Grenny Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 27 minutes ago, Ssnake said: MMP? missle moyenne porteè 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpow66m Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 6 minutes ago, Grenny said: missle moyenne porteè What does that mean? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 2 minutes ago, mpow66m said: What does that mean? Do a wiki on it... its a french ATGM. Successor to the MILAN. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisWerb Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 (edited) Missile Moyenne Portée. French replacement for their MILAN and Javelin systems. http://www.mbda-systems.com/product/mmp/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Moyenne_Portée [Sorry guys! Didn't see the thread had run on to another page! Doh!] Edited August 11, 2017 by ChrisWerb 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desertsaint101 Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 Hhhhhmmmm a quick question and thought popped in my mind, and yes it did hurt a lot "Crowd Funding". As a steel beast occasion community member, i was thinking E-sim bend over backwards for us, and it is much appreciated by us all, and the fact that this list is drawn upon by E-sim to help fill their simulation, would probably be a wet dream to most other simulator/game communities. But I was wondering as we are often thrown the line of "Military contractors/customers come first-and we don't have much spare time afterwards" which i can totally understand and respect, but i was thinking that if we got a list vehicles that we wanted could we fund the projects our self's by a crowd funding campaign, and then by that way we become a customers in that production queue. now i know it isn't that simple but i thought that i would throw a idea stick into the pond and see what ripples come back. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocalypse 31 Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 9 hours ago, desertsaint101 said: Hhhhhmmmm a quick question and thought popped in my mind, and yes it did hurt a lot "Crowd Funding". As a steel beast occasion community member, i was thinking E-sim bend over backwards for us, and it is much appreciated by us all, and the fact that this list is drawn upon by E-sim to help fill their simulation, would probably be a wet dream to most other simulator/game communities. But I was wondering as we are often thrown the line of "Military contractors/customers come first-and we don't have much spare time afterwards" which i can totally understand and respect, but i was thinking that if we got a list vehicles that we wanted could we fund the projects our self's by a crowd funding campaign, and then by that way we become a customers in that production queue. now i know it isn't that simple but i thought that i would throw a idea stick into the pond and see what ripples come back. Unless we can raise $1 million, then good luck getting anything. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK-DDAM Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 just remember nothing is made instantly... as the models take a while to make.. and if they also have other priorities first itll take even longer to do.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nike-Ajax Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 (edited) And that This is a private Company that have to pay their rent, employees, tax etc. So constructive and reasonable wishes that respect's the direction the management of E-sim is leading the company in, has a remarkable bigger chance of becoming a reality..... in that vein: Chinese vehicles as opfor. Ie. Not nodded inside...or North Korean equivalents. In other words to simulate Chinese and north Korean aggression. similarly Iranian equipment for simulating when the war officially breaks out between Iran and the rest of the middle east (including Saudi Arabias brother nation Pakistan) Edited August 13, 2017 by Nike-Ajax 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostdog688 Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 (edited) All I want is some cockpitted version of a t-64. As far as I'm concerned that would compete the set - especially as it could allow (with minor changes) a T80 as well, and would at barrel fired ATGM's to the equation Edited August 13, 2017 by ghostdog688 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 6 minutes ago, ghostdog688 said: All I want is some cockpitted version of a t-64. Ah well that might be hard since AFVs don't have "cockpits" (they belong to funny things with wings and rotors). AFVs have fighting compartments. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisWerb Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 (edited) On 8/13/2017 at 1:54 AM, Apocalypse 31 said: Unless we can raise $1 million, then good luck getting anything. The amount of money that must have gone into SB over the last two decades to give us what we already have is mind boggling. Ssnake gave me a ball park figure once and I wasn't surprised. However much I would love it to happen, I would imagine that modelling the inside of an obsolete Soviet tank that has served with a couple of militaries and took part in one(?) conflict would not be cost effective compared to ongoing work on the fragmentation/damage model and terrain enhancements, which I'm sure are eagerly awaited. I would expect to see new vehicles that are relevant to current military customers take precedence over some historical vehicles that us gamers would really like to see included. Edited August 17, 2017 by ChrisWerb Historical error on my part. :( 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boner Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 i agree at least a default interior would be great ! and wile im here, a MOD controller of some ability just so switching camo types and yadda yadda yadda ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev2go Posted August 19, 2017 Share Posted August 19, 2017 (edited) On 8/13/2017 at 3:07 PM, ghostdog688 said: All I want is some cockpitted version of a t-64. As far as I'm concerned that would compete the set - especially as it could allow (with minor changes) a T80 as well, and would at barrel fired ATGM's to the equation i wish they could instead actually give the crewable T62 Mod 72 one first, and perhaps even improve the T55A Interior as it seems pretty basic. before moving on to a T64. with all the content they have added to SB there still much we would all like to see. Edited August 19, 2017 by Kev2go 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boner Posted August 19, 2017 Share Posted August 19, 2017 On 12/08/2017 at 11:49 AM, desertsaint101 said: Hhhhhmmmm a quick question and thought popped in my mind, and yes it did hurt a lot "Crowd Funding". As a steel beast occasion community member, i was thinking E-sim bend over backwards for us, and it is much appreciated by us all, and the fact that this list is drawn upon by E-sim to help fill their simulation, would probably be a wet dream to most other simulator/game communities. But I was wondering as we are often thrown the line of "Military contractors/customers come first-and we don't have much spare time afterwards" which i can totally understand and respect, but i was thinking that if we got a list vehicles that we wanted could we fund the projects our self's by a crowd funding campaign, and then by that way we become a customers in that production queue. now i know it isn't that simple but i thought that i would throw a idea stick into the pond and see what ripples come back. check out turbo squid at https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d-model-low-poly-t-72/1019897 3D models already for use 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted August 19, 2017 Members Share Posted August 19, 2017 If only it were that easy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev2go Posted August 20, 2017 Share Posted August 20, 2017 (edited) # 3rd party 21 hours ago, Boner said: check out turbo squid at https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d-model-low-poly-t-72/1019897 3D models already for use hmm nice. Wonder what if Esim allowed for 3rd Licensed 3rd party to create vehicles( this would allow Esim to still get a cut of profits), or for Community Content Creators/ modders for new vehicles. Edited August 20, 2017 by Kev2go 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted August 20, 2017 Share Posted August 20, 2017 Pretty sure that idea was raised 18 months ago and maybe 2 years before that. IIRC, apart from quality issues there was the problem of not everyone having that vehicle. Not much point playing a scenario where part way through a Platoon of X comes in and you don't have the X model. Most of this has been spoken about before and Ssnake has patiently explained why some things can't be done. Its his train set, can you let him drive the train. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocalypse 31 Posted August 20, 2017 Share Posted August 20, 2017 2 hours ago, Gibsonm said: Not much point playing a scenario where part way through a Platoon of X comes in and you don't have the X model. Totally unsolvable, mate!? Just kidding. Solved in 100s of other games (DLC), including DCS, MS Flight Simulator, X Plane, IL-2, etc just to name a few. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 8 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said: Totally unsolvable, mate!? Just kidding. Solved in 100s of other games (DLC), including DCS, MS Flight Simulator, X Plane, IL-2, etc just to name a few. As I'm not so much into fly-games. How is it solved there? If you want to play online, and you wingman or your OFOR show up in plane models, that a not installed on your client? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted August 21, 2017 Members Share Posted August 21, 2017 One obvious solution is to roll out every model to everybody, but to suppress the models in the UI unless a suitable license is present. I am not sure however why any consumer would actively want to ask for the DLC system. DLCs have become popular among game developers because they increase revenue. In other words, it's pretty obvious that it is the more cumbersome solution that costs the average player more. At least I as a consumer don't like that salami tactic of selling me one slice at a time when I can have the entire sausage at less than half the price. Also, the ship has sailed. DLCs are an option if designed into the concept from the get-go. Had we made every playable vehicle a separate DLC since Steel Beasts 1 where the only vehicles available to every player were the M1A1 and the Leopard 2A4, it would make sense to keep them in the base package, and then to sell every other vehicle as a separate item. Selling Steel Beasts with everything as it is right now and now starting to sell an individual vehicle would pretty much guarantee that the vehicle would be played by next to nobody. In turn, it would fail to generate the economical incentive for eSim to concentrate more on the addition of playable (vintage) vehicles that the proponentos of a DLC concept seem to hope for. In short, I cannot discern any meaningful advantage for the average Steel Beasts customer, but a lot of disadvantages. I'm not sure if people asking for a transition of our business model have a clear understanding of the consequences for themselves. I probably am not the most genial businessman who ever lived in the computer games sector, but that is only to your advantage. Don't jinx it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocalypse 31 Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 4 hours ago, Grenny said: As I'm not so much into fly-games. How is it solved there? If you want to play online, and you wingman or your OFOR show up in plane models, that a not installed on your client? In DCS, the base game will have the models. Users without the modules just can't fly them. 4 hours ago, Ssnake said: Selling Steel Beasts with everything as it is right now and now starting to sell an individual vehicle would pretty much guarantee that the vehicle would be played by next to nobody That's why DCS has been successful. They have 3rd party developers producing modules. If a module fails then it's no skin off the back of Eagle Dynamics. The risk is for the developers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 Well, except when the module has failed, Eagle Dynamics has had to step in and finish the module themselves. It looks like the WW2 module caused all kinds of issues for ED and their involvement has delayed other development. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bond_Villian Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 Dust clouds from helicopters and rocket artillery would be nice. Also, a list of 'who-owns-what', and the ability to divide units during the planning phase in multiplayer would save a lot of hair pulling. Cheers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted August 21, 2017 Members Share Posted August 21, 2017 4 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said: That's why DCS has been successful. a) DCS is successful (well, it depends on your metrics, but I don't want to be The Incredible Pedantic Man today). b) as to why, I'm not sure if I would attribute it to the system of DLCs. Maybe you have a deeper insight into the business of ED. I however remain skeptical about the proposed causality of their success. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev2go Posted August 22, 2017 Share Posted August 22, 2017 (edited) On 8/20/2017 at 3:07 PM, Gibsonm said: Pretty sure that idea was raised 18 months ago and maybe 2 years before that. IIRC, apart from quality issues there was the problem of not everyone having that vehicle. Not much point playing a scenario where part way through a Platoon of X comes in and you don't have the X model. Most of this has been spoken about before and Ssnake has patiently explained why some things can't be done. Its his train set, can you let him drive the train. No it would make sense. your jsut thinking of it the wrong way. Players would see X model, but merely would be able to physically control from crew roles. Just via map for eg. Purchasing it would allow you to physically crew it with fully detailed interiors and modeled FCS as other ESim vehicles. simple. Who owns what wouldnt be an issue Really as there are still many standard models from ESim to chose from and custom content that could still be left to AI command or physically ordered via Map. Edited August 22, 2017 by Kev2go 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.