Throwing in the towel.

[Hedgehog]

If I tell you our plans, and those plans don't survive the clash with reality, I then have to backpaddle and the usual naysayers will scream "Oh noes! But you promised!" and the overall message will be one of disappointment when there actually is progress and improvement.

So, consider this an element of information warfare. :wink:

No plan survives contact with the enemy.

I learned that form Master Ssnake himself at ITEC you know.

Right before he reprimanded me for, ahem, "A negligent discharge of a 120mm cannon."

:redface:

[Kilo60]

Since tis thread has turned into a "WishList " of sorts I'd like to see 3d modeled gun flash effects and the elimination of the "sprite" based, 2d gun flash effect, models.

This would add to the realism, IMHO, as the "Sprite" based gun flashes are completly blinding in total daylight with no translucency whatsoever.

[Hackworth]

Since tis thread has turned into a "WishList " of sorts I'd like to see 3d modeled gun flash effects and the elimination of the "sprite" based, 2d gun flash effect, models.

This would add to the realism, IMHO, as the "Sprite" based gun flashes are completly blinding in total daylight with no translucency whatsoever.

lol, i echo this one. i think i asked for it a million years ago. probably item #3245 on the_List.

[Mogwa]

I cant believe that of all the possible improvements, 3D infantry seems to be at the top of the list.

Mog

[Captain_Colossus]

The sprites don't bother me all that much as far as their appearance goes. Functionallly however they are limited- so if you want more complicated movements and behavior, that means handpainting each individual frame of animation, which seems extremely tedious. Likewise, if you want to add different national armies, or civilians or guerrilla fighters, you have to hand draw each frame of animation rather than creating a model and letting the computer handle the calculations within defined parameters. Whoever did the sprites originally must have cost him a lot of time and gets my respect.

A couple of years ago, I tried redoing some of the sprites so I could add insurgent type units, not only was this more time than I had to complete, this created technical problems as when the program rendered my sprites, it drew a gray box around them.

So if you want more complex infantry behavior for the future, if you want different skin tones or uniforms where you don't necessarily have to hand paint each frame, it's probably a good investment to go to a different format at some point. Now the question is whether eSim permits the model textures to be edited by users like with the vehicle models or skies or other textures, but even if they don't at least they have the tools.

[mpow66m]

when we select Inf. in the ammo menu will more ammo be selectable such as weapons systems,m4,m16,m25 ect...grenades,frag,h.e.,203,.S.A.W.240B.What i mean more specific than just NATO or Russia.

[Ssnake]

To a large extent CC is right. It's not so much the visual improvement - that's a nice extra but not the reason why we're doing this - but the gains in overall flexibility for us.

[Homer]

Since tis thread has turned into a "WishList " of sorts I'd like to see 3d modeled gun flash effects and the elimination of the "sprite" based, 2d gun flash effect, models.

This would add to the realism, IMHO, as the "Sprite" based gun flashes are completly blinding in total daylight with no translucency whatsoever.

I was bored one day.. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1589910/Flash.avi (animation not at full speed)

[Grenny]

when we select Inf. in the ammo menu will more ammo be selectable such as weapons systems,m4,m16,m25 ect...grenades,frag,h.e.,203,.S.A.W.240B.What i mean more specific than just NATO or Russia.

Well, that would open a big can of worms. I mean, I would realy like to see this...but Al & CO would have to put quiete some work into it.

1.) the different systems have very small differences in performance.The main diffence would be the looks and "secondary" benefits in handling...how would you model that?

2.)its not enough to put the diffenrent weapons and grenades into the sim, you'd have to model their correct deployment also! You would have to implement all the different squad drills f.e. assault enemy MG, defense of positions, fighting withdraw etc etc...

Its not simply shooting with different guns, it is how the different guns interact in a sqaud that make it effective.

Infantry training doesn't take 6 month(and more) for no reason ;-) (otherwise we could just arm everyone with a M4+203 or an AG-36 an be done with it 8-) )

My p.o.v.: doesn't make sense for a sim that's focused on mechanized warfare.

...NATO/ RU and 5.56/7.62 is quiete diffentiated enough as their ballistic performance is pretty much the same. Where the diffences in durability, accuracy, aiming systems and so on go beyond the scope of SB

[mpow66m]

''2.)its not enough to put the diffenrent weapons and grenades into the sim, you'd have to model their correct deployment also! You would have to implement all the different squad drills f.e. assault enemy MG, defense of positions, fighting withdraw etc etc...

Its not simply shooting with different guns, it is how the different guns interact in a sqaud that make it effective.

Infantry training doesn't take 6 month(and more) for no reason :wink: (otherwise we could just arm everyone with a M4+203 or an AG-36 an be done with it :cool: )''

I know this.:)but SBPPE is more than a Mech WF Sim,and i think for it to evolve these things should be taken in consideration.Id love to pull down the menu on a Inf. unit and hit Withdraw from place to xx waypoint and have the Inf. execute a proper WP.I guess what im saying is more options along the line of the AFVs would be cool.I see SBPPE as more than just a AFV sim,ALOT more.:drink:

[Ssnake]

... Where the diffences in durability, accuracy, aiming systems and so on go beyond the scope of SB

...and pretty much any other virtual simulation, including first person shooters, if we're honest about it.

[Ssnake]

I see SBPPE as more than just a AFV sim,ALOT more.

Yet it definitely is a vehicle centric simulation in its current state, and adding in a lot more detail for infantry will inevitably force everybody to scale down the forces in scenarios - to go from company team down to two or three platoons in strength. I'm not sure if that is a desirable development. There are other infantry-centric solutions out there that can eventually be networked with SB Pro. SB Pro must remain useful and relevant as a standalone product, but we shouldn't ignore the possibilities of linking network sessions with solutions that are specialized on complementary maneuver elements. Eventually that might even find its way into the consumer market.

eSim won't be the obstacle there.

[DarkLabor]

I was thinking that 3D inf. would be a lot more usefull for the use of SB pro linked to VBS2. Because what sprites don't show is a part of lost data that can change everything in a given scenario.

[Ssnake]

Then again, you'd also need synchronized and identical animations in both simulations in order not to lose any information. Some information loss is unavoidable under the prevailing circumstances.

[DarkLabor]

Yes it's like a program wich call an unexisting thing... :heu:

Do you think that two simulations based on the same engine would reduce that loss, or is it something that is impossible?

[Ssnake]

Not only would you need the same engine and the same basic data set (at which point the question is, why not rely on one simulation as a standalone solution), you'd also need to eliminate latency (and there probably are more factors that I don't even know about, yet).

Still, combining simulations that are supplemental to each other, even if this involves a certain capability and/or information loss, can still be a smart move if it enables an exercise capability that none of the simulations offer alone.

[O_Smiladon]

So How are Lukas and Christoph enjoying there new roles..

Hope we are all keeping them busy..Oh yes you have to let them out once and a while to go wee....:diable:

O_Smiladon

[DarkLabor]

Not only would you need the same engine and the same basic data set (at which point the question is, why not rely on one simulation as a standalone solution), you'd also need to eliminate latency (and there probably are more factors that I don't even know about, yet).

Still, combining simulations that are supplemental to each other, even if this involves a certain capability and/or information loss, can still be a smart move if it enables an exercise capability that none of the simulations offer alone.

Got it! Thank you Ssnake!