inexus

If the only thing you play is sbpro then I suggest you may save some money by buying an older GPU. But if you have any interest in any other games and future games then consider the nvidia 10* series of cards. A 1060 as Ssnake suggest is a good middle ground. I'm running a 2080TI, 9900KF@5ghz and the game is very CPU limited and has little time to refresh the screen. As soon as units start driving the fps drops a fair bit.

- Increase the max size of maps - preferably unlimited. - Ability to change (or simply make) the line for routes thicker (hard to see on higher resolutions). - shortcut: When creating a route have a sub menu for selecting the formation at the same time (instead of having to find the small triangle and set it there each time). - Improve path logic so that vehicles no longer trying to drown themselves each time they see a bit of water

Did you snap your route to the road? It will ensure you make your vehicles follow the correct path.

Not sure what the difference is. I've seen a few people having this issue in various applications so I'm not sure if it is tied to the CPU model or similar. I'm running an I7 5820K. I re-installed the patch again and the same issue is happening again.

Installed update yesterday. Following when launching SB it wouldn't load (black screen for a couple of seconds and then back to the desktop). Uninstalled the update and SB would load again. Details on content of the update: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4512508/windows-10-update-kb4512508 Crash dump below for the error:

My suggestions were intended as constructive ideas to enhance the base offering of SB to provide more realism and immersion. Your reply shows why people give up being part of this community if anything about SB that isn’t 100% positive.

I am not referring to 4K. I think it is safe to say that 1440 is more standard these days. SB doesn't run anywhere near any normal framerate on any modern PC, so I don't understand the argument that it runs well on older machines unless it is with reducing every single graphics setting to minimal With 'at work' does it refer to military usage of PCs? If that's the case then the funding model is quite different

Hehe, yeah I'm trying to start on textures now. I will see if there are some websites that already have these (without copyright issues of course) and can be brought across to steel beasts. I watched the tutorial from ToyguyVT which is a starting point for missions.

Thank you guys! Now I just need to practise how to make the textures. I really think when playing at higher resolutions the default skins look very ‘blurry’ which I’m guessing is because of their lower resolution..

Really nice screenshots mate. I think quite a lot can be done by our community to improve the perception of steel beasts and draw in new players. - more photos that brings out the good looking features of steel beasts: I find googling for steel beasts often being up older photos. - new single player missions to replace to existing ones: The missions seem quite old and perhaps they are using older and not refreshed maps. I found that only be go through map after map I started to find some good looking maps and went like ‘wow, steel beasts can actually look good’. Also a good theme makes a big difference. - new higher resolution skins for the vehicles for download: the existing skins appear to still be made for the days when everybody were using 1080p; this isn’t what most people use today. - allow us to import new static structures into the maps: The details to maps can be greatly enhanced through this. Perhaps can be part of the new delta map approach to pull in custom assets. Sorry for a long reply but I feel much can be done to improve and promote steel beasts and get new players and thereby more business for esims. A win-win

Is it possible to increase the texture resolution by modding the textures for say vehicles? I tried increasing a dds file for the challenger from 1024x1024 to 2048x2048 and it appeared to be rendered correctly.

Changing the resolution has almost no impact (at least if your gpu is not fully utilised at 4K which is my case). I provided screenshots earlier to demonstrate the difference in resolutions. In the weekend I tested the same scenario with differences in cpu speed. 4.4, 4.0 and 3.5ghz. I measured only a minor difference in FPS. Based on extrapolation of this data I believe that a scenario with say 30 FPS today on a 4.4ghz cpu may be 4-5 frames faster running at 5ghz. For me ‘playable’ in a pro means at least 40+ FPS. In any other sim/game I go for 60 FPS. An interesting thing is that going to the map view often brings back a good improvement of FPS so it feels like the cpu is still doing a fair amount of the graphics.

After having reading people's results and I've tested a large number of different scenarios it seems unlikely that a descent framerate can be achieved even on the fastest overclocked CPUs and GPUs today unless the missions are fairly small in terms of landscape complexity and units. I've given up the idea of upgrading to a 9900K@5Ghz as I only think it would provide a few more fps. It's really hard to poinpoint what is causing the slowdown. I had a scenario where changing ground cover from 44 to 45 would make the fps drop 10 frames from 40 to 30. If i reverted the value to 44 it would go back up to 40...