Jump to content

SB Pro PE 2.5x - News


Ssnake

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I just noticed on this http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/sbgallery/main.php?g2_itemId=16834 image that it say "Terrasim" on the high fence at the bottom left corner.

It this something we will see with regular intervals on fences?

I'm not too fond of commercial/ads placed where they don't fit in. But at least they've made it subtle and doesn't scream "look at me!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really looking forward to this update - any potential for pre-ordering?

Well pre “computer melt down” there was some talk of the upgrade coming out in sections prior to 21 AUG, with the final section available on the 21st (earlier sections useless without the last) and I think there were mutterings about pre ordering too, but I haven’t seen anything definite or I’d have spent my money already. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Data saving is still going on for a few more hours, but thanks to the modern marvel of preemptive multitasking file copy operations can be done in the background. ;)

You can recognize all notebook made screenshots by their 1680x1050 format, and the absence of Photoshop by the small edge of the AAR control dialog box in the lower right corner. ;)

Heh, I'm going to savour this moment:

Stop your moaning, some us don't even have Photoshop.

Techno geek Germans, eh? :)

Anyway.

I'm looking forward to Eisenburg (A city I made.) being a viable playground now. :biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah well I guess you wont be using many of the ISO containers then either. :)

They have to get some return for building the map effectively for nothing.

I made it sound like a big thing, but it's not. It's something I'm okay with, I just don't like it when "ads" are out of place. Where would you see them if you go outside? Embedded into stonewalls or as a poster outside of a store? But as I stated, it's not a big deal. I noticed it and went "what the... that doesn't fit in."

But on ISO container they fit in as containers like that usually carry a company logo.

Seeing as this is my only "issue" so far with the upgrade, that tells me that the upgrade is a major hit with only something that trivial as an "issue".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick question, would it be possible in the future to add a new view option. I find myself enjoying the game more when I play in F8 mode. What I wish SB had was the ability to have a free camera, or at least one that could pull back more from the vehicle you are looking at. Is that something that would even be possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, I'd like to have that too - while testing a scenario from within the mission editor. But for normal play there's the issue that those camera positions would eventually give you access to tactically relevant information that you wouldn't have in reality, and that would eliminate one of the most vital challenges in SB Pro - decision-making under time pressure and uncertainty (=incomplete situational awareness). That's the essence of tactics. I tend to be very careful and reluctant when it comes to making changes in these fundamental areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Will we get new fortified positions to fit the new vehicles like Challenger 2 and M60? Or are there existing ones that suit them well enough?

We could have used you on the beta team, I guess. In other words - no, you caught us pants down. We'll have to deliver that at a later point. I could imagine though that M1 or Leopard 2 emplacements will still be reasonable options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'd like to have that too - while testing a scenario from within the mission editor. But for normal play there's the issue that those camera positions would eventually give you access to tactically relevant information that you wouldn't have in reality, and that would eliminate one of the most vital challenges in SB Pro - decision-making under time pressure and uncertainty (=incomplete situational awareness). That's the essence of tactics. I tend to be very careful and reluctant when it comes to making changes in these fundamental areas.

I've always understood the why behind the way it was done, but if one plays SB more as a game-while enjoying the outstanding simulation qualities :) - than a dedicated armor simulator, one could dream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any chance of seeing an option in the mission editor: "allow only observed indirect fire" - which would disallow players from calling down fires with right clicking on the map (would require FO vehicle/team with LOS)... Or any progress on the possible "map updates on, friendlies only"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
We could have used you on the beta team, I guess. In other words - no, you caught us pants down. We'll have to deliver that at a later point. I could imagine though that M1 or Leopard 2 emplacements will still be reasonable options.

As you know, ah, you go to war with the emplacement you have---not the emplacement you might want or wish to have at a later time :ANI_DI:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always understood the why behind the way it was done, but if one plays SB more as a game-while enjoying the outstanding simulation qualities :) - than a dedicated armor simulator, one could dream.

Or just make it an option. People can either enable or disable it. Maybe even with some in-between options as well, so people can scale their experience. And you can disable it for multiplayer games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any chance of seeing an option in the mission editor: "allow only observed indirect fire" - which would disallow players from calling down fires with right clicking on the map (would require FO vehicle/team with LOS)... Or any progress on the possible "map updates on, friendlies only"?

You already can limit it to “FO’s only“ so at least you have to move to one of those units before calling it in.

I can’t recall off hand if you can further limit it to tgts that the FO has LOS to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes: This collaboration with TerraSim - and Calytrix Technologies - is driven by the desire of our customers to combine several simulations in one exercise. And who knows what may happen to our commercial releases, once that the technology has matured sufficiently (we're coming closer but aren't quite there yet, IMO). Of course it takes two to tango, but at least eSim won't be the obstacle to setting up joint gameservers one day.

Am i the only one that got this bit?

Are you saying the possibility may be there in the future to combine varying sim features, i.e. first-person shooters clearing rooms with armoured support... or armour columns with fast mover support?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am i the only one that got this bit?

No, because I've seen it "live". :)

We have AFV crews in SB Pro who can look out of the turret and "see" some Inf to the vehicle's left.

We also have Inf using VBS2 who can look over their shoulder to the right and "see" the AFV.

The Inf are using VBS2 (one machine per person) while the crews are using SB Pro (one machine per crew station).

The two packages interact (albeit with some bugs / clunkiness at present) but I'm sure it will get better.

However I still think its going to be quite a while before the bridging software / hardware is good enough (and at a price point) where you can invite your VBS playing mate to join you in a networked game(s) using both with a common map.

I don't think "fast movers" would work as well, since by definition they need very large "maps" to work in. VBS2 and SB Pro have basically the same scale.

Edited by Gibsonm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

terrasim looks incredible Ssnake. i'd love to have Pittsburgh FAA in SB... and how much time could could this have saved our notorious mapsters over the years?

these new vehicles, new map objects, buildings and so forth are a frigin' miracle. fantastic work guys. i can't wait to see it all. :D

Am i the only one that got this bit?

Are you saying the possibility may be there in the future to combine varying sim features, i.e. first-person shooters clearing rooms with armoured support... or armour columns with fast mover support?

Nope! ;) awesome ain't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Gibson summed up the current situation. Right now things are beginning to crawl out of the demonstrator stage towards "prototype stage". We're at a point where you can have basic interaction between simulation. Who's looking at whom, who moves with which vector, who fires, who dies, etc.

Since there is a manifest interest among all our army customers to get this working, I am pretty confident that it will yield useful results over time. At some point the technology will have matured, and the question is then whether we can develop a business model where all parties involved - the simulation makers, the middleware software maker - to collaborate by releasing the software in a form that would allow consumers to participate. The only business model that I can imagine at this point is some form of a commercial game server where you pay some form of subscription fee and then log on with any one of the supported simulations to join a battle. Profits would then be dispersed by the amount of gaming hours that are spent on the server by the different simulations.

This doesn't just involve the game developers and their willingness to cooperate (after all, it is just as easy to see each other as competitors). You also need to develop some sort of gameplay that is fun and rewarding. Neither simulation maker must abuse his power to, say, manipulate combat results in his favor so that his software becomes more fun to his own clientele. So, not only the technical challenge is formidable, it also is a matter of getting the businesses to work and to create an overall great experience for the players. Such a project can fail for any of these challenges, so don't start to hyperventilate just yet.

All I'm saying is that I saw this perspective as early as 2006 and now we're finally making some tangible progress, but there's still quite some way to go.

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...