Leaderboard

Uh well, I'd be happy with an option to shot handweapons (esp. AT-handweapons)...and some more fortification types for infantry. Things cool to have and making the sim more "combined-arms'y". Whenever it is possible to techically do~ and priorisation allows it ...

For all you Americans here I wish you a happy Thanksgiving. Go easy on the dining (as if that's going to happen). Tomorrow this time, expect a new video on the Steel Beasts Channel on Youtube.

The point is, if you want to model combined arms combat...it just helps when modelling all arms as good as possible. In this setting tanks never work without infantry and infantry (should) not work without the tanks. When you want to do that in multi player also, the infantry should be attractive to play...not only the tanks. or else...why would anyone man the infantry part??(and believe me, that is a big problem) And its highly frustrating if you place infantry in a perfect spot, only for them to never take the shot...without any indication for you on why that is. Would you find playing tanks attractive, if you have no control on when /if they are going to engage?

Identifying an issue and actually doing something about it is not always easy. RPGs were implemented in SB Pro with no ballistic trajectory whatsoever (we were young, and didn't know better, and the programmer who wrote the original code decided to retire with comparatively little forewarning in 2012; took me a moment to assemble a new team and get things under control). We now need to research the properties of almost 40 different missiles, all of which are, well, rockets, and therefore require a partially non-ballistic trajectory (so yes, this is, literally, rocket science). In most cases, the data are either hard to find or classified, and we have essentially collected everything that's relatively easy to find. From this we will now have to estimate parameter sets for each missile, develop a proper model, and then also teach the AI how to aim these things. And of course there's a lot of other work to do. It's much easier to point out that you "said so years ago" than to actually do something about it. We are doing it. That you aren't happy with the speed of progress is something I have to learn to live with. I have never sugar coated shortcomings of the simulation, and been about as open and honest about matters as I possibly could be. The implicit flip side of the deal is that I would be delighted if we could discuss the matter without slipping into sarcasm, because it accomplishes nothing but to make everybody feel worse, and go defensive on matters in general, so it's more of a hindrance than a motivation to change things for the better.

Sweet. Let me know when the next annual conceptual SB Infantry discussion occurs.

tbh, I'd go with "working" or "sensable" ballistics if necessary Was it De Gaulle(???) Patton who said: "The biggest enemy of a good plan, is the (endless)search for the perfect one." 😉

...yes that is true. But maschine guns don't do much against AFV, or help taking out positions in building etc etc etc Just for comparsion: it is like controlling a tank where you can't use the MG or the main gun... 😉 Anyway, this thread by me is not a general criticism of the software. It still is one of the best tank/AFV and to an extent combined arms game around. And from what I understand, the developers have every intent to make even the infantry better and more useable(and have really come a long way in doing so)...but its a question of resources of getting verything fixed.

I'd call it a "fake choice", as the base problem still remains (you described it pretty well) In fact this "shoot at.." command frustrates me even more, as in 90% of the cases they will do the up-down clowning till finally the OPFOR decides to put them out of their misery

The biggest thing lacking for infantry in this sim is fortifications. Specifically ones that can withstand artillery bombardments. But a "shoot rocket here" or crosshair for RPGs or RRPGs (even if they fly in straight line) would be much more welcome now as a "here is a workaround until we can fix it" thing. Like has been done with the map engine. I actually feel we've gone a bit backwards with that one. Certainly the choice of maps avaliable has gotten smaller. And most of the ones we have now are "rough" versions of the old maps anyway. But that's for a different thread.

Analysis is paralysis - and that seems like it is totally, 100% self inflicted by.......you. At what point is abstraction acceptable? This isn't a flight sim where some weirdo is going to suddenly show blast the game because the velocity of the [INSERT OBSCURE RPG ROUND] is represented in game with a velocity that is .05% higher than its real life projectile. You guys literally modeled manual-fire 40mm HE handheld rounds just fine. Nobody is complaining about that... I don't know much about rocket science but I do know there HERE and NOW: the in-game infantry is LACKING.

Not so much a "but"...more an "if"

That proposal of manually shooting AT weapons has been mentioned for years. Glad to see we are still at the "it would be nice... BUT" stage.

26 NOV 2021: Brush Fire-Town Dispute-UN-4268-MAD If we don't have enough then we will do something smaller. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes. Random CO selection? Yes. Minimum # players: 10-12 (4-5 vs 4-5 vs 2-3) NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.

An entity enumeration translation table can get the issue of different entity IDs done, but of course someone has to write that table. That's the part where most integrators either take a step back or charge lots of dollars because it means hard work. It's not just about truck vs tank. It goes to the level of the individual projectile: It's a cal .50 round, all right ... but SLAP, M8, M2, or M33, or...? The performance can vary significantly, provided that you have a sufficiently detailed model of weapons effects and target vulnerability. If one simulation is energy based and the other operates with hit points, well, no translation is possible because there simply is no direct representation of either model in the other simulation. While we're at it, entity enumerations is one thing. But you'd also like to correlate life forms (a donkey in simulation A shouldn't be a duck in sim B), and postures (is the human life form in a prone position, aiming from a kneel, or running upright?) At the moment, bringing multiple simulations into the same exercise requires an unreasonable amount of effort for comparatively little gain in training outcomes. The technology is there, in principle. But is it economically viable? That depends entirely on how much money you're willing to shell out for small gains in outcomes, and the question must be allowed if those same dollars wouldn't yield a higher return if invested into something else. So, as long as the federation of different simulation systems is cumbersome and low in training effect yield, it's not happening in practice. eSim Games wouldn't be the obstacle if a customer were serious about the matter, but the reality is that it would require the cooperation of companies who are effectively competitors in a rather small market.

yeah lets all get vbs.... will only cost youu 4500 euro a year for a civie license

Well you can if you have the budget and the gear. "All" you have to do is: 1. Have a machine running SB Pro PE. 2. Have a machine running VBS (can't speak about ARMA). 3. Identical terrain on both simulations (resolution, object attributes, etc., not just one running SB Pro PE's Map X and VBS running Bohemia's Map X) usually provided by a Common Terrain Database (potentially another box). 4. Identical ID numbers, e.g. if object 2468 in SB Pro is a tank and object 2468 in VBS is a truck then it gets messy. Again likely requiring a Common Database. 5. Identical armour and weapon modelling so that Infantry weapons have valid effects in SB Pro PE and vice versa. 6. A black box in between to do the HLA / DIS coversion. This is why you can't just slap it together for a LAN party.

Horror for russian and chinese NAVY. https://www.instagram.com/tv/CWog_JjhHvj/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link Russian SOF targeting Syrian militants. https://www.instagram.com/reel/CWtdXNOoN2y/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link Russia added caged armour over their tank to protect them against Turkish Mam-L and Mam-C missiles which is fired from Turkish UAVs

Absolutely not. It was the name of a fictional place, and the map itself more of a technology demonstrator. Mostly, the option for custom buildings and other map objects is something that our military customers use to create geospecific terrain databases. One of the maps in preparation is of "the German NTC" - the GÜZ Altmark with its central urban combat village "Schnöggersburg". You'll see there that all the buildings in that village have their individual floor plans, and of course, Steel Beasts not being a first person shooter, that in itself will only have limited appeal. Nevertheless, each building has the correct location, footprint, and elevation, so it's not the worst representation of the training site. Our customers often want to see a certain area of interest represented with building models that serve as a landmark for orientation, and that requires substantially different workflow processes than how maps are usually made for SB Pro PE, which are not only designed for functionality but also, within the limitations of what our engine allows, beauty.

If our AI would faithfully replicate what one of the crews in one of my platoons did on a regular basis, everybody would assume that eSim Games is wholly incompetent. But the truth is, you don't always have "Top. Men." (to quote the ending of the original Indiana Jones movie).