Jump to content

Highly detailed turrets or not.


Marko

Recommended Posts

Like most armour enthusiasts i enjoy the highly detailed interiors on some of the playable AFV's modeled in SB

The M-60. BMP-2. CV 90. But after the initial release and admiration of a job well done i very rarely use the functional buttons modeled

From time to time i do just jump in to the commanders position and just look around i enjoy spotting the little details the geek side of me enjoys hitting The buttons and there's no doubt it adds to the Immersion and i am sure it has training value for esims military customers

But when i am in the thick of virtual combat my key board is a lot more efficient and quicker.

As we all know a split second can make the difference between killing or being killed even in virtual combat

So this got me wondering how many of you guys actually use the modelled functional controls in the highly detailed turrets 

In virtual combat anyway.

I asked this question before a few years ago but the community has grown since then. 

Would you prefer a fully detailed and functional turret or more models like the CR-2 where you just basically have the sighting systems 

But this would mean more playable vehicles (in theory anyway not saying Esim would or should) but it takes a lot of resources to model the turret to say the level of the M-60 and its not cheap to do it from what i gather

 

PS

If anybody can run a poll on the question i would be greatful

I am unable to do so.

It would be interesting to see the results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was many times I climbed into my gunner's seat by going through the TC's position and I find it a little disconcerting to go straight to the gunner's sight without seeing the inside of the turret.  But once there training, what little I remember of it, kicks in and it's keyboard and controller all the way.  There are a few things that require the use of the interior view of the turret but I mostly do those as a personal exercise, ie. manually setting the range on the ballistic computers.

 

I would be fine with vehicles without detailed interiors if it meant more vehicles to play.  It would be interesting to shoot a PT-76 or BMP-1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/12/2017 at 10:03 AM, Marko said:

or more models like the CR-2 where you just basically have the sighting systems

 

+1 on this. I dont spend any time sitting inside the vehicle looking at the interior. I'm either on the gun, on the map, or outside of the vehicle. There's nothing that I need to see inside. 

 

I'm ok if there's a tradeoff of more playable vehicles with less interior fidelity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like to use as much of the interiors as possible, for example I try to only bind what I deem (as a layman) like things the gunner for example could reach and do without exiting his sight to hotkeys, the rest I do as much as possible with interacting with the 3D buttons etc. I do always go out to eye view from one sight and click the other etc. 

For me this is a way to learn and somewhat feel something I can not do otherwise, I can somewhat interact with the "real" vehicle. This for me is what sims are all about. So I do prefer more detailed and fewer vehicles than more with less details. This is why I realy like flying the blackshark in DCS for example. It "feels" right with the detail it has. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, peXmo said:

I like to use as much of the interiors as possible, for example I try to only bind what I deem (as a layman) like things the gunner for example could reach and do without exiting his sight to hotkeys, the rest I do as much as possible with interacting with the 3D buttons etc. I do always go out to eye view from one sight and click the other etc. 

For me this is a way to learn and somewhat feel something I can not do otherwise, I can somewhat interact with the "real" vehicle. This for me is what sims are all about. So I do prefer more detailed and fewer vehicles than more with less details. This is why I realy like flying the blackshark in DCS for example. It "feels" right with the detail it has. 

Point is: how do you know what gunner/TC can use without getting "off sight" , without beeing trained on that vehicle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course that is why I state that I am a lay man, BUT it does give that feeling of really interacting that is impossible for me to get otherwise. So yes, for me the detail fidelity is important like that. I would not mind to play less detailed vehicles but if I could choose I do go for the more detailes over more vehicles. For me it feels like quality over quantity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I guess it just depends on the vehicle. For the simplest vehicles the interior view is not vital, but is still nice to get your bearings, and further make you feel like you are inside of it. But for the more complicated vehicles, the interior is vital, because you cannot map every button to a key.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

...and we're not just talking about one super-complicated vehicle, but the entire fleet of them. Our default hotkeys cover as much commonality as possible. And we have basically used up all 102 keys on the keyboard, with maybe three to five left. Those that are awkward to find while looking at the screen.

We could of course start using exotic and painful combinations like Shift+Alt+0 - but we won't. This runs contrary to our principles about good user interfaces. Therefore, 3D interiors are not just eye candy but a necessary element to allow us to present a wide range of different fire control systems in a single product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ssnake said:

...and we're not just talking about one super-complicated vehicle, but the entire fleet of them. Our default hotkeys cover as much commonality as possible. And we have basically used up all 102 keys on the keyboard, with maybe three to five left. Those that are awkward to find while looking at the screen.

We could of course start using exotic and painful combinations like Shift+Alt+0 - but we won't. This runs contrary to our principles about good user interfaces. Therefore, 3D interiors are not just eye candy but a necessary element to allow us to present a wide range of different fire control systems in a single product.

I may be biased but i have always considered SB a very easy simulation to manage control wise compared to some other simulations in my collection.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Marko said:

I may be biased but i have always considered SB a very easy simulation to manage control wise compared to some other simulations in my collection.

 

 

 

 

Absolutely! I actually rebinded the controls for Steel Armor: Blaze of War to match those of Steel Beasts, due to ease of use.

 

I enjoy having detailed interiors. I think this is an important discriminator that separates Steel Beasts from the other Armor Sims out there. The T-72 in Steel Beasts, for example, seems much more "alive" when compared to something like T-72: Balkans on Fire. As much as I like having new playable vehicles, I don't want to see a compromise in the "character" of these vehicles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...