Jump to content
Rotareneg

SB Pro PE 4.0 - Discussion thread

Recommended Posts

Will rain or snow affect visibilty of AI-vehicles ?

(actually, does darkness do so now ?)

 

Just wondering.

Tons of nice stuff !

 

thx K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I have been a long time away....coming back to see those wonderful news! Great, cant wait.

 

McDan out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gibsonm said:

I don't think they have modelled MLC for AVLB.

 

Either that or the Biber is well engineered. ;)

 

I think we made the decision that as long as we only have one "western" and one "warpac" type of assault bridge we would not model limits to the carrying capacity. Also the question is, are we really after this level of detail (at which point do we lose the non-specialist in each field), or are we after the tactical effect, the ability to perform rapid river crossings. IMO the latter is vastly more important, and the former can become a real problem the more different branches and equipment one introduces to a simulation. If the simulation is super accurate but at the same time rather opaque to the users as to why certain things work (or don't) it's arguably failing as a tool of instruction.

 

IMO we already are close to that limit. I mean no offense, but watching most YouTube videos of people playing Steel Beasts make the instructor in me cringe, and rage at the same time. Heaps and heaps of gunnery mistakes that clearly reveal limited competence with the fire control system, tactical errors like staying too long in an exposed position, NOT switching from narrow to narrow field of view between engagements, a tendency for overreliance on thermal imagers in general, the lack of understanding of route and waypoint behaviors - and that's just the "general stuff". There's also the question about which munition to use at what range and against which target, whether a frontal engagement even has a chance of success rather than just wasting another of the precious few rounds, ... all this suggests not so much that you all suck at playing Steel Beasts, but rather that the overall complexity of the simulation is beginning to exceed comprehension levels for anyone but absolute specialists in the field.

And yet, customers are still asking for more details. ;)

 

Also, make no mistake: Outside of a relatively narrow field of fire control systems I would quickly reveal my incompetence as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not to hijack this topic (or seem ungrateful on the cusp of a new update), but since it soaked into this topic, but if eSim is willing to confirm, I hope there will be some attention given to the water if that should relate to the new terrain, currently the map tools which dig out water always create a ravine like feature filled partially with water. one cannot really simulate lakes or ocean shorelines; for the same reason rivers are impossible to negotiate with amphibious vehicles because the banks are too steep to climb out of again. the exception to this is the tool which creates the very small, shallow streams, which doesn't matter then. you're so close- you put the work into making the amphibious vehicles ready to go and animate nicely, it's just the terrain engine creates standard features with the water tool which nullifies the amphibious capability if actually attempted.

 

maybe it has been a low priority from the point of view of professional customers not requesting changes here as most of the amphibious vehicles represented are of 'red' origin, but it limits the capability of an opponent which doesn't have the option to use those abilities. simply a legitimate variable in all scenarios (and way, way too much potential fun) that has been ignored.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Captain_Colossus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Initially, there will be no change.

That's not to say that we don't want to change something. But we need to do two things here - finish the new map editor (not before the end of 2016) - and to change the way how we're doing the Z buffering. Unfortunately, while solutions for that exist, they cannot be directly applied to our render engine, so that's a tough nut to crack. Once that we did that however there is no reason why we shouldn't have shallow water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, daskal said:

Was that a TR 85 M1?

 

 

1.jpg

No I reckon its a AM2

It looks great also doesn't the AM2 have the ability to fire the AT-10.

If so is this modelled in game.

Edited by Marko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, dejawolf said:

 

yeah, more armour could be added to the front of the turret, but then the design of the turret would have to change.  you'd have to balance out the extra front armour by adding counterweight to the back turret.  IMO what could be done by taking the components in the side sponsons, and move them into a turret bustle. this would minimize front turret profile, and allow you to put a pretty hefty slab of armour in front of the gun. 

the only problem with this would be that it would interfere with the rear ejection of stub casings.

 

Aye, this is still a very promising design, it only needs to be refined. Actually when you look at crew compartment photos, some electronics could probably be placed there as well. Not to mention that modern electronics tend to be more compact and lighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I think sums up, my feelings towards this update:

"Groovy"

 

The potential for this new engine is really f**king brilliant.

The new explosions look far better than the old "Sprite" ones.

And the Thermal explosions .....Um...Fnerg...?

Pretty much describes the noise I made.

 

Also Thank you to Mr Dark for the Chieftain.

:D

 

Now we can do some real Cold War tanking.

 

None of this "pseudo-challenger" bollocks.

Not that I have anything against the Challenger.

Just too "modern" for my tastes.

 

:)

Edited by Hedgehog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hedgehog said:

Also Thank you to Mr Dark for the Chieftain.

:D

 

Now we can do some real Cold War tanking.

 

Well I haven't seen any Striker or FV423 yet. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Well I haven't seen any Striker or FV423 yet. ;)

 

*Ahem*

FV432

*Ahem*

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Hedgehog said:

One thing I think sums up, my feelings towards this update:

"Groovy"

 

The potential for this new engine is really f**king brilliant.

The new explosions look far better than the old "Sprite" ones.

And the Thermal explosions .....Um...Fnerg...?

Pretty much describes the noise I made.

 

Also Thank you to Mr Dark for the Chieftain.

:D

 

Now we can do some real Cold War tanking.

 

None of this "pseudo-challenger" bollocks.

Not that I have anything against the Challenger.

Just too "modern" for my tastes.

 

:)

Lets not forget the venerable ferret scout car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we are at it, give the troops a FAL and a Carl Gustav too! ;)

 

ok, just change the name to British Army simulator ColdWar Edition :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As awesome as that would be, I'd be surprised if it could. But if they develop that then it could pave the way for human controlled indirect fire (crew-served mortars and artillery guns for example).

but that would turn armour simulation into some sort of combined arms sim, and I'm not sure that's the intent.

of course I'm sure if I'm wrong the devs will correct me. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ghostdog688 said:

As awesome as that would be, I'd be surprised if it could. But if they develop that then it could pave the way for human controlled indirect fire (crew-served mortars and artillery guns for example).

but that would turn armour simulation into some sort of combined arms sim, and I'm not sure that's the intent.

of course I'm sure if I'm wrong the devs will correct me. :)

 

You can fire the Dismounted Mortar.

Just not accurately.

(No sight modeled)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the Merkava's mortar is simulated. Carl Gustaf? Check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much fun as firing the mortar randomly myself, it would be much more effective being able to make corrections and use the sights and stakesand other FDC methods to put down accurate, single shots (switch between FO and mortar crew and adjust fire until you get a direct hit on a bunker for example). 

Its also better realism as you can be sure that you will be unlikely to get accurate first time hits if you don't have a proper ballistics computer (good for pre-digital scenarios).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ghostdog688 said:

As much fun as firing the mortar randomly myself, it would be much more effective being able to make corrections and use the sights and stakesand other FDC methods to put down accurate, single shots (switch between FO and mortar crew and adjust fire until you get a direct hit on a bunker for example). 

Its also better realism as you can be sure that you will be unlikely to get accurate first time hits if you don't have a proper ballistics computer (good for pre-digital scenarios).

Even if we had an abstract fire system - tick marks or just a digital range indicator, it would be an improvement.

 

I'm open to abstract systems as long as we have functionality for the systems in game.

 

The AH64 is a perfect example: I wish we had an abstract fire control system that allowed players to man the vehicle. Even the RWS placeholder sights would work.

 

I don't understand why SB isn't moving toward being a combined arms simulator. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK, the merkava mortar could be used to create a smoke screen, since the merkava 1 and early merkava 2 lacks regular smoke grenades.

Edited by dejawolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...