a T-72. You WANT a T-72.

And you're not the only one. The only difference is some want it more than others. But those that are getting on their soapboxes and trotting out all the remedial "I paid $125 for this sim so I own ESim" crap need to get a grip. If this applies to you and the shoe fits then wear it mate. I don't particularly give a damn.

Homer
02-19-2007, 12:22 AM
Final Warning

dejawolf
02-19-2007, 12:52 AM
i created a T-72 interior, and it was promised that it would be added to Sb, therefore i deserve a T-72.

dejawolf
02-19-2007, 01:36 AM
TC position:
http://www.dejawolf.com/steelbeasts/t-72TCposition.jpg

Kingtiger
02-19-2007, 02:01 AM
i created a T-72 interior, and it was promised that it would be added to Sb, therefore i deserve a T-72.

OK, we have one who actually deserves it. WHOHAAA

dejawolf
02-19-2007, 02:24 AM
heres an info page on the T-72.
http://www.dejawolf.com/steelbeasts/gallery/t72M1.html

FlatTax
02-19-2007, 03:14 AM
A thought:

The unpleasantness in this thread is semantic. No one is undeserving of a T-72, but we're not entitled to one either. Well, perhaps Deja.

Few things are more off-putting than an inappropriate sense of entitlement.

->Edit: And yeah, I think the interior is beautiful, too. :)

enigma6584
02-19-2007, 03:17 AM
Beautiful interiors Dejawolf.:thumbup:

[panzer]
02-19-2007, 07:37 AM
heres an info page on the T-72.
http://www.dejawolf.com/steelbeasts/gallery/t72M1.html


All that hard work wasted and I thought I was hard done by.

JG11Bear
02-19-2007, 07:52 AM
You might want to go back and read my post again.

I never said there was anything wrong with WANTING a T-72. Nor did I say there was anything wrong with ASKING about the T-72.

What I said is that there's a MAJOR problem with the way you're DEMANDING a playable T-72.

I said: You've already GOT what ESim promised you. Want proof? Find me a single mention in the sales blurb for SB Pro PE that mentions a crwable T-72 as either a part of the original program or part of an add on. This means..... are you reading carefully.... You already got what you deserve.

Now why would I say that?

Well since you didn't do what I suggested and look the word up in a dictionary, I did it for you.

http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/deserve

Now you tell me why you deserve a T-72. What have you done that's so special? Paid more than me?

No?

Then you DON'T deserve a T-72. You WANT a T-72.

And you're not the only one. The only difference is some want it more than others. But those that are getting on their soapboxes and trotting out all the remedial "I paid $125 for this sim so I own ESim" crap need to get a grip. If this applies to you and the shoe fits then wear it mate. I don't particularly give a damn.

Actually, the ADF is a big customer of Esim, so since I am a tax payer then YES, I have paid for more then you! ;)

Seriously though, find for me where I demmanded the T72? I will give you all the time you need...I bet the T72 is out before you find it :) ( now that gives you a tonne of time! )

OK Jester...your time starts....NOW!

Bear

Stratos
02-19-2007, 08:15 AM
I believe this interiors need to be playable now!! What a waste!! I will love to enjoy the air conditioning!!

Oh, Spanish army is a customer so, yes I paid more than 125 dollars ;)

JG11Bear
02-19-2007, 08:18 AM
whatever we say in here wont change Esims The_List anyway, so why bother?

/KT

Good point

Bear

JG11Bear
02-19-2007, 08:39 AM
So Deja how much more work would be required for the release? Do we have a time line or an estimate on when?

Bear

flyboy
02-19-2007, 08:40 AM
Wow great interior shots.Now I know what it looks like "Before" I put a sabot through it....Do we get an "After" screenshot?Bugger the T72.Give me a EuroTiger so I can kick all your commie asses... :D

Jester_UK
02-19-2007, 12:41 PM
Seriously though, find for me where I demmanded the T72? I will give you all the time you need...I bet the T72 is out before you find it :) ( now that gives you a tonne of time! )

OK Jester...your time starts....NOW!

Bear


Doesn't take long at all:

You are the one claiming to deserve a T-72. See my previous post for a definition of "deserve."

In this context the notion of "deserving" the T-72 is is exactly the same as storming into your bosses office and telling him you "deserve" a payrise.

This is not ASKING for a payrise. It's DEMANDING a payrise. You are TELLING him to give youthat rise.

So by claiming to DESERVE a T-72 you are, in fact, DEMANDING one.

TBH, I've no idea why I'm wasting my time on even answering you here, since if you page back, you'll find that KingTiger has actually already explained this to you.

In all honesty, (and with no insult intended) if you don't get this you need to get yourself into an English language refresher course. It's basic comprehension. On the other hand, if you do get this then you're doing nothing in this thread but trying to stir the pot, which calls your personal agenda into question.

You might want to think on that before trying to fire off a clever reply.

Stewy
02-19-2007, 12:59 PM
Guys, I think Nils and the gang are just shaking their heads at all of this...

Let's face facts, we're completely at ESim's whim as to whether we get a new CV-90, Swedish Leo 2, or T-72, or even a nice Leyland P76...

We can demand and argue as much as we want, but until ESim announces, "T-72 ready for D/L" then we won't know exactly when it comes...

I've seen this before with Dangerous Waters, VBS and also with SB...Computer Sim Developers with mil contracts are naturally focused on those contracts...some addons come to private gamers, but only driven by what the militaries want, and even then only as a side-dish...they have to put food on the table like us all, and legally, financially, ethically, whatever, looking after the armies is primarily where they're at...

Back when we were all playing F-19 Stealth Fighter, Grand Prix 1 and M1 Tank Platoon 1 (yes, 1!) we didn't chase Microprose for this addon and that addon after we bought the game, they weren't obliged to release anything! Pay for a game - receive a game as is...you may get one patch if you're lucky.

I know people are keen for this tank and that tank...but let's enjoy what we've got - you can't say that doing a company attack with Strv 122s isn't satisfying?

I won't post in this thread anymore, I think it's gone on long enough - let's chill guys - the addons will come when they come - and if they don't, life goes on hey?

And can someone lend me USD $1500 for VBS2 and a bit more for a comp that can run it ;)

Stewy out...chhhhhhhhhhhttt

Hedgehog
02-19-2007, 01:10 PM
Now while I admit I haven't read the whole thread, but.
My feeling on this issue is thus:

The T-72 will be here when the eSim guys have enough time free from current contracts, as well as when this is their current "to do" project.

Deja has done a fine job in speeding this project along the way to completion.

So instead of slagging each other off, perhaps you guys would be better off uniting and lending support to the project (as well as saying thanks to Deja), rather than saying I deserve this and that, etc.
If anything whinging about how long its taking is going to have a negative effect on eSims' approach to this project.

Well thats my view expressed.

Deja, like the AirCon, typical Russian stylie :)

Homer
02-19-2007, 01:13 PM
This thread is done.