Mirzayev

High pass filters cut low-end frequencies, allowing the highs to "pass." Low pass filters cut high-end frequencies, allowing the lows to "pass." These are normally used during music production, to "clean up a mix" by getting rid of unwanted low and high frequencies. With creating a radio sound, what you are doing is narrowing the output frequency to make it more within the mid-range, giving you more of a lo-fi radio sound. You'll have a much more aggressive cutoff for frequencies on the low and high end. You'll get something like this without much effort: Obviously, it works a lot better with a good voice actor who can "sell" what he is saying.

I can't speak for number 1. The Map Stick is so customers have an alternative way of getting all of the map files without having to download them. Different parts of the world have varying levels of internet infrastructure, and downloading large, multi-gig files is not always feasible. To my understanding, all of this content is downloadable.

I would definitely be interested.

Even still, it is the first time I have seen the reconnaissance fight given appropriate emphasis in a single-player scenario without the entire scenario having a recon TO&E. It makes it very manageable for the player, and prevents the recon from being a "throw-away" asset. It was a very innovative way to "force" the player to conduct an area reconnaissance, without seeming artificial or heavy-handed.

I'll be out of this one. Enjoying leave.

Here is a list of what I typically look for, not necessarily in order. 1. The mission designer clearly stating what you need to do to be successful. This can be in OPORD format, narrative, etc. It doesn't really matter as long as I know what I, as a player, need to do. 2. A task organization that makes sense for the mission size, and is grounded in the real world. Throwing tank platoons at a player can get unwieldy, quickly. You probably don't need seven companies worth of "stuff" to conduct a movement to contact against a company-seized element. 3. Interesting terrain. I love missions set on arid maps because that particular terrain theme is used so rarely. Additionally, having terrain that supports more than one solution encourages replayability. 4. A sense of tension. The reason action in Steel Beasts is so effective for me is the release of tension after finally coming into contact with the enemy. Give some uncertainty to the enemy's position, and make the player find them. 5. Replayability. I love when mission designers give the enemy multiple Courses of Action. You can replay the same mission numerous times and always encounter a different scenario. 6. "Something Different." In @Panzer_Leader's scenario Combat Team Advance at Woodhill, you start with just the recon platoon, and must answer the Commander's Priority Intelligence Requirements prior to having the rest of the Company "released" to your control. This is an example of "something different" that makes a mission unique. Generally, if most of these elements are present, I will enjoy the mission. Realism depends on the situation. It is realistic to have a tank platoon as a reserve. It is not fun if in a two hour multiplayer game, said tank platoon sits out of contact for a full 1 hour and 40 minutes prior to being committed. It is a delicate balance, and one where I will generally sacrifice realism for the fun of the group.

@Ssnake and @Volcano, I recommend splitting parts of this thread to maintain the original focus. I think this is going well beyond productive, on all sides.

Since when did providing reasons for not liking a YouTube video turn into "lashing out?" It doesn't take an entire week to make a quality video. Check yourself, bro.

At the risk of further complicating this thread (perhaps merge all the Matsimus stream comments into a separate thread?) @matsimus I did not like your stream. Here are my reasons why. 1. You are lacking on the fundamentals of maneuvering and fighting your vehicle. I got it, you haven't played Steel Beasts since at least February of this year (date is based on your last published video using Steel Beasts). However, there is a reasonable expectation from the community that if you are going to showcase a game, you need to have some level of proficiency. This is also taking into account that in the past, you have advertised that you will give your viewers exclusive access to tactics, techniques, and procedures in Steel Beasts if they support you with a specific dollar amount on Patreon. I know this is no longer your policy. I won't comment on tactics; seizing urban terrain is a very complex process which will produce a high level of casualties. Even with a fully manned Company in multiplayer, even the best of the community can still muck it up. 2. The stream did not do a good job of promoting Steel Beasts in a positive light. The low FPS is of course an obvious, but blaring issue. Whether you intended to or not, thousands of viewers' "first look" at Steel Beasts version 4.1 will be seeing footage of what they may perceive as a non-optimized mess. 3. It seemed rushed. Your (admitted) lack of preparation, combined with not testing the scenario for performance before streaming, nor seeking help for any issues from the community, culminated in something that was not enjoyable to watch. While you make the point that the stream was meant to promote the game itself, other members of the Steel Beasts community (to include the creator himself) and I have the impression, wrong though it may be, that you were rushing to try to be the "first" to stream 4.1 gameplay. I'm not a fan of non-constructive criticism. Therefor, I offer the following advice on how you could improve for your next video featuring Steel Beasts. 1. Hit the tank range, hard! Whenever I feel myself getting sloppy during any multiplayer matches, I'll make it a point to refresh on the fundamentals of gunnery. I train until I cannot get less than a 100% accuracy rating with an average time-to-kill of 8 seconds or less. This takes time, so you may want to try for something like a 90% accuracy rating with an average time-to-kill of 10 seconds or less if you don't have more than an hour to train on the gunner range. That is definitely doable. Also, refresh your understanding of tactics. Play some Camp Hornfelt scenarios again, then graduate to Tank Platoon in Attack, and Tank Company in Attack by @Zipuli. After that, try some scenarios by @Panzer_Leader, like Combat Team Advance at Woodhill 1994, or Attack on Stadthagen by @Apocalypse 31. Hell, you could record yourself playing these, and highlight some of the Steel Beasts community's creations. 2. I will never publish a video of me playing a single-player Steel Beasts scenario without having tested it at least one time. I know that my specific audience doesn't want to spend time watching me make easily preventable mistakes. Your audience may be different, I don't know. However, if I was testing a beta version of Steel Beasts, and having your love and respect for the community, I would absolutely want to make sure that I am presenting the latest update (that many are excited for) in as positive a light as I possibly could. Messaging is the key here. If your purpose is to bring Steel Beasts to a wider audience, show and tell them WHY they are justified in buying it, and present footage that MAKES them want to give it a try. 3. I understand the live nature of streams versus the much more controlled published videos. Live doesn't always follow the script, and there is a light more inherent spontaneity. Don't be rushed to push out a video to be the "first;" don't rush to failure. Train to a suitable level of proficiency, select a scenario, preferably one that you have played or tested at least once, that showcases what you want to show to your viewers. You can always modify scenarios to include new vehicles from 4.1, and this gives the added bonus of hi-lighting a scenario designer from the community who spent hours, even days, ensuring that his creation was the best that it could possibly be. If you need any help with any of the above points, I'm sure that the community will be happy to help. I can help you with your tactics, if you wish. Just let me know. *Ahem* Now, on to other matters. @Wolfseven Unless you happen to have a direct psychic link with @Apocalypse 31, I would not be so hasty to dismiss everything that he has said as being "just jealous." Many of his points are shared by members of the Steel Beasts community, whether you agree with them or not.

@Gibsonm Sorry, I think I used the wrong word. "Sample Library" might be more appropriate. Something similar to an audition; you read some standard script in whatever language you are proficient in, and that can be used by mission designers to select what type of voice actor they want. You probably don't want someone with a heavy British accent to voice an American Tank Platoon Leader, for example.

I would definitely not recommend trying to "build" dialogue this way. Unless you are VERY good at audio production, it'll sound strange, and unnatural. Think the computer generated voices from the original ARMA (10 o'clock, rifleman at 300 meters!) Probably the best option would be to just ask for voice actors, give them a script of what you want them to say, and go from there. Obviously, there may be quality issues with variances in microphones used, etc, but if you are making everything sound lo-fi, like on an FM radio, it shouldn't matter too much. There could be a repository of "samples" for voice actors, if there is a large number who want to offer their services. Honestly though, I don't know if the number of voice actors on SteelBeasts.com warrants that, as compared to something like Newgrounds.

Shoulda sent a beta to me. Yeah, not too impressive on the FPS front.

Ah, the RUBA. I can already feel the fatigue and stress coming on. 🤮