Jump to content
Azure Lion

Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

Recommended Posts

On 3/12/2017 at 5:52 PM, Marko said:

I think we would all like the complete SB stable to be playable but its not really a realistic option there's just to many Vehicles

As per my other post about turret interiors, yes eye candy is nice but IMO give me Substance over style anytime. 

 

 

no i disagree, detailed interiors are necessary for a tank sim in a similar fashion Detail for cockpits and instruments panels are important for Aircraft sim like DCS.  Don't confuse Overall graphics for detail. detail to interior model can make or break a sim. especially when at least some portions interior parts  of many of the tanks are clickable. Gives a very necessary  immersive experience for a Sim like this .looking at the quality of the other tank interiors like the M1, Leopard, M60a3, and T72 series. Yes despite the age of the Steel beasts graphics they still have very good detail to interior model.

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kev2go So if, say, the BRDM2-AT was crew-able without interiors (just optics and commanders peri/ unbutton view etc)-then you wouldnt use it? I guess that would be your prerogative, but personally id love to see more of the existing vehicles get more functionality, with or without detailed interiors. More is better than less!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/3/2017 at 0:16 PM, Bond_Villian said:

@Kev2go So if, say, the BRDM2-AT was crew-able without interiors (just optics and commanders peri/ unbutton view etc)-then you wouldnt use it? I guess that would be your prerogative, but personally id love to see more of the existing vehicles get more functionality, with or without detailed interiors. More is better than less!

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Major duck said:

+1

+2 Especially BRDM-AT and Technicals - preferably also  some with dismounts, DShK/NSV/Kord, Metis/Kornet etc. as well as M40.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:DFor me.

The TAPV as a new vehicle, with the twin M-151 Protector RWS sys. and the ability to form 8 car troops instead of the 6 car limit we have now.

Edited by hussar11
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 to being able to have more than 6 vehicles per troop. Would make creating HQ / CSS / Support and non-standard units much easier. Would also save having to use multiple callsign templates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, hussar11 said:

:DFor me.

The TAPV as a new vehicle, with the twin M-151 Protector RWS sys. and the ability to form 8 car troops instead of the 6 car limit we have now.

 

+1 to both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ability to scale tree density in the Mapeditor. Would be good to adjust forests between "tank slowing" and "tank Obstacle"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Grenny said:

Ability to scale tree density in the Mapeditor. Would be good to adjust forests between "tank slowing" and "tank Obstacle"

This!
We have forest here in Sweden (And FINLAND for sure) where the trees are so thick between them a tank or IFV cant go there. So yeah we can do the same "stuff" right now in mixing with terrain theme but the thick threes also affect LOS and that is a plus I want. not having tanks shooting right through a forest you shouldnt be able to see through.

 

/KT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A "spawn if" condition for the extra bridges you can add on the map, so you can spawn them when a friendly truck have arrived instead of them just laying there behind enemy lines, which looks odd...

/KT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Kingtiger said:

A "spawn if" condition for the extra bridges you can add on the map, so you can spawn them when a friendly truck have arrived instead of them just laying there behind enemy lines, which looks odd...

/KT

Or better: truck transporting the bridge elements.

While we are at the engineers: I'd like to the M3 modelled with all options...use 1 or 2 as a ferry...or a chain of em as bridge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

Spawn If for minefields. 

Or Scorpion mine-layers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Radio/ Comms Man in a squad . Losing him will result in Loss of comms for the Inf squad.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ashdivay said:

Radio/ Comms Man in a squad . Losing him will result in Loss of comms for the Inf squad.

 

Would need to be set in the scenario editor as opposed to global as most current soldiers have "personal comms" not so much the old 1 x radio per Section or Platoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2017 at 4:05 PM, Gibsonm said:

 

Would need to be set in the scenario editor as opposed to global as most current soldiers have "personal comms" not so much the old 1 x radio per Section or Platoon.

what if we do old equip. scenarios ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hence the idea of it being set in the scenario editor as opposed to global.

 

If old equipment turn it "on" (i.e have a dedicated radio guy), if new equipment turn it "off" to reflect the fact that soldiers now carry personal comms and don't necessarily rely on a dedicated guy with the radio.

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering if this should be a feature of the 'camouflage' selection of a specific party (so something that's an intrinsic feature rather than an explicit setting). Or mabye a combination of 'camouflage' and 'mission date' (so, just to throw out some ideas, a 1970s 'US camo' unit would not have individual radios, while one featured in '2010' scenario would have it..)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well sure but that then puts the burden back on the developer to track which nationalities had what sort of comms system when.

 

The scenario editor option gives the choice to the scenario designer and also allows flexibility to reflect say the section from the 70s that have lost their radio (although you could replicate that by "damaging" the radio I guess).

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Real update of commander screen with all zoom levels when in general 3D cockpit view in Leopard 2E and 2A5. Right now we can access full zoom if we press the key to see fully the screen.

Also in the Abrams.

And also rendering of periscope windows in CV90 when general cockpit view. Also it only renders when access the view.

 

In general try to match correct functionalities of instruments and view windows inside the general view of commander cockpit. It give is a better perspective of battle with trackir.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2017 at 6:16 AM, Bond_Villian said:

@Kev2go So if, say, the BRDM2-AT was crew-able without interiors (just optics and commanders peri/ unbutton view etc)-then you wouldnt use it? I guess that would be your prerogative, but personally id love to see more of the existing vehicles get more functionality, with or without detailed interiors. More is better than less!

 

 

no , imo quantity is not better then quality. you need to understnad that in most cases detailed interiors tie into functionality. Many of these vehicles have clickable functions, and in some cases have things like laser Displays or other features that wouldnt be there if it were just Gunner sight, and commander periscope, it part of  a better simulation experience and much more immersive.

 

otherwise if i thought that way and did not care for interiors,  may as well just play DCS : combined arms.

Edited by Kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

no , imo quantity is not better then quality. you need to understnad that in most cases detailed interiors tie into functionality. Many of these vehicles have clickable functions, and in some cases have things like laser Displays or other features that wouldnt be there if it were just Gunner sight, and commander periscope, it part of  a better simulation experience and much more immersive.

 

otherwise if i thought that way and did not care for interiors,  may as well just play DCS : combined arms.

Why do you say that?

I prefer to have a wide selection of vehicles available and I don't care if they have playable crew positions or not. I use Steel Beasts without using those positions and enjoy it immensely. I have never played DCS : combined arms, but a quick look at their web page gives me the feeling of inferiority to Steel Beasts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Kev2go said:

in most cases detailed interiors tie into functionality. Many of these vehicles have clickable functions, and in some cases have things like laser Displays or other features that wouldnt be there if it were just Gunner sight

 

That is probably true for modern equipment, but older stuff like the Scorpion, AMX13, PT76 etc, not so much.

 Also, i think the CR2 in SB is a good example of a modern vehicle that is playable with very little switchology. (which can be added over time as information becomes available)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...can we just agree that this is a case if differing preferences. No amount of text will change that and is basicly a waste of time...

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

×