thewood
-
Posts
482 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Forums
Events
Downloads
Articles
Everything posted by thewood
-
t-55 Steel Beasts Beginner's Guide - Discussion Thread
thewood replied to Ssnake's topic in Tutorials and How Tos
Personal opinion on a follow up video is maybe on settings. A more detailed explanation on all the video, display, and audio settings in the game. Might also be the place to set expectations on graphical performance. -
t-55 Steel Beasts Beginner's Guide - Discussion Thread
thewood replied to Ssnake's topic in Tutorials and How Tos
No problem. I think that video is a great start to helping new buyers. My opinion is that when a game needs to have numerous online help sessions just to get it installed, either the entire new game experience needs to be changed or we need a lot more VERY basic videos for users that are very prominently linked to in the docs. Yours is a great start. -
[Website Recommendation] 4.1 Scenarios and Downloads Section
thewood replied to Apocalypse 31's topic in Support
I agree with this. Its sometimes frustrating trying to find scenarios with available maps. -
t-55 Steel Beasts Beginner's Guide - Discussion Thread
thewood replied to Ssnake's topic in Tutorials and How Tos
Relative to other games, its not. Some of the basic complications...codemeter, map files download and location, split between documents folder and program folder and program data folder, multiple download files, etc. All of these get somewhat mitigated through the manual and help on the forums, but lets not call it simple. Simple is a one click download and start on Steam. And that is becoming the benchmark for gamers. For people that frequent the forum, it seems easy because we have seen the evolution and progression of why these steps are needed. But from someone that doesn't know how to find a basic folder on a PC and is used to clicking install on a DVD or Steam, this game is quite a bit more complicated to install. Again, I know why its like this, and so do most of the people that frequent this board. But to someone who saw a video on youtube and wants to buy the game. The video is great and is much needed. I just want to point out that referring to the process is simple might be a little demeaning to someone new to the process. -
Search can be your friend sometimes...
-
Saw this last night. Maybe old news by now. https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/97330-dcs-roadmap-unofficial-no-discussion-here/?do=findComment&comment=4511508 Noted this; "Combined Arms 2 is on hold, all devs are busy elsewhere"
-
I meant having units advance and seek cover when under fire, retreat under fire, formations, etc. CM and SB both do some of that. The player had to sit on top of every unit and make them respond and adjust.
-
This is how I remember it. I was always kind of shocked at how poor the graphics were. I'm sure in the three years since I tried it, its been updated, but at that time, there was almost no control over how infantry, and some vehicles, travelled and engaged infantry. If the AI had been more than just go there and shoot, I could have lived with it. But there seemed to be no way to set infantry and vehicles to respond to threats, other than shoot at it.
-
To me, CA doesn't seem to know what it is. It still seems more like the units in CA are only a step above being ground targets. It looks pretty, but is kind of shallow. My biggest gripe and why I gave up was the lack of any intelligence in the AI and no scripting available to compensate. Might have changed since then, but thats what I left with. I got more playing around with ARMA3. But it was an immense amount of work and AI with vehicles was poor.
-
I played around with Combined Arms a bit and found infantry got a very short shrift. This was a couple years ago and felt it was just one step above World of Tanks also. I have a hard time seeing it as a replacement for SB in either the semi-realistic modern combined arms realm or as a tank combat simulator.
-
I have my main Steel Beasts folder in D:\eSims Games\SB Pro PE\Release. The SBProPE64cm.exe is in D:\eSims Games\SB Pro PE\Release. You can also just do a search on SBProPE64 on whatever drive.
-
I guess there's not going to any "listening" posts for the AI.
-
Started with a T-55 running a track on one side of hill and a scout team 200m on the other side of the hill. No contact or movement from the scouts. Tried changing the tactics from none, to hold, to defend, to guard. No difference. Moved the scouts to just below the crest and still nothing. Tried postures and facings just to make sure. btw, I could hear the T-55 while taking over the scouts.
-
OK, will try again. I was looking for a contact report and didn't see one.
-
Does the AI recognize sound only contacts? I did a search on the site in the manual and couldn't find it mentioned. I tried simulating it by having a tank drive full speed back and forth behind a hill with an infantry team on the other side. No reports on sound or dust were seen. Maybe I just have to run it longer.
-
Hey, learn something every day. I never knew that.
-
I can run MSFS in fullscreen and be able to move the mouse around freely to other screens. I know Command Modern Operations does it as well. Doesn't help with SB, but other games can do it.
-
I have mentioned this before about the 5 sec. replay rate for the AAR reply function. I requested possibly having a more granular replay for the player. I have been playing around with FlightControlReplay for FSX and noticed the option on replay granularity. This is the option I'd like to see in Steel Beasts. Let the player decide if the trade off between replay granularity and file size.
-
Bigger map selection like in old pro versions
thewood replied to Swordsmandk's topic in Scenario and Maps
That sounds simplified. -
If you want to make money playing a tank game, its World of Tanks or maybe War Thunder. 1.5M views over two years. I bet a million of them were in the first month. That number of views is worth thousands of US dollars. For a video on the Hetzer.
-
My only thought on that comment is that you are in no way obligated to sit on Teamspeak waiting for someone that you gave with a generous , yet unsolicited offer of help to. If you sat on Teamspeak for two hours waiting for someone with an unsolicited offer of help, that's an issue with your time management. You sound upset at that and if you are continuing to head into a dark place over the unappreciative responses you are getting to those offers, you might want to reconsider not making those offers. Even outside that, continuing to offer that kind of help is letting the devs off of the hook in being responsible for onboarding of new players. The other path is for the devs to go the Command Modern Operations route and just tell new players that this game is hard, the topic is hard, the documentation is going to be extensive, but the expectation is that you'll have to do a little work to get proficient and find the help. But be up front about it and don't come into the forums to tell players that you want to simplify the game for new players, while at the same time, expecting the community to lift those players. btw, it appears the ignore button no longer functions, or am I missing something.
-
I was pretty much able to guess that. And to a developer with years of experience in building installers, that makes sense. But my point comes back to that is an incredibly confusing download page. And, yes, people should be reading the release notes. But instead of the constant refrains to new players to get on teamspeak to help them, maybe a few simple re-thinks on how new players learn and approach the game.
-
People should read the release notes. But to be a little more fair, the install process to play scenarios that come with the game is a little unusual. On the download page you encounter a relatively lengthy list of downloads: 1 release note file that is mandatory to know how to install everything. 1 Map transfer manager 10 Map installer files 1 Legacy Map installer 6 4.167 game files That's not even including mentions of renamed packages, references to torrents, the long list of error-checking codes, etc. Again, if you know your way around the internet and PCs, a manageable task. But, IIRC, the devs were asking about simplification for newer and more inexperienced players. I think this fits nicely into that category.
-
Wargaming companies know that if they call it operational, they lose a specific audience. If they call it "grand" tactical, they can bring in people that think they want a tactical game, and even people more inclined to an operational-level game. And as was stated in the interview, the companies think that by adding grand to the category, they can get away from armor facing, which adds a level of complication to programming.
-
And my point is don't make commitments and then get snarky about the hype train that you, as a dev, helped create. People can give previews, ask for dates, speculate, hype it up however they want. But the dev is in here complaining about the hype train in a thread built to be the lead engine on the hype train. No one ever forced the devs to give an estimated date. When they do, its like walking on egg shells to ask if they are going to hit that a timeframe. If the devs could hit just one commitment on the first shot, I would personally feel a little less jaded. But I am not sure they have ever hit one initial timeframe. Someone comes in and tries to put a little humor around it and the main dev rep gets edgy in his response. Going back to my original point. If you don't want people to post jokes about the ability to hit even two-month timeframes, either don't commit to them or hit them. Its probably a wash whether people would bail on the game either because you can't hit dates or you don't communicate them. Either way, the dev's internal development process is the issue here, not some poor guy who thought he was being funny.
