Parachuteprone Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 6 minutes ago, JohnO said: Well dam, guess I will have to look harder when videos play instead of watching in awe Me too ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 17 minutes ago, JohnO said: Well dam, guess I will have to look harder when videos play instead of watching in awe You'd never pass a recce course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enigma6584 Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 I have a feeling there is going to be a significant influx of new players when this new version gets released. Going to be some pretty big multiplayer battles me thinks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Colossus Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, Deputy276 said: Well thanks to those who posted examples of the terrain. I must say I am a bit disappointed. It looks like 2D graphics left over from SVGA video cards. For sure the graphics cards for version 4.0 won't ever be stressed. Is the game engine not capable of anything better than this or is immersion factor for the outside world beyond the armored vehicle not that important? I see tires and tracks that are sunk into concrete. Trees with 2D flat leaves. Polygon angles on curved areas of the road. No real detail on the maps to make you feel like you are on planet Earth. All the foliage is static. Yes, there are tons of bells and whistles inside the tank to twiddle with inside the vehicle. But when you look outside a view port or use 3rd person view, the realism evaporates. I know the emphasis in this program is as a military trainer, but video cards today are capable of so much MORE than what we see in these examples. Are the countries using SB using toasters for computers or what? Okay, here a video of what most folks are used to on their comps for a modern military program. Just concentrate on the scenery and graphics and never mind the lack of realism in the game play or minutia of the vehicles. That does look good, but the environments are also pre-rendered. Steel Beasts will probably always look behind, but at the gain that users can design their own maps, so the engine is a compromise between aesthetics and the flexibility of custom made scenes. The terrain still holds up in Steel Beasts given that compromise. The alternative is that Steel Beasts came with professional development CAD like tools that the users would have access to, just watch videos of game designers using professional software to design scenes and you see the difference. So, you can't really expect something like that. The engine always has more potential, so that's good. The Steel Beasts crowd has largely been patient, so long as that as happened, there has been more to look forward to. I agree that Little touches could still add without major engine changes. I think some graphic changes aren't only useful for cosmetic reasons, for instance, the taller smoke plumes are good for orientation purposes, not just because it looks cool, that's an example where it works both ways. In the past in Steel Beasts, destroyed vehicles created little smoke and didn't give much in the way of visual cues that could orient the users in the direction of things like it looks like they can now. In a similar respect, I think a future update might have vegetation moving in the wind, or moving when vehicles fire or move past them, again, not just because it looks cool because it looks more realistic, but for the purposes you can detect movement of other units that way. As far as cosmetics go, I think that if Steel Beasts gave the users the option to render shadows out further that would improve the depth of the scenes much more, and it wouldn't necessarily have to be a fundamental engine change- I'm no programmer, though, maybe it would. I'll add one more suggestion to that- it may seem trivial, but if the clouds cast shadows, that would also further improve the visual depth of scenes. It makes more of a difference when large expanse of scene is being looked at, like an open plain, or if you see clouds cast on mountain slopes and hillsides and things like that, parts of landscape look darker than others based on the position of the clouds, and that also aids our perception in our natural world, it gives information based on the position of the sun forth. That seems to me that the rest of the terrain engine could still remain the same but still look more realistic with additions like that. That's if I had a magic wand, programming resources are allocated as eSim sees best to run its business, maybe that would be something saved for something off in the future if and when time and money are possible. Edited May 22, 2016 by Captain_Colossus 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daskal Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 WoT... War Thunder... Herecy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer_Leader Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 5 hours ago, Parachuteprone said: Any chance of seeing a video of rain/snow from commanders position ? In say a Leopard 2A6? Agree; a sneak peek of the 2A6, including crew positions if different from A5, would be nice. I still think weather effects, and their influence on visibility and TI, will be one of the biggest and best changes in 4.0. All my scenarios have realistic weather modelled in - the feature existed in the Mission Editor from 3.x - so I'm looking forward to the added ambience when I fire them up in 4.0. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpow66m Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 How about a video of the VEC,more infantry. Of all the T72s in 4.0 what one is the USSR varient,not a export.? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tread_Head57 Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 6 minutes ago, mpow66m said: Of all the T72s in 4.0 what one is the USSR varient,not a export.? To my knowledge the T72B1 was never exported. All other playable T-72 variants were exported. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpow66m Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 OK thx,B1 was from 80s? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrapper_511 Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 4 hours ago, dejawolf said: ...that the polycount starts rising. all the little detail sticking out from the hull like the louvres on the back of the M60, and maintenance access handles and such will look "flat" even when normal mapped, since they won't stick out. and trust me when i say i keep them as low as possible without them starting to look ugly. M60 engine exhaust looks awesome with the 3D louvers! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vikingo Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 58 minutes ago, Tread_Head57 said: To my knowledge the T72B1 was never exported. All other playable T-72 variants were exported. Great, so... I will go with a pure blood T72B1 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpow66m Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 What would be a good stand in for a 1978 sce is what im trying to figure out.or should i go with T62B? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrapper_511 Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 Mpow, the vehicle timeline in the SB Wiki might be helpful. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, mpow66m said: What would be a good stand in for a 1978 sce is what im trying to figure out.or should i go with T62B? Probably depends if you want playable or not but T-64B could be a choice is Red is a high quality formation. Edited May 23, 2016 by Gibsonm Typo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpow66m Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 49 minutes ago, Scrapper_511 said: Mpow, the vehicle timeline in the SB Wiki might be helpful. forgot about that thnx. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpow66m Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Gibsonm said: Prbably depends if you want playable or not but T-64B could be a choice is Red is a high quality formation. I guess ill go with the T72A/M1 I guess thats as close as I can get for the time frame of the glorious Motherland. Edited May 23, 2016 by mpow66m reading is fundemental 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobrabase Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 17 hours ago, guccimanetraplord said: are there any plans to improve the infantry small arms? e.g adding a Minimi/FN mag/pkm/rpk etc so its a bit more immersive (kinda strange seeing us infantry with an mg3.) Are you serious.... snipers were added but not an m-60 mg? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocalypse 31 Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 4 minutes ago, cobrabase said: Are you serious.... snipers were added but not an m-60 mg? Playable M-60 LMG was shown in a video posted today 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tread_Head57 Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 So.....can we get more combat action videos of new 4.0 vehicles? Drooled over the others and just got a new 4K HD TV with WIFI and love watching these videos on it. If requests are being taken, I'd love to see more BMP-2 combat action porn. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vikingo Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 (edited) Amen to that! Also hope to see more T72B1 with ERA (explosive reactive armour) in detail, if possible I'm not talking about exploding T72s, just losing parts of the ERA They need some revenge after the M60 video... but well those were low quality "for export" T72s Edited May 23, 2016 by Vikingo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Vikingo said: Also hope to see more T72B1 with ERA (explosive reactive armour) in detail, if possible I'm not talking about exploding T72s, just losing parts of the ERA Is that possible, since they are basically explosions (K-Kills) waiting to happen? Edited May 23, 2016 by Gibsonm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vikingo Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Gibsonm said: Is that possible, since they are basically explosions (K-Kills) waiting to happen? >>>>>> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoupGarou Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 2 questions please: 1) Will the NZLAV be added an interior in this update? 2) Will any of the new remote weapon stations include an autocannon? Actually I have 3, 3 questions.... 3) will any of the pc's/ifv's have the possibility to mount an atgm launcher? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 Well Marder can mount MILAN and BMP-1 and BMP-2 can mount various ATGM. BMP-2 at least is also playable as an ATGM launcher. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenny Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 The Milan launcher will not be modeled in the 4.0 Marder 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.