Welcome to Steelbeasts.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Ssnake

SB Pro PE 2.5x - News

1,000 posts in this topic

Well, I see it this way,the gameing industry is like the movie industry,we have B movies,Blockbusters ,and oscar/academy award winners.Most games fall into the b movie catagory(insert your favorite disappointment),Some get to be blockbusters(modern warfare,il2,falcon,Arma....insert favorite game)But where are the Academy award winners...thats the sweet spot and I reserve that title as blank at this point.But I want to put the next il2,and future dev of Arma2/OA with the dlc modules(fingers crossed)The question is,where does SBpro fit here in most peoples opinion?..is it "Aliens from Outer Space","Titanic",or "Schindliers List".Always keeping in mind that SB started as a game, still marketed as a game ,made by esim games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I see it this way,the gameing industry is like the movie industry,we have B movies,Blockbusters ,and oscar/academy award winners.Most games fall into the b movie catagory(insert your favorite disappointment),Some get to be blockbusters(modern warfare,il2,falcon,Arma....insert favorite game)But where are the Academy award winners...thats the sweet spot and I reserve that title as blank at this point.But I want to put the next il2,and future dev of Arma2/OA with the dlc modules(fingers crossed)The question is,where does SBpro fit here in most peoples opinion?..is it "Aliens from Outer Space","Titanic",or "Schindliers List".Always keeping in mind that SB started as a game, still marketed as a game ,made by esim games.

it fits pretty nicely into the "instructional videos/documentary" corner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

hehe,would that be "Micheal Moore",or "National Geographic",...or "Smithsonian,the ultimate gun collection"section?:biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys what's all the fuzz? Seriously SB Pro PE was never proclaimed to be a simulation that is "gamer oriented". It's a training tool targeted at professional users that we (civs) are lucky to be able to acces and use as well. End of story.

This thread is supposed to show & tell us the new additions in the upcoming update, so stop whining here. Setup a separate thread for ranting please...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,it hasn't really told us much of anythng so far has it?A truck,a non-playable tank...Thats the point of most peoples comments here.As a "New" user and this being my first "upgrade",I for one have high expectations based on a 125 dollar price tag and 10 years of developement.I guess I'll see come august.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happy so far with the news.:biggrin:

However,I'm living in the sand, eating shitty American food and have no internet connect most time. So any new news about he sim is good.

When you have so very little, a small thing is always good.

Might I suggest that we all relax and see what comes down the road?:confused:

Remember there are people with no SB, let alone food and shoes for there feet. We are much better off, even if we don't have a T-72 that's playable of fancy grunts etc.:shocked:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Well,it hasn't really told us much of anythng so far has it?A truck,a non-playable tank...Thats the point of most peoples comments here.As a "New" user and this being my first "upgrade",I for one have high expectations based on a 125 dollar price tag and 10 years of developement.I guess I'll see come august.

I agree....

But remember our upgrades are based on the "Military Contract Requests" so what "We" gamers (Sorry, but those playing this at home are "Gamers") want added to this sim depends on what the various Military Contracts request and we get those same additions added as a paid addon...

So, I really doubt we'll see that crewable T-72 anytime soon or anything that's strictly graphics related despite the fact that this payware upgrade is being released and sold for "Gamers" (No offense to those that think thier in the Military and using this sim for real life On-the-Job-Training).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,it hasn't really told us much of anythng so far has it?

With over a month to go, there's plenty of time left to see what's coming up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

The secret to a happy life is to avoid getting focused and absorbed by the negative. Not only clouds it the perception of your own life, you also make the life of others more miserable.

Out of five weeks with scheduled daily news releases, you have seen a mere three days, and you already throw up your hands in despair. It would be downright funny if we hadn't have the very same pattern with 2.460, and even the beta version before it. I start making public what's in it, some of you - and always the same guys - run around in circles screaming "it's all shit!", and by the time that everything has been presented all of a sudden it doesn't appear to be quite as bad. Look it up, if you don't believe me. It's all in the old threads from more than three years ago.

Guys, seriously, get a grip. You made your points about shadows, bobbing roadwheels, a playable T-72, and other items. I have acknowledged time and again that your arguments in favor of these items are valid, and that I would like to see these things implemented as well. It's not as if I'm telling you that your suggestions are stupid and that we will never do this.

eSim Games ist however a business, and a small one at that. The market for armor simulations is very small. 90% of our income depends on contracts with various army customers. So we all need to stay realistic with our expectations about what can be accomplished in a given time.

I stick to my conviction that we will have a playable T-72 one day, just as we will have a playable M1A2 SEP, or a playable Challenger 2. And we will have bobbing roadwheels and shadows. Nobody is against all this, really.

I am also convinced that pretty much all of you will acknowledge by August 17 that the list of improvements and new features is quite impressive and well worth the price of just $25.- (I mean, hello? We're talking about a mere $25.- here, and we're forcing nobody at gunpoint to fork over the bucks or else. Some of you must be very, very happy and sheltered people indeed if SB Pro PE 2.5x is the biggest problem in your life.)

As consumers, you have the right to demand everything, sure. But if you want to be taken seriously, try to keep things in perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and I want a playable AT-AT:

Seriously - let's chillout and wait for the news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should remember that improvements to the simulation isnt limited to vehicles and terrain. If we do that we do not take the real world into consideration. i bet everyone here would like a player controled T-72, challenger, or state of the art graphics with all the bouncy stuff. but expecting it every update isnt realistic.

I try to look at the simulation from the intended buyers perspective and see what they would like to improve, then pick some stuff from "their_list" that i hope will be in the update.

For this update im hoping for a civilian or neutral side, more 3d map objects and improved infantery behaviour, mainly in and around buildings (MOUT). Most of it have been mentioned in the past, and some of it was even planned for the last update. I also suspect there will be some more included that we wont expect, like the challenger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

I feel I should mention that eSim has only 2 Full Time employees, only one of which actually does the programming.

Al is working flat out to provide all these nice goodies.

(Al didn't want to go to ITEC felt it was time during which he could be programming.

But Nils suggested he meet the customers, and it was a nice holiday.)

In order to double the number of programmers will require down time, which eSim I suspect can't afford at the moment.

Time is money people, and its a cut throat environment out there in the training world.

So those few who keep going "Its rubbish" wait till you see the whole picture.

I've myself have seen a few developments and $25 is a bloody bargain.

(And don't ask me cause Nils will have me shot.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should remember that improvements to the simulation isnt limited to vehicles and terrain. If we do that we do not take the real world into consideration. i bet everyone here would like a player controled T-72, challenger, or state of the art graphics with all the bouncy stuff. but expecting it every update isnt realistic.

I try to look at the simulation from the intended buyers perspective and see what they would like to improve, then pick some stuff from "their_list" that i hope will be in the update.

For this update im hoping for a civilian or neutral side, more 3d map objects and improved infantery behaviour, mainly in and around buildings (MOUT). Most of it have been mentioned in the past, and some of it was even planned for the last update. I also suspect there will be some more included that we wont expect, like the challenger.

I have been expecting the crewable T72 since day 1, not in every update I demand a new warsaw pact crewable, I simply want one. I can't imagine how hard is to add a gunner for the T72 (with a gunner I'm more than happy) that can't be made in all this time, how much time can represent? a month, two? ok, stop all the other stuff (gamey stuff, no military stuff) and fix on this thing for a month or two, I will pay 30 euros more for just a playable T72, but please add it, don't say again, we're adding a non-crewable Challenger be happy, we're adding another 3d model for the ural track, be happy, the T72 is toooo complicated to be added? maybe in 2016 or something like that we will have the T72. I know Esim games is a small business and that they depend from military contractors, but I simply can't understand why after all this time we still don't have this tank.

Excuse me for being angry, but thats a bit too much for my taste, some of you will say Oh, cool leave If you don't like but to this attitude in Spain we say to this "being more papist than the pope", you guys must see what I'm talking about, you can like the sim, but the T72 thingie is too much. At least for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enough of this, where's my daily update?

BTW, does the "mount" command replace the "load troops" command?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The secret to a happy life is to avoid getting focused and absorbed by the negative. Not only clouds it the perception of your own life, you also make the life of others more miserable.

Out of five weeks with scheduled daily news releases, you have seen a mere three days, and you already throw up your hands in despair. It would be downright funny if we hadn't have the very same pattern with 2.460, and even the beta version before it. I start making public what's in it, some of you - and always the same guys - run around in circles screaming "it's all shit!", and by the time that everything has been presented all of a sudden it doesn't appear to be quite as bad. Look it up, if you don't believe me. It's all in the old threads from more than three years ago.

Guys, seriously, get a grip. You made your points about shadows, bobbing roadwheels, a playable T-72, and other items. I have acknowledged time and again that your arguments in favor of these items are valid, and that I would like to see these things implemented as well. It's not as if I'm telling you that your suggestions are stupid and that we will never do this.

eSim Games ist however a business, and a small one at that. The market for armor simulations is very small. 90% of our income depends on contracts with various army customers. So we all need to stay realistic with our expectations about what can be accomplished in a given time.

I stick to my conviction that we will have a playable T-72 one day, just as we will have a playable M1A2 SEP, or a playable Challenger 2. And we will have bobbing roadwheels and shadows. Nobody is against all this, really.

I am also convinced that pretty much all of you will acknowledge by August 17 that the list of improvements and new features is quite impressive and well worth the price of just $25.- (I mean, hello? We're talking about a mere $25.- here, and we're forcing nobody at gunpoint to fork over the bucks or else. Some of you must be very, very happy and sheltered people indeed if SB Pro PE 2.5x is the biggest problem in your life.)

As consumers, you have the right to demand everything, sure. But if you want to be taken seriously, try to keep things in perspective.

I agree with everything your saying...

However, you are a company that creates a product for your Non-Military customers for a fee...

At some point I would believe that your business would have to listen to your customers (Non-Military) a little more and try to adjust your business model accordingly. This is the BASIS of running a successful business.

Therefore, I honestly believe it's only reasonable to expect, At Some Point, some customer frustration with, "certain", "repeated", items that have been repeatably mentioned and are constantly promised as being "On the List" for, yet, another "FUTURE" paid update.

Anyway, I think you have to realize (again from a business standpoint) that this wouldn't be such a passionate issue for your customers if this 'niche' sim wasn't so good and didn't have soooooooo much potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the neologisms playable and crewable- they should have a contest to coin a better phrase for user controlled content.

Everyone wants a T-72, or nearly everyone is unanimous about that. Ssnake wants it, or at least Ssnake is lying that he wants it. The latter scenario is likely untrue. If Ssnake likes tankie things, which I think he does, it doesn't seem likely that he would deliberately opt out of something like that. I don't see the advantage in it.

So, if we buy the scenario that even Ssnake wants a T-72, it's likely the case that tight development schedules is the bottleneck here. It's probably not the case that that the C-2 simply ate development time that could have went into the T-72, there's a difference between having a computer controlled model and uh, a crewable model. It would be a more legitimate gripe to compare the tradeoff time of the C-2 with some other non-crewable vehicle such as a T-55/62/90 or M60 tank.

What's happening is we're a captive audience and this is a double edged sword- you benefit in the overall scheme from a business model that is not focused on mass-market or consumer grade demands, they might have went out of business by now if they had been, but if eSim weren't developing contacts with customers who could front the kind of cash to drive development goals into some direction, you might not have anything at all if the shop had closed and they called it quits by now. So we do get something, just not always everything we want, or when we want it. I would bet we'll see the T-72 eventually- they've indicated some hope in facilitating adding new vehicles with new tools for the future. In the meantime you could play ARMA 2- I've played it, they have the T-72 and a wider stock of vehicles you can play with sporting very generic subsystems that don't make any of them feel particularly unique. It's fun, though, it has a sandbox style editor to recreate battles, the graphics are good, particularly with respect to night effects, fire, dust and smoke and particle and tracer effects, but they lack the same kind of satisfaction in some important areas. There's the tradeoff there as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At some point I would believe that your business would have to listen to your customers (Non-Military) a little more and try to adjust your business model accordingly. This is the BASIS of running a successful business.

Well, there's the reality that the shelf life of an average small business is about five years. Despite all the romantic notions of working for oneself, it's very difficult. Most of them operate out of their own pockets, or get money from angel investors- friends and family. After this initial period, if they don't recoup their losses and begin seeing a profit, typically these businesses flunk altogether, or offer to merge or be acquired. There's only so many bridge loans you're going to get, maybe some other investor might like you, put his money in, but in return want a controlling stake in what direction the company takes. You can see what happens when a company like Hasbro has voting stock in Microprose- the end of the line for combat simulation themed games.

So far eSim is beating the odds- and we're getting some good stuff that we probably wouldn't be if they were still behaving like it was more than ten years ago. We all want to see more, and I think there is some value in complaining from time to time. But I don't see how eSim can really afford switch gears to cater to a minor enthusiast niche until the day comes when they are independently wealthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current compromise is the only way esim can continue to exist. Big customers provide a huge proportion of the development dollars and thus get a huge proportion of say in what is done and in what order. I understand the frustration - everyone has some project they want done that would improve sb in one way or another. The List is very long now. Improvements are being made, but they might not fit someone's perception of what needs to be done, and they sure aren't as fast as everyone likes.

What sort of change to the business model do you recommend?

Putting new "playable vehicles" up for bid probably wouldn't work too well - there's no way this community could put up a month or two of development time to pay for a playable T72, for example. I don't see that there are enough people here to put up $32k (thats just for example, not the actual cost)

I agree with everything your saying...

However, you are a company that creates a product for your Non-Military customers for a fee...

At some point I would believe that your business would have to listen to your customers (Non-Military) a little more and try to adjust your business model accordingly. This is the BASIS of running a successful business.

Therefore, I honestly believe it's only reasonable to expect, At Some Point, some customer frustration with, "certain", "repeated", items that have been repeatably mentioned and are constantly promised as being "On the List" for, yet, another "FUTURE" paid update.

Anyway, I think you have to realize (again from a business standpoint) that this wouldn't be such a passionate issue for your customers if this 'niche' sim wasn't so good and didn't have soooooooo much potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Why do you think you know eSim's business better than they know it? ...

I agree with everything your saying...

However, you are a company that creates a product for your Non-Military customers for a fee...

At some point I would believe that your business would have to listen to your customers (Non-Military) a little more and try to adjust your business model accordingly. This is the BASIS of running a successful business.

Therefore, I honestly believe it's only reasonable to expect, At Some Point, some customer frustration with, "certain", "repeated", items that have been repeatably mentioned and are constantly promised as being "On the List" for, yet, another "FUTURE" paid update.

Anyway, I think you have to realize (again from a business standpoint) that this wouldn't be such a passionate issue for your customers if this 'niche' sim wasn't so good and didn't have soooooooo much potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that I said "Gamey development time", I know Esim games live from the military contracts, I'm talking about things that are for civ version, I'm not requesting Esim games to stop working on militery requests but civilian requests. I supose they work on both fields more or less at same time, so my proposal is to stop the game part development 2, 3 or 4 months wathever is needed of time in order to implement the "crewable" T72. Maybe people will agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that I said "Gamey development time", I know Esim games live from the military contracts, I'm talking about things that are for civ version, I'm not requesting Esim games to stop working on militery requests but civilian requests. I supose they work on both fields more or less at same time, so my proposal is to stop the game part development 2, 3 or 4 months wathever is needed of time in order to implement the "crewable" T72. Maybe people will agree?

I would guess that in reality there is no "both fields". Pro PE is also intended as a tool to use to train soldiers but not in a classroom environment. Its more for "homework" or to use away from a dedicated LAN classroom.

They just decided to not make it a government only product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Note that I said "Gamey development time", I know Esim games live from the military contracts, I'm talking about things that are for civ version, I'm not requesting Esim games to stop working on militery requests but civilian requests. I supose they work on both fields more or less at same time, so my proposal is to stop the game part development 2, 3 or 4 months wathever is needed of time in order to implement the "crewable" T72. Maybe people will agree?

Well, if they are under contractual obligations already it's easier said than done- you could breach the terms of contract for failure to perform.

Maybe one day they will be released from any duty to a military customer, accept no new deals and suddenly revert back to the hobbyist product like the old days- who knows, but that might be the day you never heard or eSim Games any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I don't want a crewable T-72 and I'm glad that ESim has allocated its development time to other endeavors.

I predict that 1-2 months after the release of a crewable T-72, the same people will be asking about a crewable T-80/90/some other OPFOR tank. Who's going to use the T-72 in an MP scenario? Probably the same ones who use the Leo AS1, and that is a very small group within this community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Being my favourite tank for long time, I want a T-72, and no, I'm not planning to ask for a T-80, I find that tank really ugly lol

And not every ones plays MP

An not everyones playing MP will play against Leo2E

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now