Japo32

Don't worry I saw my mistake. Was opening the map editor, not the mission editor. Sorry.

I have a problem with the system. I installed the maps in a D drive as I didn't have any space in the Documents\eSim Games\Steel Beasts\My Scenarios C folder. There I have my old sceneries, and when I try to load them they say that I have to convert the maps. So I go to the editor and click load in the blanc one, but as I have the maps in the D drive, then I cannot load any old SCE file. Even I copy them into where the maps are. There is no option to choose from another location the sce files. Even I installed the 4-0_Benchmark_for_4-1.sce in the Documents\eSim Games\Steel Beasts\My Scenarios folder and when I enter the single user area it says this: https://gyazo.com/25ec6979953d48f0294f0e14de173ce9 and the query or download buttons don't find the map.

July, but First, middle or end of it?

Me? Really just implement it and people would be able to lock the axis in Trackir if they don't want to clip through the objects. I have been 20 years?? flying with trackir and the "walls" feature was introduced by very little airplanes. Never had an issue about the view went outside of the cockpit. I managed and calibrated the trackir device to move very confortable. In Steelbeast what I could use it for? First for access those switches that I cannot see clearly and are behind any 3D part. I know I can put hotkeys on them or I can use the Zoom-pan function, but is so unconfortable, compared to use the Trackir with the pan axis. Also to look to the periscopes and block windows more confortable. I could continue hours and hours typing about the benefit of using all the axis in Trackir, like you could open the gate to VR in future, for example. But I think the most important is that anyone can block their axis movements if they would just like to leave the motion as it is right now; and others could make it better. Give freedom to users. Also another issue I remember about trackir is in Leopard (or Abrams, don't remember quite well) when not "zoomed in" the commanders computer displays, we cannot manage the motion of the tower. We have to zoom in and then once "zoomed-Centered" in that "2D" screen, we can work with it. If we could manage the display in the "3D-outzoom" position, then we could glance fast through block visions also in cases we need to. And all with the move of the head and the joystick to manage the tower or give orders to the shooter. So yes, I would say that now and later for sure.

of course. No problem with that. Just was asking. But with that said... will the terrains made from users the option to include their terrain data also? Of course size will increase from them, but we can choose to install or not of course. Thanks. Pd: I know I ask crazy "stupid" things.. but if you could implement all the trackir axis would be great for looking around better inside tanks. We deal with the clipping problem. Don't worry.

As said.. Outterra does it.. creating those "imperfections" by fractal, the real elevations in the grid.. and I think does it pretty well, with the real full world data. Of course SteelBeast will do it good also, but are different valid aproximations to the same problem and that is the reason I asked about the content of that data. This video from 2010:

If I remember well... the 5m resolution of all the earth for FSX was 23GB or so. Of course is 5m. I understand of course 70cm resolution is too much and that would take more GB for the full planet, and that you have to make the as "the real thing" because is for training of real forces in exercices. But, there is also the videogame part. You chose what you chose, but you could also make not realistic aproximation, giving fractal solutions to the terrain with a real based terrain. Also Earth is flat in several parts of the world, so you could have that data compress. This is an aproximation as Wav and Mp3 (well not the same but is good for me). Less data stored but almost same quality. I have 2 civil flight simulators with all the world and all the data I have fits in my "little" hard drives. For example.. you could have chosen the method of terrain as it is in Outerra, where it downloads the content from the net, of the area the camera is in... And I feel Outerra is very realistic in terrain definition. Even they have the craters generation as 4.1 has now: http://www.outerra.com/

One more question. The 16GB data map, is for full earth elevations? I mean.. we have the hability of choose and make any map portion of the Earth we want... so I don't understand what is inside that 16GB data downloaded (maybe more once installed)

I didn't know that. But Scenerio editor won't reveal the enemy? if that is the case it is not useless for me. Also the multiplayer sessions are played in normal play mode, so we wouldn't have the repeat option at full FPS.

Hi. One thing I would like to see in SteelBeast is the option to record all the battle and be able to reproduced from exterior cameras. I mean not the one we have right now, but full frame per seconds, just to enjoy and make videos without any impact analysis. So have both options of replay (analysis and full video). To save memory disc in recordings, we could have the option to save from a point in time and stop the record as it has Falcon BMS 4 Thanks!

It is laughing think about giraffes (animals) inclusion into SB, but I see that they (animals, any kind) are important in simulation because they produce thermals and they move so they can produce mistakes in what an enemy is. We have that in arma3 and the damn rabbits....

well.. in other simulators what I do is extend the FOV. Usually 120º is good enough in a plane, but in a tank you have everything near you, so the 140º limit we have maybe is not good enough for those of us that have those rare configurations. Maybe if you just allow a option to extend the FOV until the limit you want it would solve the problem. So I could put 160º FOV in the 3D non-target visor views. That would give me less FPS, but that is my problem. I could find the solution best for me between performance and view.. and maybe you wouldn't need to do anything more. Another thing you could do in future (suppose it is not in your scope) is VR. That would solve the Fov "problem" as all in VR use more or less same configurations, and would be inmersive. Of course it is not important to simulate an exercice to be in real 3D, but we are the "fun" part of your business, and some of us never will and never want to be inside a real tank, but feel as we where INSIDE one in VR. Another thing would be to allow the MAP and display interaction of Leopards to be manipulated in the trackir view (the cockpit one). I just wanted to leave these view options now you are making the 4.1X and maybe one of these is not too risky to be included if not in 4.1X in 4.2X Thanks.

I don't apply any zoom factor to the view. I am in window mode with 1 monitor resolution and I got this: https://gyazo.com/8d6a39181741140d8611b298374a3ea6 With 3 screen resolution I have thise in the central monitor: https://gyazo.com/d5b825272744ecb4182a0ae9777ba280 it is more zoom in (less fov)

the problem with high resolutions is that it also affect the FOV. I have 3 monitors and in 5040x1050 resolution I have to put it at 3000x1050 more or less in windowmode, to have good FOV because more resolution, less angle of FOV.

Well.. the only thing I desire then is that extra price is low enough, because if it is a extra 40$ then I would preffer esim would call it 5.0 as we could have more extra updates for free (??) And I hope (and I don't think they are going to do it) that infantery can be managed with WASD and mouse pointing method with shift to run as an FPS game (game!!!! nooooo!!! I start hearing...), instead as a vehicle as it is right now. Of course this is an armor simulator, but there is also infantry around to manage, and is a pain to use it without the map paths. Also I hope one day eSim games would allow buy previous version of SteelBeasts (3.x now) by 80$ for always to let me have more people around to play with. Right now I only can play with US people and Australians, beeing out of bed up to 6 am. The people that are around me are not so much to coincide (2 or 3 people that I know. And I am introduced very well in different simulators communities). Usually people that are interested just buy a month fee and because there is no community around they don't come back to play, so they loose their month even without playing with anyone online. 80$ is still high for lot of people, but at least they will have the sim forever and can extend their online matches to start producing a community background. I personally would put it for 60$ to make it more popular (the old version) Thanks.

When I released the CRJ200 for xplane11 I didn't ask anybody to pay me again, and I made changes to make it better. I never ask for money when there is not a big change-upgrade in my products, and the CRJ200 came from xplane9 with lots of minor changes for some years. My rest of the planes are the same. I understand that someone ask you money from version to version, but not when same version. I paid 80$ per the 3.XX version when it was in sale Then paid 40$ for the 4.0 to upgrade. Now I will need to pay XX $ to have a 4.1X version... and maybe soon another time to change from 4.XX to 5.0. Sorry but I don't see it fair. Specially when the main feature that have the 4.1X version was promised to be included in a free update when the 4.0 was released. Of course everyone can have their opinion thinking that is good that they are still developing. I know that lots of people want to buy the sim but they don't do it because it is very expensive (more is DCS, but they pay each module independently and when they want). Maybe I will think wait for the 5.0 version to just pay the 40$ only (if it is the same price) and don't pay twice for it). At the end I am almost not playing with anyone, because there is no people that has this sim because the price it has. So it becomes a niche.

I don't like this at all. Of course I understand that this is a business and people don't work for free, but that patch was promised as to be included in 4.x without any more money added. or here also at the beggining of the videos with new terrain bumpy model in 2016. Also we had to be terrible patience as we had to wait for some years to have it, as it was told to us that the devs couldn't work in it because they had professional contractors first to take care. I understand that there are some additions to it, and that is fine, but in my case never asked for them. With the terrain model would be enough for me (of course any improve in frame rate shouldn't never be charged). Also is totally unfair if at the end one person that comes from 2.0 or 3.0 only pays 40$ to upgrade the version to 4.1. I had to pay 40$ + XX$ for the same 4.1 version (not a 5.0). Until when we are going to have free updates of this "new" product? as maybe soon we could have the 5.0 and be charged again? (this is a 4.1x version. Not new 5.0) Again, I repeat that I understand that devs don't work for free and was a big ammount of work done, but it was promised for free as features of 4.X, and pay for those "free" features plus a rework of plants and framerate, don't make me happy at all. As I said, I would pay 40$ happily if it would be a dramatic change from the very old dx9.0 to dx11-12 or Vulkan, but I don't desire new tanks added, and of course I think we never should be charged for frame improvements (really 4.023 goes really bad in some situations with good computers.. and that is not our fault). I had to say it. Thanks.

One question... I just "arrived" again after leaving the forums for the promised 4.X new terrain model because the patch was taking long. Seems that we are near about to be released, but in one of the posts I heared about someone asking about the price of the update 4.1. Do we have to pay again if we own the 4.023 already? I hope not as it was promised in 4.0. But I have to say that I would pay if it would be a 5.0 version again with new features and better engine than dx9.0. Thanks!

Well... I come from flight sims where we have deep simulation of f18, F16 and other aircrafts. Of course secret systems won't be simulated, but the rest yes and we always have the developers to provide information, and the community. But anyway...

Yes.. I see a shame not simulate this systems.

Ok i will take a look when i can. Thanks

Hello. These are little bugs that if the esimGames team will take some time in future, would be nice to be solved. 1. Computer balistic on/off switch don't work correctly on the Commander position, it just resets and start again. It is correct in the Gunner. 2. Deactivation of tower big mushroom button makes correct noise and deactivation in the gunner position. Not in the commander one. Just reset as point 1. 3. The gun pannel only selects single and 3 shoots in commander position. In gunner single-3-5 and 10. Don't know if this is a feature or a bug. Thanks.

Ok.. will wait that Ulan master reply. thanks.

I see....

Well.. I tried and I don't see any change.. but for sure the ones that should know if affects or not are the people that made the simulator. Not me. I would appreciate more information about systems that the different vehicles has. Even if they are placeholders. Usually all are good in the SBWiki, but in some cases like this, there is no way to know where to look for, because even in the forums there is nothing about this talked... or at least I couldn't find it. SteelBeasts is a Simulator, and not a game, and I love to get deep in systems and understand them. And usually in all kind of simulators I play I usually don't use them. I just love to understand how things work, and then explain to others in my videos how they work.