Floydii Posted December 27, 2008 Share Posted December 27, 2008 Pimp.. is all I have to say about the RBS70. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehog Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 Just seen the new Driver's position. (took a while to track it down)Oh, F**k, Yes.Nuff said. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnAlienware Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Any definitive plans to bring American vehicles into this millenium? What might those plans be? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GH_Lieste Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Make the HMMWV clapped out.:biggrin: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted February 16, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 16, 2009 Any definitive plans to bring American vehicles into this millenium? What might those plans be?No. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnAlienware Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 No.Ouch. Can you give us any hope? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted February 16, 2009 Members Share Posted February 16, 2009 Not really. The driving forces of our software development are contracts with the military, so as long as there are no contracts from the US it is unlikely to see US equipment added. Our biggest friends are armies on a strict budget because SB Pro offers them simulation support in training situations that they couldn't afford otherwise. The US Army apparently doesn't have that problem.In other news, development work for the 2.4x upgrade will be finished early this week, with at least one week for beta testing, eventually two. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnAlienware Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I understand.I'm hoping for some slack in the development schedule that would allow for consumer oriented content. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skybird03 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I understand.I'm hoping for some slack in the development schedule that would allow for consumer oriented content. As I see it, the fact that the PE version of SBP even exists, already makes it right that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Retro Posted February 16, 2009 Members Share Posted February 16, 2009 The US Army apparently doesn't have that problem.Maybe ask the Taliban? /me runs 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outontheop Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Dude, there's no lack of funding against Taliban or anyone else. I've personally called in JDAMs and numerous Hellfire/ Longbow missiles, as well as the new Excalibur guided artillery munition, and fired hundreds of 120mm mortar rounds. We never had any trouble getting clearance to 'waste' top-end munitions on 2 and 3 man insurgent fighting positions.Funding isn't an issue. Insurgencies are just hard. There's potentially a LOT of bad guys, and until they actually shoot at you, it's hard to tell which ones are the bad guys, and you have to be very precise about what you destroy in order to limit civilian casualties to the absolute minimum. Often this alone justifies using very expensive guided munitions against a couple dudes with old beatup rifles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GH_Lieste Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 You must have competely missed the point.... <sigh>While there is no shortage of money to fund blowing things up, or for developing pie in the sky NLOS-C type weapons, there isn't funding for inexpensive training software like Steelbeasts in the current US planning.Retro was tongue-in-cheek suggesting a short-cut to getting the Striker implemented would be to obtain funding from the Taliban (as a target). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemolitionMan Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 @Ssnake: Did Australia not ask for an updated version of the M1A1 yet? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GH_Lieste Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I'm curious what the Australian M1A1 (HA) are supposed to have that isn't reasonably covered by the existing(*) content?*New model and revised armour figures in the 2.4xx version already exist.The switchology of the interior isn't implemented yet, and while this would be nice, there are other vehicles that need this as well. For tactical training, the current implementation is probably adequate, and the existing (US) specific crew trainers although expensive probably provide better simulation and training value of the systems than SB could ever hope to offer. Fleshing out the low-intensity COIN and the MOUT areas would seem a better option for militaries investing in training using SB today… but I know nothing more than you about what is in the pipeline. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Volcano Posted February 17, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 17, 2009 Well, the M1A1 SA would have a Leo 2E type map screen for the TC (amongst other details), an Australian texture on the outside, and different armor values -- which would actually be lower than the M1A1 (HA) from what I know. Of course I could be mistaken about that though. Anyway, it would be in their benefit to ask for their specific variant to be modeled, but I guess they think that the M1A1 (HA) is good enough for now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daskal Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 The switchology of the interior isn't implemented yet, and while this would be nice, there are other vehicles that need this as well. Yeah but this solution really feels kinda rubbish don't you think? Although as far as I know the new M1 is a special thingie as Dejawolf made this amazingly good looking exterior model on his own - so big Kudos goes for you Deja for this! Personally I'd just have 2 working and fully modelled tanks instead of the current roster - where you have vehicles without interior/roof... and PE has been around for quite some time (3 years or so) and there isn't any kind of an indication that these models will be "consolidated" to a certain level. I would like to see filling the "gaps" before moving on to new territories - so that these things don't get skipped and labelled as not important because they don't serve any training purposes... We have the Leo2A5 and thats it for the tanks, none of the others are 100% complete - it's just feels odd because this is really the ultimate tank sim. But then again this isn't a "private" consumer oriented product so we just have to roll with it as it is. We'll see what the future brings - I'm still young and can wait 10 more years 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted February 17, 2009 Members Share Posted February 17, 2009 The question always is, what's the actual training requirement. If (for whatever reason) a 3D interior isn't really needed for the kind of training that the Aussies are doing with SB Pro, then why would they pay for it. Don't forget that Australia has but a single unit with tanks and still needs the full range of trainers. That means that all high fidelity trainers are available to the Armored Regiment in Darwin unlike for other nations where those high fidelity trainers are available only once or twice in the whole country so that units must be rotated through the sim center. In such a situation it pays off a lot more to have a part task trainer like SB Pro that covers a limited range of training cases (the most important ones, OK, but certainly not all of them).That doesn't mean that the 3D interior will never get done. After all, we added it on our own without any funding at all and got interrupted in the middle of it. So, as soon as there's a bit more breathing room, we'll finish that job. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnAlienware Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Wishing upon a star:A new tank, other than another Leo variant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skybird03 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 For tactical training, the current implementation is probably adequate, and the existing (US) specific crew trainers although expensive probably provide better simulation and training value of the systems than SB could ever hope to offer. In this context it may be worth to remember how Ssnake explained it three years ago:First of all, it’s cheap. Let’s face it: What we do, in principle, is to replicate the capabilities of simulators of established defense contractors, except that we’re bypassing the hardware element (the cabins with replications of control panels and sights etc.) and relying on consumer hardware (standard PCs). Steel Beasts Pro is a "me too" product that competes through extremely aggressive pricing.Yet, like in so many other examples that marketing theory can produce, such an aggressive pricing can lead to the development of entirely new forms of application, and therefore create its own market. Some armies already apply basic accounting methods to determine how costly certain training methods are. Using a platoon level combat simulator can cost about $4,000.- per hour if maintenance for the simulator and personnel costs are taken into account, and the investment volume of typically several million dollars per installation usually prohibits the procurement of them for every single line battalion. Instead, you concentrate them in simulator centers, usually located at the branch schools or army combat schools.Now, this means that every soldier is either exposed to such simulator sessions only once in his life during his stay at the school, or that all line units nationwide must be rotated through one of those centers. The consequence is that the associated costs increase even more since troops must travel and be accommodated, and that soldiers generally do not get as many exposures to the lessons that a simulator can teach as would be required to realize the full training potential of these multimillion dollar installations.It would be much smarter if one could train the basics of maneuver with a simulation that is so cheap that you could use it anytime, anywhere. Once that the soldiers know the ins and outs of these basics they can go to the high fidelity simulators to train things that they cannot with the cheap simulation, and the overall training result will be so much better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted October 12, 2009 Members Share Posted October 12, 2009 Thread necromancy at work: Raise!It's going to be published on other websites this week, so I figured I should give a quick update about our current work. We've just delivered a prototype to Denmark that includes the Eagle IV - think of a heavily armored Humvee of sorts - with the option to equip it with a Lemur remote weapon station. Of course, this means a new playable vehicle with gunner's position. The desired end state is to have the Lemur available for at least four vehicles, among them the Piranha III, the M113, and a truck, with both cal .50 and 40mm grenade machine gun as options for its armament. Currently we have two types of cal .50 ammunition as equipment options.Of course, these are all light vehicles (or "medium" at best) which can't slug it out with tanks. They will need a new kind of scenario, and we're supposed add certain elements of asymmetric warfare as well. These things may enable different approaches to SB scenarios where you would rely mostly on light vehicles with occasional reinforcement by an armored platoon.(Sounds familiar, eh? ...operational realities). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Sounds great! But wont developing the asymmetric warfare side of things require the AI Infantry to become more varied / potent? Not that I'm complaining. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tacbat Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 G-Vill's going to be happy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel_Hamster Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 These new soft vehicles are very welcome! Maybe a Mercedes, MAN or Scania truck (very common military trucks in Europe)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted October 13, 2009 Members Share Posted October 13, 2009 Yes, it's going to be an MAN SX45. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Thread necromancy at work: Raise!It's going to be published on other websites this week, so I figured I should give a quick update about our current work. We've just delivered a prototype to Denmark that includes the Eagle IV - think of a heavily armored Humvee of sorts - with the option to equip it with a Lemur remote weapon station. Of course, this means a new playable vehicle with gunner's position. The desired end state is to have the Lemur available for at least four vehicles, among them the Piranha III, the M113, and a truck, with both cal .50 and 40mm grenade machine gun as options for its armament. Currently we have two types of cal .50 ammunition as equipment options.Of course, these are all light vehicles (or "medium" at best) which can't slug it out with tanks. They will need a new kind of scenario, and we're supposed add certain elements of asymmetric warfare as well. These things may enable different approaches to SB scenarios where you would rely mostly on light vehicles with occasional reinforcement by an armored platoon.(Sounds familiar, eh? ...operational realities).As the Eagle IV is/will be in Bw stock soon...this is realy welcomed from the german p.o.v.!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.