The Future of SB pro

[general billy]

Just wanted to know what are the long term plans for the game. I mean are we expecting some news stuff i.e add- ons? patches? T-72? What is esims planning to do to keep us around?

I have noticed a drop on the amount of multiplayers online as I guess a number of people are now playing armed assult and Silent hunter 4. I have so far kept away from them because I still enjoy SB pro very much, however the online community is very important to me. If I start seeing no-one around then it may be time for me to move on and just keep SB pro for TGIF games. So whats actually happening?

Thank you

[Ssnake]

We're currently working on the Spanish Pizarro IFV which should become a pretty interesting alternative to CV90 and the like. More Spanish equipment is likely to be added over the course of this year.

Then there's a lot of "low profile improvements" planned that are going to help make SB Pro as a whole more versatile and useful and could help especially for combat in urban terrain and with more infantry-centric combat (although we have no plans of turning SB into a shooter).

I expect that this year will bring less glamour but lots of utility value, and next year could be similar. As usual, I don't like discussing plans that much since some plans can turn out to be impractical or their priorities and sequence of implementation may change.
We have prototypes now with the Australian Bushmaster truck (a "protected mobility vehicle" - think of bullet proof and mine protected trucks for motorized infantry), infantry teams with Mk 19 Automatic Grenade Launcher, cal .50 on tripod, and Javelin missile teams, as well as a Tiger helicopter which might work as some sort of an Apache substitute for those of you looking for a counterpart to the HIND. The Tiger comes with Hellfire missiles (with just 4000m range effectively though, due to the LOS calculation cut-off and render distance limits) and a 30mm autocannon, plus unguided rockets (it's a quick & dirty implementation at this point, though - just like the HIND's unguided rockets).

[Retro]

Will there be an addon for us PE users this year?

[Ssnake]

A natural release point would be after completing the work with the Pizarro - provided that it is mature. In a way, the same thing that we tried with the CV90/40, except that this time I will not commit to a specific date in order to give us the time to let the stuff settle. We underestimated this because we underestimated the complexity of the fire control system because our customer underestimated it. That can happen - it could happen with the Pizarro as well. Right now it looks pretty straightforward, but who knows what we'll be unearthing in a later stage of the development?
You think you got everything covered that's listed in the design specs, and all of a sudden people realize that the specs they wrote are incomplete or that there's been a misunderstanding. That's not incompetence, it's just something that happens because complex technical systems aren't easy to explain in the framework of a legal document and design specs with just words (especially when language barriers are involved).

We may have a smaller update at some point in the middle, but that's undecided yet. I guess it depends on whether we can bundle a couple of improvements into a nice and convincing package. I'd like to throw in a couple of new scenarios. I have at least two (rather simple ones) in the making, maybe there'll be a few more.

[general billy]

We're currently working on the Spanish Pizarro IFV which should become a pretty interesting alternative to CV90 and the like. More Spanish equipment is likely to be added over the course of this year.

Then there's a lot of "low profile improvements" planned that are going to help make SB Pro as a whole more versatile and useful and could help especially for combat in urban terrain and with more infantry-centric combat (although we have no plans of turning SB into a shooter).

I expect that this year will bring less glamour but lots of utility value, and next year could be similar. As usual, I don't like discussing plans that much since some plans can turn out to be impractical or their priorities and sequence of implementation may change.
We have prototypes now with the Australian Bushmaster truck (a "protected mobility vehicle" - think of bullet proof and mine protected trucks for motorized infantry), infantry teams with Mk 19 Automatic Grenade Launcher, cal .50 on tripod, and Javelin missile teams, as well as a Tiger helicopter which might work as some sort of an Apache substitute for those of you looking for a counterpart to the HIND. The Tiger comes with Hellfire missiles (with just 4000m range effectively though, due to the LOS calculation cut-off and render distance limits) and a 30mm autocannon, plus unguided rockets (it's a quick & dirty implementation at this point, though - just like the HIND's unguided rockets).


I appreciate the information :) and i'm glad that you and others are working on SB pro. I must say its the best tank sim/game I've played before. I was wondering why you have decided to build Spanish and Australian equipment when I have not see any demand for it really on the forums or online. There is however a great demand for a soviet tank and I know a number of people, including myself would willing to pay even to have it. Perhaps money isnt what esim is really after nevertheless an action like that would keep the community very happy at least for a while. Thank You

[Gibsonm]

Probably because we are PAYING for it.

I’m sure this has been covered before, but SB Pro PE’s development is driven fundamentally by those defence forces that pay to have equipment added so it can be a more effective tactical trainer (e.g. ADF pays $X to have Bushmaster, Tiger, etc. and then you the general user get it for “free”).

We don’t have T-72 in the vehicle park and nor do any of SB Pro PE’s other main customers I guess so its detailed modelling isn’t high on the priority list.

As a member of the ADF, I’m mainly interested that it is modelled accurately in terms of being an OPFOR (i.e. my rounds have an accurate effect on it in terms of terminal effects [7.62mm scratch paint, 0.50” dent it, 25mm APDP-T some damage, 120mm APFSDS - K Kill]) and its effects on me if I don’t treat it with the appropriate amount of respect. I’m not too worried about driving it around or being in the gunner’s seat or whatever.

Personally I’m looking forward to Infantry types being reminded that the Bushmaster is really a Unimog on steriods providing good protected operational mobility, instead of being some sort of wheeled IFV that they can assualt a position with.

[dejawolf]

the bushmaster is a battlefield patrol limousine.

[Gibsonm]

the bushmaster is a battlefield patrol limousine.

Yep - no argument there (great patrol and liaison vehicle) but many infantry types think you can stay mounted in it and attack a defended position with it.

Some even want to mount Javelin on the roof and turn it into some sort of wheeled Bradley.

I suspect that when they see several of them burning in SB Pro they might change their minds.

[Ssnake]

The nickname I heard in Australia for the Bushmaster was "Winnebago".

Functionally it seems to be quite similar to the German "ATF Dingo"; both are based on the Unimog chassis along with a V shaped belly based on South-African mine protection design. At least the Dingo has proven that it can withstand large blast mines of the 8kg category - not only in tests but also in Afghanistan. Well - the vehicle was a write-off, but crew and passengers suffered only minor injuries.

[Gibsonm]

Take your pick:

“Winnebago“, “DPCU Hiace“ and a few more that I’m sure shouldn’t be published.

[Ssnake]

I was wondering why you have decided to build Spanish and Australian equipment when I have not see any demand for it really on the forums or online.

What Gibsonm wrote. PE sales make up for a small fraction of our annual turnover. Your willingness to pay for a playable T-72 is much appreciated but is missing the point - that we have contractual obligations of higher priority which keep us occupied into 2008. Mind you, nobody is against a playable T-72, even some of our army customers want it. It's just that with the ongoing engagements other features in SB Pro are considered more urgent in order to fill a quite real gap in the traning continuums of our army customers. They don't buy SB pro because they like our work and think it's cool what we're doing (which it undoubtedly is, heh) - but because SB Pro offers a solution to some of the problems that they have. It's no panacea, but a part of the answer.
However, neither insurgents nor Taliban nor coalition forces are currently using T-72s in ongoing operations. Consequently it simply isn't a high priority. And I must confess that, as much as I like working on SB Pro for the sheer coolness factor that a tiny company like eSim can actually make a meaningful contribution to several armies' daily training, real-world training application out of necessity to prepare our soldiers in the best possible way is the biggest motivation for me when selecting the priorities of our development. We can allow ourselves to focus on fun as soon as the serious problems have been addressed. I hope that everyone here agrees with this sentiment. Of course, none of you who play SB Pro for entertainment purposes is obliged to have the same opinion and priorities; you are free to request the addition of the T-72. But all that I can offer you is the promise that before eSim ceases development work on SB Pro a playable T-72 will be made available to the public.

[Captain_Colossus]

We don’t have T-72 in the vehicle park and nor do any of SB Pro PE’s other main customers I guess so its detailed modelling isn’t high on the priority list.

As a member of the ADF, I’m mainly interested that it is modelled accurately in terms of being an OPFOR (i.e. my rounds have an accurate effect on it in terms of terminal effects [7.62mm scratch paint, 0.50” dent it, 25mm APDP-T some damage, 120mm APFSDS - K Kill]) and its effects on me if I don’t treat it with the appropriate amount of respect.



When does the ADF figure that it expects to see action against T-72s in lieu of vehicles that even warlords and low-rent juntas can own at Ebay prices- say a T-55?

I can buy the argument that a T-72 model should be diminshed, but even non-playable models of the world's most ubiquitous tank ever should figure in quicker for the purposes of training against likely equipment (note that this may also establish the basis for technicals and other such things, but that's a complicated topic all its own). Ethiopia just recently used them to roll up Taliban affiliates in Somalia, the factions in Afghanistan have them, I would certainly expect that the post Saddam Iraqi army has them, and three people on my street each have one.

While there are options to reduce the T-72's capabilities using the mission editors, they still won't rate low enough to simulate a basic T-55: homogenous armor, very crude fire control, low rate of fire, but still potent in enough respects so as to be worthile.

[Gibsonm]

But I think the idea is that if you “train hard” against say the T-72 then you can “fight easy” if you run into a T-55.

[Captain_Colossus]

Well then in that case T-80U trumps T-72, so the latter becomes superfluous: if you only trained against T-80, then any predicted T-72s you would face would just be cake.

The SB T-72M1 in my view seems to be too strong of an opponent, but that's another matter, except in the way they might foil plans and actually impede training as such. In other words, one may not fully implement one's training goals if one is defeated 'too soon'- that was the rationale for discarding and re-setting the results of some large scale wargames conducted a few years ago, when an OPFOR Marine general defeated the United States. Since a lot of money was paid to see the game through all phases of only to have it end as early as it did chaffed a lot of people ;)

If anything though, the scenarios are easily scaled down to the threat level (the vehicles themselves aren't for the purposes of simulating lesser threats): if M1A1 is too tough for T-55, well, let's see how ASLAV-25 or Leopard I matches up.

[Gibsonm]

The idea is to train with current equipment. You of course can “play” with whatever you want.

No point in getting someone who has just done the M1 conversion course and knows which switches are where and say “we are putting you back in the old turret just to give you a challenge”.

People going through the School now are no longer trained on Leopard so from a purely training point of view it might make sense to “remove” Leopard from the SB Pro PE Aust ORBAT. But I suspect it would be a waste of time to get eSim to delete the code (and remove an additional vehicle, that “players” [or old timers] may wish to crew for “what if” scenarios).

I have no control over the “enemy“ vehicles that are modelled in SB Pro PE although I’m sure the guys you went to Iraq were happier with the challenge of running simulations against the worst case than just focusing on the “norm” of ASLAV-25 Vs a guy in Ute.

People in our Corps are either Tank or Cav and the trg reflects this. No point in giving a Tk Crew an ASLAV and say “here we just made it a bit harder for you”.

The whole point of buying M1 was so that we could act like a “reforger” in future coalition ops (i.e. fly the crews in and man prepositioned vehicles from the US). So Wherever George W. next decides to play, we can be there and help and I’m guessing some of those people have T-72.

I (and my soldiers) are happy with T-72 as an OPFOR vehicle. If you want T-90 or T-62 or T-55 or T-34 or whatever then I suggest you either give eSim a shed load of cash or get your Government to do so.

I’ll be happy with whatever your efforts add to the Sim.

[tarball]

There is a set of sayings that have some bearing in terms of how the PE users play the game for amusement and entertainment...

"the [intended|unintended] consequences of [intended|unintended] use."

I am sure many interesting revelations have been born via combinations of the above phrase(s).

It would seem that the future of SB Pro is quite bright and those of us in PE land are welcome to go along for the ride. That suits me just fine.

As for the strength of the community - one is always encouraged and welcome to offer up/organize some events and generate that exitement. It is natural for people to shift their interests to other games/titles as they arise - the community ebbs and flows. However, SB was so strong that it has kept people loyal through game play and game dynamics alone (the graphics were nearly antiquated from the get go) since its inception.

I look forward to the Spanish units and look forward to having a great time with SB Pro PE for a long time to come - after 6 years of playing it (SB to SB Pro PE) I am still enthralled with it. Furthermore, Ssnake committed, in this thread, to getting playable opfor vehicles in the game as soon as is practical.

Long Live SB.

[Captain_Colossus]

It's not my point to ask the those questions in order to make things more or less difficult for trivial reasons- it does sincerely occur to me that there is a niche that is not yet filled; and I am always curious about priorities and their underlying assumptions. For instance- someone paid for an air target; I'm curious as to how someone figured out that there was greater need to train for that rather than pay to develop a T-55, a vehicle that has much more to do with say DPRK equipment levels in the form of a Type 59 or licensed copies. It's such a common tank while on the other hand the T-80U is far more obscure. Of course- the T-80 was in the set since SB1, so it makes sense to keep it in that sense. Then again, time was spent to skin it, animate it, add more touches for SB Pro- even though it seems unlikely to turn out and have some innings. It seems more of a gratuity to spend time on it to polish the product and make it more appealing for everyone, since it is certainly an attractive model, if not a likely opponent.

I know- there's nothing I can do about it, that goes without saying. Perhaps I would get hit with inducing breach of contract or interfering with covenants retaining eSim until their obligations are discharged even if I could raise the capital and employ eSim.

[flyboy]

as well as a Tiger helicopter which might work as some sort of an Apache substitute for those of you looking for a counterpart to the HIND. The Tiger comes with Hellfire missiles (with just 4000m range effectively though, due to the LOS calculation cut-off and render distance limits) and a 30mm autocannon, plus unguided rockets (it's a quick & dirty implementation at this point, though - just like the HIND's unguided rockets).
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b66/Austiger/P9020035.jpg
Sweeeeeeeet.Rocket pods on outside hardpoints....Hellfires on port side inner and another unguided pod on the starboard inner.Would the Apache be a viable chopper these days on the battlefield?I thought the good ole Cobra was the machine to use these days in combat.

[Ssnake]

Again, a non-playable T-55 is in our stockpile of prepared artwork. The bottleneck is including those models in our code. The current method of hard-coding is clearly inefficient, so Al rather spends time on working on a method that would allow others in the team to spend the time on it.
I fully support that approach, even if that means a delay in the expansion of our current vehicle library. I think that in the long run SB Pro's vehicle park should about triple or quadruple in size before one could really be satisfied with it. The good news is, we are preparing for the day when Al has finished this import tool, and very soon afterwards we shall see the benefits of it.

It was originally planned for last September/October (remember the plan to release the CV90 in September?)
It just turned out that we had to skip it in order to keep the deadlines that were following. Had we not done it, we'd be in troubly by now, or we would still be at version 2.304 as far as network stability and the excessive collision damages were concerned. In the light of this I think that we made the right choice. The alternatives aren't that appealing to me.

[RecceDG]

The whole point of buying M1 was so that we could act like a “reforger” in future coalition ops (i.e. fly the crews in and man prepositioned vehicles from the US).

Ohhhhhhhh.......

Interesting decision.....

DG

[Hawk66]

Hi,

I'm new to this forum and new to SpPro and I'm very delighted about the sim. How could I miss that game since the beginning of the original Steelbeasts? Actually, I've heard about the game by accident on an ArmedAssault forum some weeks ago.

When infantry & helicopter combat (AI) is improved, the sim is nearly perfect :) .

I'm a little confused about Steelbeasts Pro and SteelBeasts 2. Is the development of SteelBeasts 2 frozen for the next years and if not, is it just a more accessible sim or will it get some improvements (ex. graphics) which will be not reflected in SBPro?

[Ssnake]

Right now, the work on it is essentially frozen, yes. My desktop wallpaper however is a constant reminder for me not to forget about it, though. And I have some people working seemingly on sideshows which however will lead to essential staging points for the development of SB2.
We do what we can under the prevailing circumstances, which isn't a tenth of what I would LIKE to see getting done, but it's better than nothing I guess.

[Gibsonm]

Ohhhhhhhh.......

Interesting decision.....

DG

Yes saves us stripping (to the point where not a single nut is connected to a bolt) the vehicles for quarantine inspection.

Also reduces our strategic lift requirement (put the boys on a QANTAS 747 instead of a fleet of C5 , C17) also was part of the “sweetner package” to “help” us choose between M1 and Leo 2A6.

[RecceDG]

...at the cost of tying you, politically, to American causes...

But that's a political issue, not a military one, and so is out of scope for discussion here.

Interesting that we're going the other way; buying airlift and Leo2A6.

DG

[Gibsonm]

Well we are now getting C-17 too so I guess we have a bet each way.

[Ssnake]

Still, the costs of switching over to the heavy behemoths of the 55t+ class are substantial. It starts with a road network in and around Darwin and Pucka that simply isn't suited for tracked vehicles of that mass. They could tolerate the 45t of the Leopard 1s, but now you need to sink billions in railroad networks and hard top roads on top of the costs for the tanks, the maintenance, the new simulators, and the ammunition stocks, all of which need to be attributed to the switch from Leo 1 to M1.
Not saying the Leopard 2s would have spared you that investment, they're just as heavy if not worse. But thinking of Leopard 1 with Mexas armor like the Canadian C2s and the Rheinmetall 105mm smoothbore gun might have been a creative and feasible alternative. Well, too late anyway. The dice have been cast.

[Gibsonm]

The Leo 1’s were just too old (hulls cracking, coax rounds lodging in glacis plate armour, etc.).

Now we have a new toy and the boys still deploy to the sound of the “Panzerlied” over their head sets.

[Kingtiger]

infantry teams with Mk 19 Automatic Grenade Launcher, cal .50 on tripod, and Javelin missile teams,

Will it be possible to swap the Javelin missile teams weapons like a normal unit? so they can have ex Milan instead?

[Ssnake]

Actually, they run around with a Milan launcher and the default missile is the Milan, not the Javelin. Having said that, I doubt that a PE version will ever see these teams since they are an intermediate step towards integrating these weapons in the infantry platoons' task organizations.

[ShoutingDog]

While we're on the subject of infantry:

Weak infantry modeling in SB is one of the biggest disappointments of the sim/game.

I know, I know. SB is an armor sim but infantry is in it and they aren't nearly as effective in the game as they are IRL.

Fix the grunts at the squad/fire team level and they will come...

(They being the OFP and their ilk crowd - big bucks - mucho money in that crowd)

[ShermansWar]

Actually, they run around with a Milan launcher and the default missile is the Milan, not the Javelin. Having said that, I doubt that a PE version will ever see these teams since they are an intermediate step towards integrating these weapons in the infantry platoons' task organizations.

Really? When I was a Dragon Gunner(USMC 83-87) we were seperate 2 man teams attached to our own anti tank assault platoon in heavy weapons company. each 2 man tean carried 3 missiles, and very often how we deployed or set up was not attached to or tied to any larger unit, especially if we were acting as a hunter killer team.i would think the same would be true for Mk 19s or .50 cals, for that matter. they were also part of Heavy Weapons Co, as well as mortars ( but then SB doesnt do on board arty). i think tactically it would be very interesting to set up seperate MG, ATGM and other heavy inf weapons in their own positions, not as part of an organic rifle company element, which we weren't.

[Gibsonm]

Actually, they run around with a Milan launcher and the default missile is the Milan, not the Javelin. Having said that, I doubt that a PE version will ever see these teams since they are an intermediate step towards integrating these weapons in the infantry platoons' task organizations.

Can’t speak for Rob (and his ANZAC Pro PE “list”) but we still have discrete DFSW (Direct Fire Support Weapon) Sections within the Infantry units that carry these.

The plain Infantry Platoons still have LAW (M72 or “Anti Armour weapon psychological”), rocks, etc.